:

substance using the word substance in its metaphysical sense-I cannot agree with Professor Kirk in his assertion that mind alone is the cause of motion. I believe that intermediate, as it were, between mind and matter, there are forces which are not intelligent agents. Though in this I do agree with him that all motions or changes induced in the material world by the action of laws regulating the motion and combinations of particles of matter, are ultimately resolvable into the will of that mind—(hear, hear)— namely, that Spiritual Being whom we acknowledge not only as the Great First Cause, but also the Supporter and Sustainer of all things. Just to take an illustration is light a force, or is it material substance? If it be a force distinct from matter, then is light an intelligent existence- is it mind? Now let us view light under the only two hypotheses we have as to its nature. Mr. Warington spoke of light passing through a vacuum. If so, what passes through a vacuum-that is, through space void of matter? Is it matter or force? Upon the emission theory of Newton, light is produced by the emission of matter called luminous matter-matter imponderable, and therefore not subject to the laws of gravitation. This matter can be projected through a vacuum, but not by itself. Of itself it is inert; it cannot move itself; or, if once in motion, it cannot change its motion. That which moves it is force, something essentially distinct from the luminous matter itself. Now take the undulatory theory. Here we can have no propagation of light through a vacuum. Light can only be propagated through a plenum filled with what is called a luminiferous ether. Light has been called a shiver or vibration passing through this luminiferous ether. But is not this ether, if such exist, matter? Can it shiver of itself? Something must cause it to vibrate which is not matter, and which is force. Is this something necessarily mind? Now we cannot take this single instance into consideration without seeing how soon we are led up from matter to something higher than matter : to something capable of acting on or controlling matter, which is not matter, and which we call force. Who can tell how many different kinds of force are to be found in nature? Matter also may have force inseparably bound up as it were with its existence. We can conceive every particle of gold or silver having many such forces inseparably united with it. The forces of gravitation, molecular and chemical forces; forces which make particles of gold and silver combine with one another, or different particles of other material substances according to many laws, of the majority of which we are most likely still ignorant. These forces we may conceive indissolubly united by the Creator with the particles of gold or iron at their creation. Such forces, however, I cannot conceive to be intelligent existences. Nor are they the only forces existent in nature. There are higher forces capable of controlling these forces. I know no force existing, in gold for instance, capable of transferring every particle with which it comes in contact into gold. But if I take the tiniest living seed that ever grew, I find in it certain evidence for the existence of a force far different from the forces inherent or inseparably connected with dead matter. Whatever evidence I have for the existence of chemical or molecular forces in a particle of gold, an acorn

affords just as good evidence for a far higher class of force than these. A potential force, capable under certain circumstances of converting any given amount of certain kinds of matter into a forest of oaks of any given magnitude, and reproducing other acorns ad infinitum. This living force I may well conceive from its higher power of controlling the forces of dead, inert matter, as a force of a more powerful nature than these. But this living force, controlling the growth and structure of animate nature, leads us up to a higher force still-the force of intelligent and voluntary agents. Then, again, the mere instinctive intelligence of lower animate nature leads us up to the power and exertion of the will of intelligent agents like ourselves. But are we to stop here, on the confines, as it were, of the exposition of the existence of intelligent mind, which we know experimentally to be so powerful? Man, by the force of his intelligent will, can cause charcoal, saltpetre, and sulphur to combine with each other, and give him a compound with which he can rend asunder the strongest rock. He may tame the lightning, and make it whisper his message from the Old to the New World. Is this no miracle? Is this no invasion of the law of the conservation of material energy? Without the force of man's will actuating the material agents he controls, could these changes of material nature take place? Are there not human miracles the products of human minds? Could a microscope or a telescope be developed by any of the laws of inorganic nature from glass and brass, without the controlling interference of human thoughts, invention and skill? Force is the link, indeed, which binds the world of matter to the world of mind or thought. Each step we take from the forces of inorganic nature to those of animate structure, and from these upwards to the power of force produced by the intelligence of beings armed with the power of exerting free will, leads us up to forces of greater power and intensity. If this be so, are we to stop here? I maintain that such thoughts as these lead us upwards to the Great Power and Mind which is the Creator and Sustainer of all things; that if puny man has by the power and force of his mind an intelligence that can reach the furthest limits of the visible universe, an intelligence that can produce so much, an intelligence that can control so greatly the powers and forces of animate and inanimate nature; I can believe, without any sacrifice of philosophical thought or accuracy, that Almighty God, in answer to our feeble prayers, may indeed control the winds and the waves, and give rain and sunshine, fruitful seasons, and abundant harvests, filling our hearts with joy and gladness. Nay, more, He can work greater miracles than these. He can give us those supernatural graces by which alone our spiritual being can be fitted for an entrance into everlasting blessedness. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. REDDIE.-As the issues under discussion are chiefly metaphysical, I should be very glad if a gentleman I see present, the Rev. Mr. Greig, would favour us with some observations on a matter he is so well qualified to discuss.

