LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 OF" 
 
 
 
 Class 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 EIGHT HUNDRED ANSWERS TO AS MANY QUESTIONS 
 
 CONCERNING THE MOST SCIENTIFIC 
 
 REVOLUTION OF THE 
 
 AGE. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. I. SWAJ^DEB, A. M., D. D. 
 
 V OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 Of 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 HUDSON & CO., PUBLISHERS, 
 
 23 PARK ROW. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1886, by 
 
 in Me ctfZce o/ the Librarian of 
 Congress at Washington, D. C. 
 
 W. C. DUNN, Printer and Electrotyper, 34 & 26 Vandewater St., N. Y. 
 
TO 
 
 A. WILFORD HALL, PH. D., LL. D., 
 MY ESTEEMED FRIEND, 
 
 TRIED AND TRUE, 
 
 THROUGH WHOSE 
 
 VERY VALUABLE WRITINGS 
 I HAVE BEEN LED 
 
 INTO 
 GREATER SCIENTIFIC LIGHT, 
 
 THIS VOLUME 
 
 is 
 AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED 
 
 BY 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IT has been my pleasure to examine this work on the 
 Substantial Philosophy, by the Rev. Dr. S wander, and it 
 affords me much pleasure in recommending the same 
 to all who are interested in true science. The book 
 makes no pretensions to be scientific or even to present 
 the scientific department of the Substantial Philosophy 
 in any other than a popular light. 
 
 The object has been to simplify all that which 
 would be intricate, if expressed in scientific language, 
 so that the average reader will be able to grasp the 
 truths of this Coming Philosophy. I, therefore, cor- 
 dially recommend the careful reading of this work as 
 the forerunner of many additional works which are sure 
 to come in the future. Respectfully, 
 
 HENRY A. MOTT, PH. D., LL. D., F. C. S., ETC, 
 
 1 58403 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Introductory 9 
 
 Chapter I. The Source of Being .... 39 
 
 " II. Material Substance .... 50 
 
 " III. Immaterial Forces .... 59 
 
 " IV. Cohesion 70 
 
 " V. Magnetism 82 
 
 " VI. Gravity .. , ' . . . . 91 
 
 " VII. Electricity .,, .... 103 
 
 " VIII. Heat v; . .... 114 
 
 " IX. The Nature of Light . . .131 
 
 " X. The Nature and Phenomena of Sound 155 
 
 " XL Life 219 
 
 " XII. Death 245 
 
 " XIII. Death's Antidote . . . .255 
 
 " XIV. The Kesurrection of the Dead . . 289 
 
 " XV. Our Future State and Place 316 
 
OTHER AUTHORITIES CONSULTED AND QUOTED. 
 
 H. A. MOTT, PH. D., LL. D. 
 
 CHANCELLOR J. KOST, M. D., LL. D. 
 
 REV. F. HAMLIN, D. D. PH. D 
 
 REV. F. A. RAUCH, PH. D. 
 
 REV. J. W. NEVIN, D. D., LL. D. 
 
 PROF. T. G. APPLE, D. D., LL.D. 
 
 REV C J. H. GOOD, D. D. 
 
 CAPT. R. KELSO CARTER, A. M. 
 
 REV. JOSEPH COOK. 
 
 PROF. HENRY DRUMMOND, F. R. S. E. 
 
 REV. HENRY HARBAUGH, D. D. 
 
 BISHOP RANDOLPH S. FOSTER. 
 
 REV. MOSES KIEFFER, D. D. 
 
 ELD. THOMAS MUNNELL, A. M. 
 
 PROF. J. W. LOWBER, A. M., PH. D. 
 
 PRES. I. L. KEPHART, D. D. 
 
 PROF. G. R. HAND, A. M. 
 
 COL. J. M. PATTON. 
 
 J. R. HOFFBR, ESQ. 
 
 PROF. H. C. Cox, A. M. 
 
 REV. JOSEPH S. VAN DYKE, D. D. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 IN offering this book to the public, the author neither 
 admits a "felt want " on his own part nor claims it on be- 
 half of others. Man's deepest wants are sometimes unfelt. 
 His greatest exigency is the need of ability to feel and 
 acknowledge his neediness. The only apology that ac- 
 companies this volume is a statement of the circum- 
 stances under which it was called into existence. The 
 book appears in answer to many expressed wishes for 
 something of the kind. These expressions \vere mostly 
 from men who had been reading the "Problem of 
 Human Life/' and the other voluminous writings of Dr. 
 Hall, and \vhose minds had consequently undergone a 
 radical change concerning the questions of which those 
 writings treat. Some of these wishes were expressed to 
 the author, but the most of them were sent directly to 
 headquarters until the founder of Substantialism ex- 
 pressed his desire that something like a formulated 
 reproduction of his philosophy might be undertaken, and 
 if possible completed in time to receive his approval and 
 benediction before he should be called to smite the 
 
10 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 waters of Jordan, and take his long anticipated journey 
 to the substantial glory of the skies. 
 
 Listening to these expressed wishes, and heeding the 
 earnest requests which frequently accompanied them, we 
 took our pen in hand and applied ourself to the accom- 
 plishment of the undertaking with whatever fitness a 
 kind Providence had given us for the work, and now, 
 having completed the volume, with its defects, and also, 
 as we trust, with some merit and many provocations to a 
 more thorough investigation of the subject discussed, we 
 bow before the footlights of our intelligent audience, and 
 assure the studious and patient reader that if he will take 
 the " little book " and " eat it up/* even though it 
 should "make his belly bitter," it will be "as sweet as 
 honey to the mouth " for all such as have a relish for the 
 mellific nectar of truth. 
 
 It is not the primary object of this book to teach in 
 detail the many positive truths of science and religion 
 which enter into a complete academic course of study or 
 college curriculum, but to suggest some general outlines 
 thereof, as well as some new departures therefrom, and 
 to assist the honest student in " learning to unlearn " 
 whatever he may have learned amiss. That the highway 
 of the scientific architect is strewn with the rubbish of 
 worthless theories, is an assumption whose justification 
 may be looked for in the following pages. In presenting 
 these pages to the public the author disclaims any sym- 
 pathy with that pessimistic school of philosophers known 
 as the screech-owls of humanity. And yet he is just as 
 unwilling to be classed with those credulous optimists 
 who not only see that everything in nature is ordered for 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 11 
 
 the best, but who also seem to act upon the supposition 
 that the most popular interpretation of nature's forces 
 and phenomena is for that reason the most reliable. 
 
 It is also due to all parties interested that we announce 
 candidly and publicly that this work lays no claim to 
 originality on the part of the author. With the excep- 
 tion of the last four chapters, for which he is willing to 
 be held individually responsible, this volume is an at- 
 tempted formulation of some of the fundamental truths 
 of the Substantial Philosophy, founded by Dr. A. Wil- 
 ford Hall, and set forth in his " Problem of Human 
 Life," which made its first appearance before a startled 
 public in 1878, and since that date more fully explained 
 and advocated by himself, and to some extent by his 
 coadjutors, in the Microcosm) until very recently, when 
 the challenge which the discussion of the questions in- 
 volved was tossed into the /Scientific Arena, the leading 
 monthly journal of this country devoted to a bold 
 investigation of current philosophical teachings and its 
 bearing upon the religious thought of the age. 
 
