280 
proceed “from our knowledge of spirit to the explanation of matter and 
physical force” (p. 3rd from end). I am afraid there is something like a 
petitio principii here ; for surely it cannot be said that we do “ know our- 
selves in the full sense that would be requisite to support such deduction. 
If we had Divine knowledge, such as must appertain to the Supreme, no 
doubt this knowledge would be absolute, enabling us to comprehend both 
spirit and matter. But surely it is far different. We have not the slightest 
conception of the mode in which our determinations or will in our inmost 
spiritual being affect the material organization of our bodies ; nor do we 
know in what manner the perturbations which arise from the bodily 
structure affect the well-being of our very selves, i.e. our most intimate 
spiritual “ Ego ” ; for a knowledge, e.g. of the properties of matter, 
albeit superficial, and by no means merely derived from inner conscious- 
ness, will often enable the physician to restore serenity even to the mind. 
I therefore fail to perceive that we have any power to proceed from our 
piesent knowledge of spirit (which knowledge is only most imperfect, 
and not absolute) to the knowledge of matter and physical force, which 
we only accept as fact. We do not always proceed in the author’s sense ab 
cognito ad incognitum. At the last page but one I cannot follow the Professor’s 
aigument, nor understand how “matter manifests itself to man bv a power 
of resistance, which shows it to be not absolutely inert.” I never myself 
had any experience of such a power of active resistance in matter. The 
ink (to take an instance suggested) flows from my pen without any but 
accidental resistance. Indeed, it appears to me to be just such “ an inert 
substantive entity ’ as seems to our author (same page) to involve in the con- 
ception of it a logical contradiction. — (I only wish the printers could put 
types together with as simple a submission to one’s will!) I cannot 
understand how a professor of such large acquirements could indite 
such a sentence as the following : — “ Atoms, whatever else they may 
be, have (as I believe) an ideal or spiritual aspect , which is their funda- 
mental and controlling one, and all force is reducible to will-power. This 
involves the imputation to atoms of a germ of consciousness” (same page). 
Such a statement is utterly subversive of all chemical knowledge — know- 
ledge which, up to a certain point, as I have observed, is unquestionable. 
We know certainly how atoms will act, what powers of attraction and 
repulsion they will exert under certain circumstances, and that with 
unerring certainty, and without the shadow of possibility of any choice 
on their part. There never is, nor can be, anything abnormal in the play of 
chemical affinities ; but as soon as we get to life we have immediately 
and everywhere abnormal developments, explain them as we may. 
Moreover, wherever there is a being ivho can will, there is also possibility 
of error, and the choice of that which is not for the best. This is essential 
to free agency; and if it is not free, there is no willing at all, but fate. 
To will (whether it be attributed to “atoms” or men, or even higher 
