91 
it into space at the rate of thousands of miles a second, and which has 
caused those particles to impinge on the eye. It is the motion, not dead 
weight, but the vis of appnlsion, Mr. Spencer does not call force a physical 
thing. To imply that he has the slightest sympathy with any such notion, 
is to do him serious wrong. His argument does not run in that direction. 
There is another point. “ Matter can never touch mind.” Are we quite 
sure of this ? Will not a diseased brain touch our mental conceptions ? Are 
the effects of pain limited to the bodily frame ? But even if we were to 
grant that matter can never touch mind, we must admit that mind can 
touch matter. You will perceive this by moving your arm ; and that is all 
that Mr. Herbert Spencer’s argument requires. Mr. Spencer never urges 
that spirit may rise out of matter. The question with him is, can matter 
rise out of spirit ? Is there a factual dualism, or is matter nothing else than 
a simple exterioration of mind — a subjective shadow — projection of our inner 
self-hood ? There is a great deal more I should like to say ; in fact, I should 
like to give an hour to each of these phases, and half an hour to compliment 
my friend, Mr. Ground, on the paper he has read. From the bottom of my 
heart I congratulate him on the tone of his criticism, for, notwithstanding 
it is a rather harsh criticism, there is no bad feeling , from beginning 
to end ; and I must also congratulate him on his keen appreciation of the 
noted author he has undertaken to grapple with. I repeat that I con- 
gratulate Mr. Ground from the bottom of my heart ; but, in conclusion, 
I must submit that I think the bridge he has built for us from subject 
to object, from non- life to life, is very beautiful, but I should be sorry to 
trust my life to it. 
Mr. W. Ogle, M.D. — It has long been my earnest desire that an 
Institute established for the examination of those propositions of 
science which touch especially on religion, should give Mr. Spencer’s views 
full consideration. It is quite possible that his doctrines, though taken up 
before, have never been treated with so much effect, and I think that we 
are very much indebted to Mr. Ground for the way in which he has dealt 
with them. We are also indebted to him for having given us so much 
of Mr. Herbert Spencer in so small a compass. Also, though I am somewhat 
startled by the expressions of admiration regarding one towards whom 
we are in the position of opponents, I think it is a very great advantage 
that the person we oppose should be put before us in the best possible 
way. I feel that this is certainly an admirable point in the paper. 
But I reaUy have risen to-night very much because I am so seldom 
here, and I wished to say how great an interest I take in this Institute. 
I hope that the papers that are to come from Mr. Ground will, in God’s 
providence, deal with some of those other teachings of Mr. Spencer which 
ought to be taken up by the Victoria Institute. I allude especially to 
his system of Sociology, in which, if I have been rightly informed, he endea- 
vours to claim that Sociology shall be regarded as a true science — a conclu- 
sion which I believe to be perfectly sound. But I am no less certain that 
there is some fundamental error in his mode of establishing this proposition ; 