 Whatever, therefore, this volume contains of original 
 freshness in scientific investigation and discovery, and 
 whatever is startling in its stalwart character and claims 
 of revolutionary truth, are credited to others, but espec- 
 ially to that earnest investigator, logical reasoner, inde- 
 fatigable worker, Christian scientist, and scientific revo- 
 lutionist Dr. A. Wilford Hall at whose apostolic feet 
 we are proud to place this little book, as the most appro- 
 priate expression of our esteem for one whom we have 
 never seen, as well as our best token of gratitude to him 
 for the great benefits which we are constantly deriving 
 
12 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 from his rich discoveries of laws and facts in nature, 
 never previously even dreamed of by those whose great- 
 est fidelity to truth consisted mainly in feeling the pop- 
 ular scientific pulse, and in following the beaten paths of 
 ancient and modern scholasticism. And while we thus 
 make our obeisance to our venerable and beloved teacher, 
 we are fully convinced, through what we know by cor- 
 respondence and otherwise of the warm pulsations of his 
 Christian heart, that he will readily join us in our 
 further pilgrimage to the foot of the throne of that great 
 " Teacher sent from God," to acknowledge Him as the 
 personal embodiment of all truth, as well as the fountain 
 of all redeeming life and love. 
 
 Candor compels us to admit also that this book has not 
 been written with any hope of benefiting those who thirst 
 and search for the volumes of popular pulpiness and gush 
 so eagerly devoured by the indolent hordes of sickly sen- 
 timentalists in literature. The name of this class of 
 readers is legion. They peruse pages with a pernicious 
 habit of thoughtlessness; and their morbid stupidity is 
 more alarming than wonderful. It indicates an effemi- 
 nate tendency of the age when the popular mind, so 
 inflated with the sweetened wind of fallacy and fiction, 
 has no longer any considerable relish and admiration for 
 those facts and beauties in science which can be ascer- 
 tained and seen only through the process of laborious 
 mental effort. It is because the general mind has been 
 educated to take an easy surface view and make a super- 
 ficial search for the cause of things, that stupendous er- 
 rors have come to prevail in science. When truth is hard 
 to find, error is a convenient substitute. Thus eminence 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 13 
 
 is made easy, and some men become pre-eminent fools. 
 In science, as in religion, those tenets which offer an easy 
 and superficial explanation should be looked upon with 
 suspicion. The shallows murmur with plausible jargon 
 while the silent deeps are filled with stores of knowledge 
 for those who take to their intellectual diving-bells and 
 leap after the hidden wealth which is never found float- 
 ing upon the surface. To all such this book comes greet- 
 ing in the name of revolutionary truth. Its mission is 
 to renew the gage of battle and continue the issue made 
 by Dr. Hall when the "Problem of Human Life "was 
 thrown into the arena of the greatest scientific combat 
 the world has ever witnessed. 
 
 In order to enable the reader to locate any point upon 
 which he may be in darkness or in doubt, or upon which 
 lie may wish to seek for further light from the founder 
 of this philosophy, the catechetical form has been 
 adopted. The question frequently contains the answer 
 in the form of an interrogative proposition. The truth 
 also frequently cross-questions itself in open court, and 
 aims to answer all anticipated objections to the sound- 
 ness of its premises and the logic of its arguments. 
 Should any Substantialist differ from the author at any 
 point as to his apprehension of Dr. Hall's teachings, it is 
 hoped that the criticisms will be of such a character, and 
 made in such a spirit, as to bring forth ultimately a vol- 
 ume whose shoe's latchet this first attempt at formulating 
 the doctrines of the Substantial Philosophy may not be 
 worthy to unloose. Furthermore, if it should appear 
 that in some minor or mooted points in the general sys- 
 tem we differ from the founder of the philosophy, it 
 
14 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 nrnst be kept distinctly in mind that Dr. Hall never ex- 
 pected to become the custodian of any man's conscience. 
 
 In the following chapters there is one fundamental 
 question at issue. In the study of the work this ques- 
 tion should be permitted to stand out in bold relief, and 
 kept constantly and clearly in view, that the merits of 
 the discussion may be seen in the light of relevant testi- 
 mony and judged in the love of a righteous verdict. 
 
 Too many cob-houses in science are built upon the sand 
 of a false assumption. What is that false assumption ? 
 That all substances are material that nothing in Nature 
 has an entitative existence except that which is measur- 
 able by the senses, or provable by mechanical or chem- 
 ical tests. Against the advocates of such a doctrine we 
 unite with Dr. Hall and others in joining an uncompro- 
 mising issue. The man who denies the existence of such 
 incorporeal substance in Nature, and the individual who, 
 in religion, will believe only that which he can compre- 
 hend, are half-brothers in the broad family of infidelity. 
 In order to state this cardinal question more clearly,* we 
 prefer to paraphrase the language of one before whose 
 superior ability we do ourself the honor to bow. Is 
 there "an objective, real and spiritual world, or sphere 
 of being from which the phenomenal world has its source, 
 and by which it is constantly upheld "? Or, being trans- 
 lated into the vernacular of Substantialism, is there an 
 order of invisible, inaudible, and intangible being coex- 
 tensive with the material manifestations of God's great 
 universe? To be or not to be, immaterially; that is the 
 very material question now challenging the attention and 
 * Rev. T. G. Apple, D. D., LL. D., Lancaster, Pa. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 15 
 
 respectful consideration of intellectual courage, candor, 
 and common sense. If there is such a world of being in 
 Nature, is it substantial without being material? Upon 
 this recently alleged Gibraltar in philosophy the guns of 
 opposition are being trained; and from this newly-an- 
 nounced position in science the affirmative artillery is 
 hurling its missiles of merited destruction and death upon 
 whatsoever worketh an abomination or maketh a lie by 
 clinging to the superficial manifestation of things which 
 are seen and temporal, and denying the existence of those 
 things which are unseen and eternal. Upon this point 
 hang all the law and the prophets of true philosophy, 
 and upon this same point it is proposed to hang a few of 
 the false prophets as a merciful warning for others to dis- 
 continue their adoration before the traditional gods of 
 such materialistic idolatry. 
 
 Questions concerning the laws of gravity, magnetism, 
 and sound, can never be satisfactorily settled until there 
 is a more manly willingness and earnest effort to look 
 beneath the material surface in search of certain invisible 
 entities and elementary principles not generally acknowl- 
 edged in the superficial and contradictory theories of the 
 schools. Back of all theories and discussions relating to 
 the qualities, properties, and phenomena of being, is the 
 question of leing in itself considered. Toward this 
 fundamental question, the honest and diligent philoso- 
 pher would do well to turn his most unbiased attention, 
 if he would emancipate himself from the tyranny of 
 traditional theories, and triumph gloriously where basic 
 truth unfolds her banner and gains the victory with 
 stubborn and substantial facts. 
 