Rev. DAVID GREIG.-My Lord, Mr. Reddie seems anxious that I should say a few words on the paper. This I shall gladly do; but I fear it will be

to little purpose. Although my friends sometimes give me credit for metaphysics, I cannot speak offhand upon that subject, and if I attempted it I fear I should not be intelligible. There is one thing, however, I would wish to say, and that is, that I am very much struck by the value of the paper which has been read to us. (Hear, hear.) I think it exactly meets the great difficulties with which religious matters have been surrounded at the present day. These difficulties I have never regarded as scientific, properly so called: they are metaphysical or philosophical ones. And this paper appears to me to state that philosophical view which is in accordance with Divine revelation, as opposed to that philosophical view adopted by a certain class of scientific men which is opposed to revelation. Mr. Warington has criticized the paper upon a good many points, and it is my misfortune to feel that those points which Mr. Warington has called in question are the very points which I admire most. (Hear, hear.) I am sorry for that. If we take, for instance, the discussion with reference to Mr. Mill's doctrine, which centres in the word "know," the whole point of the question, as between the two philosophies, is summed up in this, whether knowledge expresses an active power or a passive impression on the mind. If knowledge is simply an impression derived from the senses, I cannot see how you can avoid the conclusion of Mr. Mill, that conclusion which was first drawn by Bishop Berkeley, with regard to the non-existence of the material world, and afterwards by Hume, with regard to the non-existence of the spiritual world. Mr. Warington appears to assume that all our knowledge is from the senses. If so, by what sense do we know material substance, or our own personal existence? We cannot see the soul, nor hear it, nor feel it

Mr. WARINGTON.-I spoke of external matter.

Rev. DAVID GREIG.-Take matter. You cannot feel the substance of

matter, you cannot see it. All that you have by the eye is simply an impression of colour, by the hand is simply an impression of resistance, and so on. Now, if all our knowledge is from the senses, how, in these circumstances, are you ever to get beyond impressions? It is impossible. An impression is just an impression: you cannot make anything else out of it. Thus, under this supposition, there is nothing in the world but impressions. You remove God and man and matter, leaving only a series of impressions. I do not see how you can avoid that conclusion. But we take our stand upon that which Professor Kirk has brought out. When we say we know a thing, we assume that there is something active in that knowledge. We assume that there is something in the mind which has the power of knowing. The process is this: We receive an impression from sense. The mind is at first buried, so to speak, in the impression, but immediately separates itself from it, sets the impression before it as an object, sits in judgment on it, and draws conclusions. In this way the mind arrives at the conclusion of the existence of a soul in man, and of the existence of an outer nature. (Hear, hear.) There is just one other point I would make an observation upon, the distinction between the laws of nature and the usages of nature. It is a point extremely difficult to make intelligible; but there is a distinction in it,

and it is important. What I would regard as the laws of nature are simply those great forces, such as gravitation, heat, and the laws that govern chemical and organic nature. Now, these I would say are the laws of nature, and the individual events and things in the world are produced by combinations of these laws or forces, and these combinations, I understand, Professor Kirk would distinguish as "usages." That, I think, is an important distinction, because it will be found, as Professor Kirk has said, that there is no law of nature violated by the miracles of Scripture only the usages of nature are affected by them

Rev. W. MITCHELL.-And so they are affected by free will existing in beings possessing perfect will, and continually interfering with the ordinary course of those laws.

