matter. But instead of meeting this demand it represents their relationship only in ways which reason and science refuse to sanction. The majority of materialists assert that force is inherent in matter; that matter is essentially active; that matter and force are inseparable, and have coexisted from all eternity. But this assertion is the denial of a fundamental law of physical science -the law stated by Newton in the words, "Every body perseveres in its state of rest or of moving uniformly in a straight line, except in so far as it is made to change that state by external forces." This law is conclusively proved, both experimentally and by the consequences involved in denying it. If true, however, matter is in itself inert, inactive, without power of originating motion or producing change; and the view of the relation of matter and force, assumed as axiomatically evident by a host of materialists, is anti-scientific and erroneous in the highest degree. If true, the argument of Aristotle for a first mover is plainly a very strong one. If a body cannot move itself it must be moved by a cause distinct from itself, and this external cause, if a body, must be moved by another cause, and so on in a regress which, not to be ad infinitum, must end in a cause which is selfacting, and consequently not a body. It has been attempted to meet this argument by affirming that matter is endowed with a property of attraction,

in virtue of which, while each separate molecule of matter is inert, two molecules are active, each being a cause of motion in the other. But the reply is inadequate, as it ignores two important considerations. The first is, that inertia and attraction are not facts of the same rank or value. Inertia is presupposed in all the phenomena of attraction, is implied in every correct conception of mechanical motion, and can clearly neither be eliminated from the notion of matter nor reduced to any simpler property of matter. Attraction, on the other hand, as a cause of gravity, as an efficient property of matter, is an occult and hypothetical quality, in the existence of which few men of science very seriously believe, although they feel themselves incompetent to displace it by any more plausible conjecture. The vast majority of physicists will readily subscribe Newton's words to Bentley: "You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray, do not ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know." Many of them will not refuse assent even to his much stronger statement: "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great

an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." The materialist is not entitled, then, to assume that the phenomena ascribed to attraction will not in process of time be explained by the general laws of motion. Let us suppose, however, that attraction, instead of being thus proved to be a useless fiction, is ascertained to be a real property and efficient cause. What is it precisely that in this case has been established? Only my second considerationonly a conclusion which materialism cannot accept. Matter is thereby proved to be a something which cannot have its reason of existence in itself. No molecule, on this supposition, is what it is, or is moved as it is, of itself. The cause of the position and state of each molecule is out of itself in all the other molecules. This dependence of each upon all must have a reason which embraces all, yet which can neither be in the parts, since each part is dependent-nor in the whole, since it can have nothing which it has not derived from the parts which compose it.

The hypothesis that matter is essentially active seems not to be tenable. Is there any more plausible view as to the relation of matter to force which the materialist can adopt? Apparently not. The conjecture which has sometimes been

L

thrown out, and which Dr Löwenthal has deliberately adopted that force is not essential to matter, but the result of its aggregation-is too ridiculous for discussion. Force can no more be accounted for by aggregation than the strength of a horse can be accounted for by the motion of the cart which it draws. Aggregation presupposes, and therefore cannot explain, force. But no other supposition appears to remain except that matter has the power of putting itself in motion,- has in some degree the faculty of volition or selfdetermination. This, the supposition which Epicurus and Lucretius adopted, is growing in favour with modern materialists. Anthropomorphism in physics was probably never more prevalent than at present, especially among those who denounce anthropomorphism in theology. Confidently deny freewill to man and confidently ascribe it to atoms, and you stand a good chance just now of being widely acknowledged as a great physical philosopher, and are sure at least of being honoured as an "advanced thinker." But nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when it becomes popular. The notion of an atom of matter putting itself in motion is a still more glaring contradiction of the law of inertia than an atom eternally and necessarily active. It also confounds matter and mind, and even nature and miracle. It may be taught as a truth of physical science, but it is

in reality a delusion due to metaphysical nightmare.1

Further, materialism leaves unexplained and inexplicable the order, laws, and harmony in nature. Material elements chaotically combined and material forces working blindly, atoms jostling together at random and powers unconditioned and uncorrelated by intelligence with a view to an end, cannot be rationally thought of as producing these things. The universe is a result which implies that its hosts of constituents have been prepared and arranged, and that the hosts of forces associated with them have been directed and marshalled, by a Divine Intelligence. Order universally reigns, where elements out of which confusion might have arisen and might still arise are present and abundant; all things proceed under the influence of laws, unfailing and unerring, which apply at once to the minutest part and to the mightiest whole; contingencies are constantly provided for by a system of compensations of the most elaborate and exquisite description; and of these facts, as I endeavoured to show when treating of the design argument, the materialist can either give no explanation or devises explanations which are futile in the extreme.

Is life also a fact which presents a problem that materialism cannot solve? Is there a chasm be1 See Appendix XVI.