16 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The case calls for rational thought. Is it unreasonable 
 to believe that there is an order of being beyond the com- 
 prehension of the human intellect? If so, the Christian 
 religion is unreasonable in its claims, and untrue in its 
 nature. The apprehensible is not always comprehensi- 
 ble. It is not unreasonable to assume the existence of 
 immaterial and imperceivable entities not found in the 
 category of material things, and whose actual being can- 
 not be proven by any chemical or mechanical test. 
 "When an unanswerable array of observed facts demon' 
 strates conclusively that certain acknowledged effects 
 cannot possibly be produced by any cause, force, or en- 
 ergy inherent in the mere material world, and that such 
 effects cannot be accounted for except upon the hypothe- 
 sis or theory that there is an immaterial substance, it is 
 unreasonable to deny the existence of such substance. 
 Materialistic evolution, including the advocacy of the 
 wave-theory of sound, makes this denial in the very face 
 of such facts and effects. It is, therefore, unreasonable 
 and untrue. If religion clearly sees and understands by 
 the things that are made that there are invisible things of 
 God from the creation of the world, true science is bound 
 to look beneath and beyond the sphere of the visible in 
 search of something that shall prove more satisfactory in 
 solving the most difficult problems of the age, and lead 
 to a rational rejection of those infidel theories so obstruct- 
 ive to the progress of both religion and science. 
 
 Besides the general tendency toward superficiality, not 
 only among the masses, but also in educated circles of 
 pretended thoughtful ness, there is another tendency 
 equally alarming, viz: to divorce science from religion. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 1? 
 
 This sundering of the two, places both at a disadvantage 
 .in their common conflict with the combined forces of 
 ignorance and infidelity. Confusion is taken for the 
 rattle of God's artillery, and the din of home strife is 
 foolishly supposed to be a war with the foreign enemy. 
 The conflict is also largely a battle fought with imag- 
 inary spooks by moonlight. The issue is not clearly 
 defined, and the line is not well drawn. Friends are, 
 therefore, not always distinguished from foes. It will 
 ever be thus until the engagement takes place under the 
 central sun of the universe. The Christ of God is that 
 central sun. He shines through "the volume of the 
 book," the written word, and also through the volume of 
 nature, the demonstrated word. He is the alpha and 
 omega of both, as well as the entire fullness of their 
 inner glory. Revelation and science are a comple- 
 mentary twofoldness of the same thing. Rightly under- 
 stood, there is no contradiction. Contradiction is the 
 result of arbitary separation, and the effect of moonlight 
 apprehension. Christ must be recognized as the Sun of 
 the universe, and the key to the full and final solution of 
 all its mysteries. In Nature, as well as in the Bible, 
 " there standeth one among you whom ye know not." 
 The cardinal mistake is made in taking the mere archive 
 of Revelation for the revelation itself, and in a corre- 
 sponding substitution of the outward material form of 
 Nature for those inward immaterial force-elements 
 which in their common ground of union constitute 
 the veritable and abiding substance of a volume 
 no less canonical than the received scriptures of God. 
 Bibleolatry is one form of materialism in religion, 
 
18 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 and materialism in science is a worshiping of the 
 letter which killeth. The one searcheth the scrip- 
 tural letter thinking that therein it hath eternal life, and 
 the other looketh into the motions of the air for the 
 fecundous womb of sound. Under this view, both relig- 
 ion and science have neither genesis nor exodus. Let 
 there be light! Let all be seen in the effulgence of Him 
 who lighteth every man that cometh into this grand 
 world and glorious periphery of truth. Here science 
 appears no less divine than Christianity both are 
 answerable to their common archetypal source. Thus 
 apprehended, truth gives eternal freedom, and opens the 
 pearly portals to imperishable glory. 
 
 Viewing the subject in the foregoing light, and be' 
 lieving that the highest mission of the Substantial 
 Philosophy is to serve in the temple of religion, the 
 author not only felt himself justified, but also impera- 
 tively called to apply its fundamental principle to Christ- 
 ianity. The result of his response to such a call is the 
 last four chapters of this book, which may be regarded 
 by some as going a long distance to find a market for his 
 philosophic merchandise. While we concede to all the 
 freedom to think upon that question as to them may 
 seem most reasonable, we must claim for ourself the 
 equal privilege to follow what appeared to us as the plain 
 path of ,duty. We believe that the Substantial Phi- 
 losophy is thus applicable to the Christian religion, that 
 Christianity involves philosophy and that theology must 
 become less dogmatic and more truly scientific before it 
 can accomplish its full mission to man and through man 
 in brightening the visions of earth's dark night, and in 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 19 
 
 sweetening the anticipations of heaven's eternal day. 
 Schleiermacher was right in announcing that Chris- 
 tianity as to its essence is life, and Dr. Hall is equally 
 correct in proclaiming all life to be substantial force. 
 The religion which cometh down from God out of heaven 
 does not hold its being in mere abstract truth,, under the 
 form of doctrinal tenets; neither does it move forward in 
 the chariot of human logic, as though man's greatest 
 want were the liberation of his intellect from the thrall- 
 dom of error. Though intimately related, the Bible is 
 not the same as Christianity. The Bible is an outward 
 manifestation of an inward life substantial mystery in 
 sacred history principle in precept law in statutorial 
 form truth in effluence the unimpeachable testimony 
 which Christianity gives of its origin, purposes, opera- 
 tions, and conditions, as it moves on through the ages, 
 bearing witness to the truth. The Bible can testify to 
 the truth only as Christ, the absolute fountain of eternal 
 verity, comes "in the volume of the book," to animate 
 its paragraphs and illuminate its pages. Truth, under 
 this concrete view, is inseparable from life. Under any 
 opposite view it is truth in mere abstraction. Truth in 
 abstraction (in the biological domain of science) is prac- 
 tically the truth held hi unrighteousness a perversion 
 a lie anti- Christ a virtual denial of the Incarnation in 
 its proper historical sense, and a cowardly surrender of 
 the only key by which intelligent faith may hope to solve 
 the world's most momentous problem, the destiny of man; 
 It has been intimated from certain uncertain sources 
 that the vast array of adverse criticisms upon the new 
 doctrine will place it under suspicion, and ultimately 
 
20 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 wipe it from the face of the earth. We have good rea- 
 sons for thinking differently. Learned criticism has al- 
 ways been adverse to the truth upon the first appearance 
 of a new doctrine, whether in religion or science. We 
 mention the faith of the Hebrews in Egypt, the Gospel 
 of the Nazarine in Judea, Christianity in the old Roman 
 Empire, and Evangelical Protestantism in Europe, as 
 cardinal points in the religious compass. Similar obser- 
 vations may be made in the respective spheres of astron- 
 omy, medicine, philosophy, and every other department 
 of science. And yet there is nothing in the above-men- 
 tioned examples construable into an indiscriminate ap- 
 proval of every ridiculous vagary that could possibly 
 originate in the cranky caverns of a diseased brain. 
 