Rev. DAVID GREIG.-Now, the way in which I would conceive of Almighty God in His relation with nature would be as of a Supreme Personal Being, absolutely free, who can combine according to His will and pleasure the laws of nature. He does not violate His own laws, but combines them for the attainment of His great purposes in the kingdoms of nature and of grace. Just as man, who is a free agent within his limited sphere, can combine laws of nature to attain his ends; so God, who is absolute and over all, combines His laws for His supreme providential purposes. Further, man is a personal being, and the only relation in which he can stand to God is a personal relation, just as we are in personal relations with each other. Now it will be found, that if you once grant that there is a personal being in man, and that he stands in a personal relation with God, you have granted the principle of miracles. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, if you deny a personal being to man or to God, and adopt as your theory invariable sequence of events, it will be found that not only miracles but everything else which a man believes in is absurd. (Hear, hear.) I only wish to say further how much I admire the paper which has been read. It is a paper which deserves our best consideration.

The PRESIDENT.-Ladies and gentlemen, I have to announce that from this night we adjourn until our next session; and that interval, it is hoped, will be well employed by you and other members in endeavouring to extend the influence of our Association, and to secure new members. You see what a vigorous infant the Victoria Institute is. It is, indeed, an infant Hercules, and it has become so because it rests upon a true basis. I hope the influence of this Association will continue to extend. It seems to combine true vital Christianity with the largest adoption of true liberal science; and I think we shall be enabled to show, by the agency of our members, such as my talented friend, Mr. Walter Mitchell, of whom I cannot speak with sufficient respect, that science and religion go hand in hand, the truth of both coming from the same God, and leading to the same grand destination for the human race. (Applause.)

REPLY BY PROFESSOR KIRK.

In briefly replying to the remarks offered on my paper, I must, first of all, acknowledge the extreme kindness of the Honorary Secretary in doing greater justice to the essay than I could have done myself, and also the great kindness of the noble President and others in speaking of it as they have done. But I must specially thank Mr. Warington for giving occasion to a discussion every way gratifying to me, and for indirectly adding so much to the force of the argument which I have endeavoured to advance.

As to my long introduction, I must plead that it is only in metaphysical discussions that we meet with questions respecting the nature of knowledge. Chemists, for example, do not trouble themselves as to whether they really know the substances with which they experiment; nor do astronomers inquire whether they see the stars or only their own sensations when observing ; but metaphysicians encounter such questions everywhere in their investigations and discussions; and little, indeed, can be understood in the relations of their science until we have somewhat settled ideas as to the nature of knowledge.

66

I must confess that I am rather astonished at Mr. Warington's remarks on what he calls my "scientific errors." As to light being "only a movement in the atmosphere," my words are- "The light is but a state of movement in the atmosphere:" that is the light of the lighthouse of which, in the words referred to, I am speaking, as a movement passing over many miles of ocean. Light is a movement of the substance which is illuminated: it passes through transparent solids and liquids as it passes through transparent air. As to its passing easily through a vacuum, that is a matter more easily asserted than proved. If Mr. Warington means by a vacuum a space from which air is excluded, while it is full of some other substance, his statement is no doubt true as he means it; but he will, I suspect, find it very difficult to secure a real vacuum by means of which to show how easily light passes through it. Should he mean to assert that light passes easily through a space which is empty of all matter I fear his statement is self-destructive— and that, too, whether we regard the light as a movement or as a substance. If it is merely a movement, it cannot be where there is nothing to move ; and if it is a substance, that cannot be a vacuum where a substance is, even if only "passing through." The "erroneous idea" is in Mr. Warington's logic in this case; but I am confident that it is not "ingrained" there! Nor is the "ether," which he fancies, so "ingrained." My words in alluding to this are, "the ether, imagined as filling up the spaces between the atoms of matter." This is distinct enough from so-called "ether" which is supposed to exist in the spaces between the celestial bodies, and the positions of the two stand wide apart in philosophy. As far back as 1842, Grove said :-"It appears to