174 
of mankind could be affected by chemical theory ; it is other- 
wise with “ scientists 33 who have learned to dress up their 
thoughts in chemical language ; to talk, for instance, of mind 
being connected with molecular changes * and of “ molecular 
force becoming structural,” in the brain, whilst at the same 
time disbelieving in the existence of molecules themselves, and 
sceptical as to the very existence of matter itself. “ It seems 
to be the natural desire of the chemist to see with his mind's 
eye the atoms and molecules which can no more be seen by the 
microscope than by the unaided eye. While endeavouring, 
then, to see the constitution of matter, we are told, on the one 
hand, that we may relieve ourselves from the idea of matter 
altogether, and be content with resolving all things into Force 
[ e.g ., Sir W. G. Armstrong, British Association Address, 1863] ; 
and, on the other hand, we are told that Force, in all its many 
manifestations, may be resolved into Matter and Motion.” f 
11. The popular mind would not have been influenced so 
easily by this pseudo-philosophy were it not for this ille- 
gitimate and misleading use of chemical language ; but even 
now there may be an advantage in insisting that two schools 
of thought should not use the same words in different meanings. 
12. I plead for the common-sense views of Matter, and de- 
siderate the retention of the meaning of the word as given us 
in the standard old-fashioned English of Johnson's Dictionary : 
“Body, substance extended.'' 
13. This he illustrates by the following quotations : — 
From Watts's Logic: — “ Some have dimensions of length, 
breadth, and depth, and have also a power of resistance ; or, 
exclude everything of the same kind from being in the same 
place. This is the proper character of matter or body.'' 
Further, from Newton: — “It seems probable to me that 
God in the beginning formed Matter in solid, massy, hard, im- 
penetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with 
such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most- 
conduced to the end for which he formed them ; and that 
those primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder 
than any porous bodies compounded of them ; even so very 
hard as never to wear or break in pieces, no ordinary power 
being able to divide what God himself made one in the first 
creation.'' 
14. The first of these extracts is the language of common 
* See Examination of Tyndall’s Belfast Address , Trans., vol. x. p. 115. 
t Presidential Address, delivered before the Newcastle Chemical Society 
by B. S. Proctor. 