 " The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God "; 
 and the world has repeatedly made a fool of itself by 
 rejecting the truth for no other reason than that it was 
 paradoxical, unpopular and destitute of "respectability/' 
 We concede that there is such a thing as a probable pre- 
 ponderance of popular opinion favoring those conclusions 
 which have been reached through the intellectual wealth 
 and wisdom of the ages; but we are not unmindful of the 
 fact that the accumulated testimony of those exceedingly 
 wise ages has frequently done very little more than to 
 make room for the verdict that " the wisdom of the world 
 is foolishness with God." This will continue to be the 
 case until that which is perfect is come. As long as the 
 highway of history is strewn with the fragments of shat- 
 tered theories and exploded orthodoxies, even the crown- 
 ing grace of Christian charity may be permitted to shrug 
 her comely shoulders with consistent hesitancy before she 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 2l 
 
 "believeth all things" and "rejoiceth in the truth." 
 We are aware that persons who come before the schools 
 with new ideas, and with the courage to proclaim them 
 to the world, take their own risks of being convicted as 
 fools; but it does not, therefore, necessarily follow that 
 the light should be put under a bushel because it is new, 
 neither does it follow that an assumed pharisaic indefect- 
 ability on the part of the scholastic world is conclusive 
 evidence that it is either in the possession of truth or in 
 the practice of wisdom. A thorough examination and 
 consideration of all new theories is a duty that the world 
 owes itself, and a respect that should never be withheld 
 from the majesty of the truth which has frequently been 
 found enshrined in its most seemingly absurd propositions. 
 Talk not of " respectable " institutions in favor of this 
 theory or that! Histoty is full of proof that in matters 
 of truth and right God and a few others constitute a very 
 clear and respectable majority over all the rest. The Ke- 
 formers were branded with being a set of crazy fanatics; 
 Paul was charged with being " the setter-forth of strange 
 doctrines," a " babbler," and a "fool;" and Jesus Christ 
 was condemned as an innovator; yet they were all in the 
 line of duty, and consequently on the highway to that 
 imperishable glory which has never yet been reached, ex- 
 cept through the persecutions of the majority. The 
 world is more indebted to its " fools " than to its cus- 
 todians of wisdom for the progress already made in the 
 right direction. What would be its condition to-day if 
 all its paradoxes had been strangled in their birth by the 
 midwives and high priests of "regular" and "respect- 
 able " authority in matters of religion and science, and 
 
22 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 all its so-called innovators had been crucified? Nay, 
 rather, what would be the condition of the world if some 
 of them had not been condemned and crucified for bear- 
 ing testimony to paradoxical truth ? Christianity at its 
 introduction was the most paradoxical movement that 
 ever flew into the face of an accepted order of things, 
 and it is still doing more toward revolutionizing the ven- 
 erable fallacies and frauds of history than all other com- 
 bined powers of our polluted planet. 
 
 But it is said that the voice of the people is the voice 
 of God. Nonsense! God has not said so. The false 
 proverb is the production of the people blowing their 
 own undulatory horn. Majorities have nearly always 
 been on the wrong side of the question. They are on 
 the wrong side of all great questions to-day. Christianity 
 is in the minority as ever against the religions of the 
 world; Protestantism is in the minority as measured with 
 the aggregate of the Catholic millions; and it is quite 
 possible that true and vitalized protestants are in the mi- 
 nority as compared with the number of nominal protest- 
 ants who hold to the form while they deny the real power 
 of evangelical godliness. 
 
 This feature of the question, then, is nothing more 
 than a renewal of the old interrogative propounded twenty- 
 five centuries ago: " How shall Jacob arise, for he is 
 small ?" In the midst of man's impotency, God steps 
 upon the stage and answers all such questions for all time 
 to come, and for his everlasting glory: "Not by might, 
 nor by power," but by the dynamic impulse of his own 
 substantial self in history. Who can read history aright 
 without seeing this truth verified in every chapter? In 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 23 
 
 no sense is Substantialism to be an exception to the gen- 
 eral rule which has prevailed in all past ages, and which 
 will ever prevail in the Church and in the world. As all 
 heaven-born principles and systems of truth ever an- 
 nounced among men have gradually spread toward the 
 sure and full inheritance of the earth, so shall it be with 
 the system of philosophy which God delighteth to honor. 
 It has already widened its bounds. The ratio of its in- 
 crease appears as something more remarkable than even 
 the array of opposition which has been blind enough to 
 cross its brightening pathway to beneficent power. Sub- 
 stantialism has now been before the world for only a few 
 short years, and yet it has more openly avowed followers 
 than had either Christ or Mahommed after a public pro- 
 mulgation of their respective doctrines for a correspond- 
 ing length of time. 
 
 The Substantial Philosophy did not originate in Dr. 
 Hall's brain. Its principles and fundamental elements 
 had being before they passed into the laboratory of his 
 grand and grappling intellect, and constituted him the 
 first philosopher of the world. Just as the Eeformation 
 produced the Eeformers; just as the principles of popular 
 freedom produced Washington and Jefferson as distin- 
 guished actors upon the stage of colonial history, so did 
 the eternal principle of Substantialism lay hold of its 
 most natural selection, and use him as an active medium 
 through which to appear before the world and challenge 
 the consideration of honest men. Fact is, the fullness of 
 time was here, the new philosophy was ready to be born, 
 and all the mercenary midwives of materialistic Egypt 
 could not strangle it at its birth. And now, since it has 
 
24 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 been born, although it may be kept cradled for awhile 
 among the bulrushes of popular prejudice, it will gain 
 strength as a proper child, and finally go forth to lead 
 the world from the bondage of scholastic corruption into 
 its own higher sphere of philosophic truth and conse- 
 quent freedom in the promised land. 
 
 Having such a high origin, there is no room to doubt 
 concerning the success of Substantialism and the radical 
 revolution it is destined to accomplish in science. It is 
 an element in history and belongs to the objective con- 
 stitution of the world's historic onflow. History has a 
 power not derived from the agents employed in its un- 
 folding process, but from Him who is above, hi story, and 
 whose personal being has no history. For this reason 
 the essential features of all great world-movements are 
 fashioned, not only after an inner pattern, but also by an 
 inner plastic power. God has so constituted the econ- 
 omy of the universe with its dynamic force and unerring 
 laws as to secure the end from the beginning. Accord- 
 ing to this view, a failure of the divine purpose is placed 
 under the category of impossibilities. Neither can there 
 be an ultimate failure of any human purpose when such 
 purpose moves upon a line parallel with that of the di- 
 vine. Truth calls great minds to its advocacy, and 
 through them it asserts its own mighty power. " Ye 
 have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained 
 you," is the language of the personal and supreme Truth. 
 Christ is the principle of all normal world-movements: 
 other actors upon the stage of history, though not pup- 
 pets of a mock drama, are, nevertheless, agents through 
 whom the objective forces of creation's development as- 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 25 
 
 sert themselves, and yet in such a way as that each 
 rational agent is allowed to exercise the freedom of his 
 own will, and enabled to harvest the reward of his own 
 merit. Assuming the correctness of the foregoing view, 
 there can be no abortion in the sphere of true science or 
 sound philosophy any more than there can be a failure in 
 the primary purpose of Almighty God, or a general mis- 
 carriage in the grand design of Him who is the author 
 and finisher of the Christian faith. Whatever has its 
 incipient being in the fecundous womb of eternal truth 
 will come, through safe and certain delivery, to a legiti- 
 mate and timely birth. The Substantial Philosophy can 
 view itself in no other light without stultification and 
 suicide. It has proclaimed from the high tower of its 
 strength that truth is a veritable essence, that substance 
 is before matter, that the mind, instead of being the 
 function of the brain, uses the brain as its organ. To 
 surrender this position would be to throw our excellent 
 philosophy to the dogs, and crown materialism as both 
 consistent in its claims and triumphant in the contro- 
 versy which is now shaking the very heavens of honest, 
 earnest inquiry and thought. 
 
