86 
nexion with the sceptical philosophy of the present day. Hume be^an 
with an hypothesis and ended in doubting everything ; IMr. Herbert 
Spencer begins by doubting everything, and concludes by believing a great 
deal. This is certainly a great step in advance, and upon that we may con- 
gratulate ourselves. But while admitting that Mr. Herbert Spencer has 
achieved so much as to convince himself that there is something beyond 
matter in the realm of thought, I do not think that we ought to say that his 
effort is the last and probably the greatest attempt to present the true 
philosophy of the cosmos. If we see anything of philosophy in what he 
writes, philosophy wiU tell us that he is treading in the steps of those who 
have gone before him — men like Descartes, who held that matter consisted 
of certain minute particles — atomic particles — estimable in quantity, but 
destitute of ’all qualities impressed by a Creator ; yet even Descartes was 
not original in this theory. Democritus, himself, admitted as much, and 
believed in what is sometimes called the atomic theory, which dates from the 
time of Empedocles and the Ionic philosophers, who sought an explanation 
of the phenomena of nature in the supposition that the forms and modifica- 
tions of matter are the cause of aU things. It was to Anaxagoras that the 
Greek world was indebted for the suggestion of a higher cause called vovq^ 
mind or thought. Mr. Spencer is beginning to think that there is such a 
thing as thought, but is not sure whether it is always dependent or can be 
independent of matter. I was somewhat surprised when the author stated 
that the systems of philosophy encountered by St. Paul were, as compared 
with that of Mr. Herbert Spencer, but as unproved assertions to the deductions 
of exact science, or as crumbling sand to solid granite. I do not understand 
how any one who has read the works of Aristotle could be disposed to adopt 
this conclusion. Aristotle lived in that period of Greek history when every 
theory of the universe had been, or was being, thoroughly investigated, 
when the atomic theory of Democritus was fully sounded, and when the 
vovQ of Anaxagoras and the Arjfuovpyog of Plato were well considered, and 
he came to conclude, with the other great thinkers of his day, that 
philosophy had arrived at the final solution that the intelligence which existed 
in connexion with matter involved a higher intelligence independent of 
matter, an intelligence which was the same as the Supreme Creator of the 
Universe, of whose will and expression matter was only the product. I have 
hitherto been dealing with the historical points of the subject ; but with 
regard to Mr. Herbert Spencer, I may say that he has advantages which the 
ancient philosophers did not possess. The science of the material has made 
great advances, and all the facts that have been collected during the 
centuries that have passed since Aristotle’s time, have been at his disposal. 
Whether he has made a good use of them is another question. It is to be 
remarked that the grand results which Aristotle achieved tended to prove 
that matter is the creature of mind, and that mind is the great expression of 
the Creator ; while the philosophers of the dark ages, studying the logic 
of Aristotle, have merely used his terms of reasoning in connexion with a 
^priori topics that led them into much metaphysics that have been useless and 