 A wrong impression prevails in certain uninformed 
 quarters as to the extent of the discovery involved in the 
 Substantial Philosophy. It is supposed by some to be 
 nothing more than an adventurous assault upon the wave- 
 theory of sound. How inadequate is such a narrow con- 
 ception! As well attempt to confine Newton's great dis- 
 covery of gravital law in its application to the motion of 
 the moon. As shown in the body of this volume, Dr. 
 Hall's recently discovered and announced Philosophy 
 
26 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 of Substantialism is broader than the widest range that 
 can possibly be taken in the discussion of the sound ques- 
 tion. Substantialism maintains that the universe in its 
 very constitution incorporates certain immaterial elements 
 of force which are as real as the material objects in nat- 
 ure and no less possessed of actual being than the rocks 
 of the earth or the stars of heaven. This new philoso- 
 phy is called Substantialism in contradistinction from 
 Materialism because it lays the primary emphasis upon 
 the immaterial or force entities in God's great handiwork. 
 This emphasis is thus placed because the immaterially 
 substantial in the universe is held to be the motive power 
 that drives the wheels of its material machinery. Hence 
 the reversal of some moss-covered theories in science. 
 Matter cannot produce motion, neither can molelecular 
 motion produce an entity of any kind. Light, heat or 
 electricity may produce motion, but cannot be the pro- 
 duct thereof. The brain is not the originator, but the 
 organ of the mind. Sound is an immaterial substance, 
 and, like every other force-element in nature, asserts it- 
 self according to its own law of manifestation. The 
 invisible things of God are clearly seen in the things 
 which do appear. Air- waves can produce sound no more 
 than the lengthening of the shadow of the Washington 
 Monument can cause the setting of the sun, and just as 
 little as the crowing of the cock can produce the twilight 
 of the morning. 
 
 The broadness of the principle announced and the 
 demonstrations already given to the faculty of reason of 
 its soundness, to say nothing of the destruction already 
 wrought among the unscientific Philistines with the jaw- 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 27 
 
 bone of their own materialistic ass, entitles Substantial- 
 ism to an honorable place in the family of the world's 
 numerous systems of philosophy. And whether thus rec- 
 ognized or rejected the eternal truth will remain the 
 same, and in its dynamic power will force such general 
 recognition in the near future's unfolding years. Strong 
 in the revolutionary work already accomplished, it will 
 not condescend to "bow the suppliant knee that thrift 
 may follow fawning;" but, standing erect in the majesty 
 of its intrinsic worth, the vigor of its symmetrical consti- 
 tution, and the beauty of its admirable proportions, it 
 will thunder with authority at the feeble gates of stub- 
 born scholasticism, until the learned world will be glad 
 to own and honor and utilize the only system of philoso- 
 phy that can strike the fetters of fallacy from its limbs 
 and bring it to the light and liberty of a more enduring 
 substance. 
 
 Let all lovers of truth who are willing to follow its 
 leadings through evil as well as good report not do them- 
 selves the great wrong to conclude that Substantialism is 
 not worthy of their entire confidence, because, forsooth, 
 it doth not yet fully appear what it shall be when that 
 which is perfect is come. Neither should the increasing 
 number of believers in the Substantial Philosophy be any 
 less enthusiastic in its advocacy because it has not yet 
 been fully formulated. The time is fast coming when its 
 high rank in the family of philosophies will be generally 
 acknowledged, and when, as the center of the world's ad- 
 miration, the royal child shall receive the insignia of its 
 intrinsic worth. Even in the bulrushes of the Nile Moses 
 was a " proper child," and therefore the coming man and 
 
28 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 lawgiver for a nation from whom, according to the flesh, 
 Christ came. And Christ himself, instead of springing, 
 like a full-fledged mythical Minerva from the head of 
 Jupiter, into his highest attainable perfection, " in- 
 creased in wisdom, stature and favor with God and 
 man." So, too, with Christianity, as the substantial 
 presence of the glorified Christ in the world. He is a 
 very poor reader of church history, and a very shallow 
 student of its philosophy who sees Christianity's highest- 
 attainable perfection either in primitive religion, the 
 Church of Rome, or modern Protestantism. While noth- 
 ing can transcend the limits of its own type and pattern, 
 it is everywhere God's law that the old and more defect- 
 ive develops the want and prepares the way for the new 
 and more perfect. 
 
 This general truth is equally applicable to our excellent 
 philosophy. Its embryonic principle was always present 
 in the essential constitution of being, and came to its 
 birth in the fullness of time. Ifc is a proper and promis- 
 ing child; and although it is not yet as old as was the 
 child Jesus when he was taken up into the doomed tem- 
 ple to be questioned by the learned representatives of an- 
 other dispensation which was fast passing away, it has 
 increased in stature and in favor with God and unpreju- 
 diced man. This progress it has made in the face of an 
 opposition, and under the reign of persecution and suf 
 fering not worthy to be compared with the glory that 
 shall be revealed in the symmetrical strength of its corn- 
 ing manhood and the triumphal march of its victorious 
 future. 
 
 The future of the Substantial Philosophy is neither a 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 29 
 
 matter of prophesy nor conjecture. It is something to 
 be confidently anticipated according to the dynamic 
 life-force of history. When once acquainted with the 
 root we need no gift of prophecy to predict both the 
 coming and the quality of the fruit. The form and the 
 flavor of the fruit are predetermined by the norm of the 
 root. All are already previously nominated in the bond. 
 Only to a limited extent are such qualities and properties 
 subject to modification by environments. Life needs no 
 outward mold in which to cast its statuary or shape its 
 bust it will permit no such foreign interference without 
 a protest. All life constantly struggles toward the realiza- 
 tion of its own ideal. Such ideal is not a mere subject- 
 ive concept in mental fancy, but a veritable objective 
 and substantial pattern of the thing to come in an ex- 
 ternalized form. That which is to be has been, and 
 now is in type. Conformity to type is a fundamental 
 law in the world's proper evolution. This law is as 
 supreme in Nature as it is in the absolute religion. The 
 Church of the Middle Ages made many centuries of 
 ridiculous ecclesiasticism by its foolish and fruitless 
 attempts to legislate law into life and life into law. 
 Much of our statutory Protestantism and galvanic church- 
 ism is doing no better. Let modern theologians and 
 materialistic mound-builders in philosophy read history 
 aright and profit by its examples. Let them catch a 
 glimpse of the power of the world to come already 
 come and with uncovered heads do proper homage to 
 the invisible, yet substantial forces, which, like Moses of 
 old, build their tabernacles after the patterns brought 
 down from the Mount of God. When the recognition 
 
30 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 and acknowledgment of such invisible forces shall be- 
 come as general as demanded by the claims of truth, 
 Substantialism will receive an ovation worthy of the 
 principle it involves and commensurate with the blessing 
 it is able to impart to the family of man. 
 
 What a broad field is opening for the display of its 
 power and the distribution of its benefits to all the lovers 
 of truth! Passing through the wilderness of scholastic 
 chemistry, it will complete its thorough examination of 
 the present theory of force and energy, as already indi- 
 cated and pprtially accomplished in this book. In this 
 line of inquiry it will look a little more carefully into the 
 chemical laws of affinity, cohesion, and repulsion, and 
 show that some things hitherto treated as the properties 
 of matter are really the proprietors thereof. Continuing 
 its well-begun work in the domain of physics, it will per- 
 fect the new theory or sound and formulate its truths for 
 the general instruction of the laity in the rudiments of 
 scientific righteousness. Entering into the domain of 
 optics, it will pour new rays upon the subject of light, 
 recall Huygens and Newton to the witness stand, and 
 submit a few questions by way of cross-examination con- 
 cerning corpuscular emissions of luminous matter, ethe- 
 real jelly, and the undulatory theory in general. It will 
 also examine further into the presumptuous assumptions 
 chat gravity, magnetism, electricity and heat are not sub- 
 stantial entities and forces of nature. Encouraged with 
 its grand achievements in the lower departments of being, 
 it will direct its efforts toward heaven, and with a hush 
 of reverence, standing the scientific gates ajar, it will 
 enable man to look into the laboratory of Almighty God, 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 31 
 
 where the handiwork of the visible creation is made of 
 things that do not appear. It will continue to march its 
 invincible forces into the realm of mind, lay peceable 
 siege to the capital of intellectual empire, climb up into 
 the highest dome of finite thought, examine more thor- 
 oughly the substantial structure of the human soul and 
 demonstrate its constitutional power to survive the disso- 
 lution of its material environments. Neither shall the 
 pent-up Utica of sublunary things contract its powers. 
 Persevering in its searches to find out all that science can 
 know of God, it will conduct its disciples up into the ob- 
 servatory of the skies, and direct their most devout ef- 
 forts to ascertain the place of the more immediate pres- 
 ence of Him who evolves the stars like sparks from his 
 own substantial being, and sends them as scintillations 
 of his personal glory around the central throne of his 
 boundless empire. 
 
 Not for one moment can the name "philosophy" in its 
 broadest significance be consistently withheld from the 
 harmonious collection .of facts, phenomena and logical 
 deductions which was obliged to annihilate some univer- 
 sally accepted theories of science in order to lay its found- 
 ation stone on solid rock. Ordinarily such a collection 
 of facts, phenomena and deductions, depending entirely 
 upon their harmonious consistency for acceptance, might, 
 in best, be held as only a tentative theory or tolerated 
 hypothesis; but when such systematized collection or ar- 
 rangement is found not only entirely congruous in ac- 
 counting for all the phenomena involved, but which 
 comes before the public with the scalps of old theories 
 strung upon the girdle of its strength, nothing but edu- 
 
32 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 oated ignorance and unpardonable bigotry will refuse its 
 admission into the family of philosophies. 
 
 Such recognition is sure to come. Our philosophy has 
 force enough in its vigorous constitution to advance itself 
 into favorable acknowledgement. Having cleared and 
 secured its own right-of-way through the black forests of 
 unscientific fallacies, and having engineered the building 
 of its own iron road, it now claims to be the trunk line 
 of philosophic truth. Why not? Its claims are no more 
 courageous than consistent. Its testimonials are found 
 in the work already accomplished. Not only has the 
 road been built and ballasted, but is already being used 
 in shipping rich cargoes of newly discovered commodities 
 to all the established stations along its beneficent route. 
 Gentlemen, don't you hear the mighty thunderings of the 
 invisible engine and the musical rumblings of the wheels 
 of Substantial Commerce? If not, the fault is your own. 
 The really deaf are only they that will not hear. Do 
 you say that the claims of the new philosophy are con- 
 trary to the senses? Then show your consistency by pro- 
 fessing your infidelity in matters of religion. No man 
 can be a consistent Christian and deny the veritable ex- 
 istence of present invisible entities in the veritable and 
 substantial Kingdom of God which proclaims itself as 
 really at hand. Neither can any man be a philosopher or 
 scientist worthy of a place in the bright afternoon of the 
 nineteenth century and yet deny the existence of corre- 
 sponding, invisible entities in the Kingdom of Nature. 
 Moreover, the objective reality of religion does not de- 
 pend upon the testimony of the senses for its authentica- 
 tion to man's inward power of apppehension and ap- 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 33 
 
 proval. The same is true of the inward and real con- 
 stitution of Nature. In science as in Christianity, we 
 must endure as seeing the invisible: otherwise our theo- 
 ries and our hopes will fail to survive the test that shall 
 try every man's work of what sort it is. Testimony al- 
 lowable and valuable in the lower is not always admissable 
 in the higher courts by the wise rules and rulings of the 
 Superior bench. Therefore, if ia the absence of tactile 
 touch, or chemical test, or mechanical demonstration in 
 proof of its genuineness, the gospel of our philosophy 
 should remain hid, it is hid to them that are lost in the 
 meshes of materialism; in whom the god of mere matter 
 hath blinded the minds of them which believe not in the 
 invisible, and yet most fairly and fully authenticated en- 
 tities of the universe. 
 
 We repeat, therefore, that Substantialism can be con- 
 fined within the compass of an hypothesis no more than 
 it can be measured by the definition of a mere science. 
 It is a philosophy THE philosophy of the world and for 
 the world. Its primary mission is to deal with the ques- 
 tion of being, as that which underlies all science, and 
 enters into all philosophy. That which Aristotle 
 dreamed of as the " first philosophy/' is, in these last 
 days, to be studied and known and applied as the phi- 
 losophy of the absolute, so far as human reason may 
 have the power to comprehend the absolute in its deep 
 impulses and in the ever-expanding circles of its 
 unlimited domain. This bold claim must not be 
 confounded with the respective claims of other the- 
 ories whose fragments strew the highway of all past 
 philosophic research and inquiry. Descartes, in his 
 
34 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 theory of substance, thought that he had gotten down 
 to the bed-rock of truth; yet, with all the vigor of an 
 intellect that placed him in advance of his age, he barely 
 penetrated the cuticle of the question which he at- 
 tempted to solve. Besides, the fragmentary truths which 
 he did announce were comparatively of no lasting ben- 
 efit to applied and practical science. His lightning was 
 only seen in its flashes above the clouds. It was so 
 vividly brilliant that it could not exist in closer contact 
 with the practical affairs of the earth. Leibnitz dreamed 
 of pre-existent force, thought of eternal harmony in the 
 universe, projected his doctrine of substance, and formu- 
 lated his theory of the monads. Others have advanced 
 different theories, runging all the way from the most 
 ethereal idealism to the outward material crust of crea- 
 tion, and yet there is nothing upon record worthy to be 
 compared with the harmonious collection of facts, 
 phenomena, and logical deductions now known by its 
 founder and intelligent friends, and soon to be known 
 and read of all unprejudiced scholarly men as The Sub- 
 stantial Philosophy. 
 
 Why should the heathen rage, and the people imagine 
 a vain thing, because God in his providence has ef taken 
 the wise in their own craftiness" by placing a king upon 
 the holy hill of science? Is it not time for the star to 
 appear above the birthplace of something better than any- 
 thing now offered in the Talmudic traditions of scholastic 
 materialism? The hitherto dissatisfied yearnings and 
 searchings of earnest intellects demand something better. 
 The glory of the truth calls for something more true in 
 many of the prevailing theories of men. In fact the di- 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 35 
 
 versified fields of science require nothing short of a holy 
 catholic philosophy, just as really as the diversified fami- 
 lies of the earth and the divergent races of men need a 
 holy catholic religion to bring them convergingly back 
 to their original moorings, and conduct them thence to 
 the port of their proper destiny. Substantialism is cath- 
 olic in its constitution. Its catholicity consists in its 
 universal adaptability to every proper department of 
 human knowledge, and every legitimate inquiry of the 
 human mind after the nature of things, from the point 
 where they originate in the Personal Author of their 
 being on to the ultimate goal of their wisely and benefi- 
 cently ordained destiny. Sustaining this relation to the 
 absolute, the general, and the ultimate, no narrow lati- 
 tude can contract its powers. It is for science and for 
 religion; for reason and for faith; for time and for eter- 
 nity; for the solution of the problem of human life, here 
 and hereafter. In reverential imitation of the Incarnate 
 Truth, its mission is to bless all the nations of the earth. 
 Substantialism is not merely among, but above other 
 systems of philosophy. As such, its mission is to correct 
 the faults and supply the wants of others. They are in 
 need of it. Its immaterial corpuscular emissions will un- 
 stop the ears of the deaf, and the scintillations of its sub- 
 stantial light will fall as healing rays upon the eyeballs 
 of the blind. Like Joseph, after being persecuted, 
 stripped, sold, banished, imprisoned, tempted and slan- 
 dered by all the amorous hags in Potiphar's house, it will 
 still retain its virtue, rise by its own invisible force of 
 character into the highest place of earthly power, bind 
 the princes of scholasticism at pleasure, teach its senators 
 
36 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 wisdom, and furnish the corn of truth for its envious, 
 famishing and beggarly brothers. 
 
 Moreover, Substantialism has a higher mission than 
 merely to bring other theories and systems out of the ma- 
 terialistic wilderness in which for more than forty years 
 they have murmured and meandered in their fruitless at- 
 tempts to reach the scientific land of promise. Its face is 
 turned toward "the Jerusalem which is above." Among 
 all the vestal virgins that wait upon the Creator in the 
 grand temple of creation, it stands nearest to the most 
 sacred fires that burn upon the holy altar of the Christian 
 religion. Its last scope and purpose, as well as its great- 
 est glory, is to serve in the "more perfect tabernacle not 
 made with hands." Ministering thus in the sanctuary of 
 our holy religion, it will demonstrate in every prayer and 
 sermon that the command of God for man to believe in 
 the invisible entities and verities of the Gospel is no ex- 
 ception to his general mandate continually uttered and 
 echoed in every province of nature, and throughout every 
 realm of his expansive universe. Serving thus at the 
 altar of the Christian's God, the Substantial Philosophy 
 sustains a more immediate and intimate relation to the 
 "world without end," and ministers more directly and 
 beneficially to the deepest wants and yearnings of the 
 human spirit, than anything yet offered either in the cur- 
 rent teachings of science or the prevailing subjective the- 
 ories of undulatory religion. It is able to show by " many 
 infallible proofs," cited from every province of creation, 
 that while religion is above rationalism its claims are no 
 less rational than divine. No wonder, therefore, that 
 Substantialism approaches man with no ordinary power, 
 
THE 
 
 INTRODUCTORY IWIVERS1TY 
 and addresses him at the central point of hi* being where 
 the vital and connecting link of his personality holds 
 him in peculiar and blessed relation to the God of heaven 
 and the imperishable bliss of an endless hereafter. This 
 is the reason why thousands are either standing upon the 
 tip-toe of anxiety, or marshaling into line at the first tap- 
 pings of the Substantial drum. This, too, is the reason 
 why the new philosophy is gathering strength and march- 
 ing forward with a sweep of power that no prejudice can 
 resist. Let the good work go forward with the impetus 
 of its own constitutional impulse, accelerated by the mo- 
 mentum of its own progress, stimulated by the benefi- 
 cence of its own achievements, until empty idealism, on 
 the one hand, and bold materialism, upon the other, shall 
 burn the gods of their ridiculous idolatry, and hasten to 
 worship with admiration and respect before the superla- 
 tive truth of The Substantial Philosophy. 
 
The Substantial Philosophy. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SOUKCE OF BEI^G. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is the chief end of the universe? 
 
 ANSWER. The glory of God in the revelation of his 
 character to the rational intelligences thereof. 
 
 Q. 2. Who made all things? 
 
 A. The Infinite, Personal God, of whom all things 
 testify. 
 
 Q. 3. Did God make all things out of nothing? 
 
 A. Science teaches that out of nothing, nothing 
 comes. Ex niliilo nihilfit. 
 
 Q. 4. Out of what did God make or create all things? 
 
 A. He evolved, or created all things from Himself.* 
 
 * It is certain that no substance in the universe can be anni- 
 hilated, or cease to exist, however often it may change its 
 form, and it is equally a settled and indisputable principle of 
 science, that no substance, corporeal or incorporeal, can come 
 into existence or be created out of nothing, even by the aid of 
 infinite power. I am aware that this trenches upon one of the 
 prominent articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith, held 
 almost sacredly by large bodies of Christian believers in this 
 country and Europe. But there are certain axiomatic truths so 
 self -evidently settled even in the very roots of science, that to 
 controvert them by any article of religious belief is to fly into 
 the face of all science, and unnecessarily provoke disparage- 
 ment of religion itself, in the minds of cultivated scientific 
 investigators. Fortunately for religion, however, this article of 
 
40 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 5. Does not such teaching confront the human 
 mind with an insuperable difficulty? 
 
 A. This doctrine does not create the difficulty, but 
 recognizes its existence, and treats it in a manner most 
 in harmony with both reason and revelation. 
 
 Q. 6. How can the conclusion that God created all 
 things from himself be logically reached? 
 
 faith, which so positively teaches that God created all things 
 out of nothing, is not even claimed by its framers to be ex- 
 pressly taught in the sacred Scriptures, and, I may add my own 
 opinion, not even by any fair or necessary inference. In oppos- 
 ing the false views of scientists, and their per versions of Nature's 
 laws, nothing is more detrimental to success than incorporating 
 into such opposing arguments, religious hypotheses utterly un- 
 tenable and false in the very nature of things. Let us admit 
 all that is rationally and necessarily true in science, and it 
 gives us an infinitely firmer foothold to overthrow the temple 
 of the Philistines, without killing ourselves in the operation, as 
 did poor Sampson. 
 
 I am glad to agree here with the views of that radical and 
 critical thinker the Rev. Joseph Cook as I do upon al- 
 most all questions; though I have been forced to differ from 
 him in a few instances which have been frankly pointed out, 
 and which I trust will not offend that great scholar and Chris- 
 tian scientist. Upon the creation of the universe he distinctly 
 takes issue with the Westminster Confession. I quote a single 
 sentence: 
 
 " It is not my belief that everything was created from nothing, 
 nor do the authors of ' The Unseen Universe,' perhaps the most 
 suggestive book lately published on these intricate themes, af- 
 firm that." Lectures on Heredity, p. 121. 
 
 Then, if something cannot be created out of nothing, whence 
 came this material universe? Is matter eternal? If so, there 
 is something in the universe coexistent with, and consequently 
 equal, in this respect to, God himself. This would seem to be 
 inadmissable by all sincere theists, and hence matter, in the 
 grosser form of substance, as contradistinguished from the in- 
 corporeal substances before named, from which probably it was 
 derived, need not to have been eternal. But wherein, asks the 
 reader, would lie the difference, and how would it alter the case 
 
THE SOURCE OF BEING. 41 
 
 A. There is no logical way of reaching any other con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Q. 7. How do you reason in the matter? 
 
 A. ' Creation is finite. All existent, finite things had 
 a beginning. That which had a beginning must have 
 
 as to the substantial eternity of matter, if the incorporeal sub- 
 stance, from which matter in its grosser form has come, existed 
 from eternity ? It would not, I confess, relieve the hypothesis 
 of its inconsistency in the slightest degree, except to resolve all 
 matter, for example, first into Prof. Crooke's fourth state, or 
 Dr. Lockyers single elementary substance, then into the grosser 
 incorporeal elements of nature, in their various forms, such as 
 electricity, gravitation, magnetism and other forces; then into 
 the higher plane of incorporeal substance such as constitutes the 
 vital and mental powers of the organic world; finally into the 
 substantial elements of God's own eternal being, so to speak, 
 out of which, by His infinite power and wisdom He might have 
 condensed the various grades of substance down to the material 
 world itself. This would constitute God himself the source 
 from whence has been derived universal Nature, and answer 
 both the scientist and the Westminster Confession. I fancy, 
 however, the reader is shocked at this idea, and exclaims: 
 Pantheism ! But I believe a cool and careful consideration of 
 the whole question will not only relieve this supposition of its 
 apparently shocking character of pantheism, but will show it to 
 be the only possible or consistent method of harmonizing the 
 settled and axiomatic truths of science with the fundamental 
 truth of religion the existence of a personal God independent 
 of, and superior to Nature, while also maintaining His imma- 
 nence in Nature. The truth is, religious philosophers who have 
 undertaken of late to break down the materialistic theories of 
 advanced scientists, have been too much hampered by creed, 
 or else too fearful of trenching upon some popular religious 
 notions to grapple with these doctrines effectively, or without 
 converting their own weapons into boomerangs. The hampered 
 manner in which some recent attacks have been made upon 
 evolution, for example, by our leading clergymen, is suggestive 
 of the failure of the general who decided rather to lose the bat- 
 tle than to deviate from the tactics taught him in the military 
 academy. " Problem of Human Life," p. 32. 
 
42 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 started from that which was in the beginning. There- 
 fore the whole creation must have had its sole origin in 
 that which is not finite, in the Infinite it derived its 
 being from the Infinite One who had no beginning. 
 
 Q. 8. Does not such reasoning imply and require of 
 the human mind the full solution of a great mystery? 
 
 A. It implies, and reason requires, the acceptance of 
 the mystery. 
 
 Q. 9. Would it not be better to acknowledge the crea- 
 tion of all things out of nothing, and thus eliminate the 
 element of mystery from the problem under considera- 
 tion? 
 
 A. The mystery involved cannot be solved or disposed 
 of by any such treatment of the case. 
 
 Q. 10. Why not? 
 
 A. Because it is less rational to suppose and more dif- 
 ficult to conceive that all things were evolved out of 
 "nothing," created out of "nothing," as a manufac- 
 turing material, than to hold and teach in harmony 
 with science and the Bible that God made all things of 
 something, and that something- from Himself. 
 
 Q. 11. But is not such teaching pantheistic? 
 
 A. It is not. Pantheism* so blends and confounds 
 
 * No true philosopher can object to the doctrine of universal 
 substance until the substance of the Creator is proclaimed to be 
 identical with the substance of the creature, thus making God 
 and the universe substantially one. This latter, as we appre- 
 hend it, is pantheism, and the very marrow in the Spinozaen 
 bone of contention. And yet Spinoza was nearer the truth 
 than some modern philosophers who are continually putting 
 asunder what God has joined together. It is quite probable 
 that Spinoza sought to correct that old heresy of dualism which 
 had been hatched from the false conception of two primordial 
 principles mind and matter in eternal conflict. Intent upon 
 such reconciliation, and unmindful of danger in the opposite 
 direction, he fell into the vortex of pantheism. This is just 
 what Wilford Hall cannot do without violating all the laws of 
 
THE SOURCE OF BEING. 43 
 
 the Creator with creation as to ignore the proper distinc- 
 tion between the two. Besides, even such monstrous 
 pantheism would seem less ridiculous to a truly rational 
 and religious mind than the nonsensical theory which 
 represents God as taking a piece of "nothing" into his 
 infinite laboratory and there proceeding to place the 
 aforesaid material upon the anvil of this Omnipotence, 
 and hammer all the starry worlds therefrom, like sparks 
 into material being. 
 
 Q. 12. But would it not be better to leave science to 
 solve its own problems, and follow revelation exclusively 
 in a matter of this kind? 
 
 A. If science cannot assist us in attaining to a more 
 correct interpretation of the Bible, it has no proper mis- 
 sion among men, and is falsely so called. 
 
 Q. 13. But did not God reveal the truth in the Bible 
 so far as it is proper and possible for man to know any- 
 thing concerning the genesis of being? 
 
 A. God indeed made known his ways unto Moses, but 
 the great scribe and lawgiver nowhere represents Him as 
 having created the world out of nothing. 
 
 Q. 14.. Is not such teaching found in some of the con- 
 fessions and catechisms of Christendom? 
 
 consistency and rules of logic. If there is any danger it is in 
 the direction of dualism, and its imminence is not yet very 
 apparent. While he recognizes the dual structure of man as 
 the microcosm of Nature, and distinguishes between the cor- 
 poreal and incorporeal entities of the universe, he is both con- 
 scientious and consistent in proclaiming the one personal God' 
 as the fountain of all, over all, in all, and yet distinct from all. 
 If this is pantheism, we propose to " run into " it as far as our 
 holiest ambition will permit us to go; and still we expect to 
 keep close company with the most biblical Christians of all 
 ages. But it is not pantheism, and those who are trying to 
 kindle their censorial fires to burn such heretics had better save 
 their fuel and make a liftle effort to thaw the alarming frigid- 
 ty out of their own theological dormitories. 
 
44 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. It is so taught, but the Church has not yet been 
 freed from all error and led into all truth. 
 
 Q. 15. When will the Ch \irch attain to such infalli- 
 bility in the interpretation of the Bible? 
 
 A. Not until she has a more reasonable recognition 
 of the Fountain, forces and facts of the universe. 
 
 Q. 16. Is such a desirable state to be attained with- 
 out the aid of the Holy Spirit, spoken of and promised 
 in the Bible? 
 
 A. !Not at all. Yet the Holy Ghost is " the Spirit of 
 truth/ 5 and teaches more valuable lessons in true science 
 than in false theology. 
 
 Q. 17. What system of philosophy now holds and 
 teaches this true and tenable view of the origin of all 
 things? 
 
 A. Substantialism. 
 
 Q. 18. Does Substantialism undertake to prove the 
 existence of an Infinite God ? 
 
 A. True science, like the Bible, assumes the existence 
 of the personal Infinite, and then, like the Scriptures, 
 proceeds to denounce and demonstrate as a " fool " 
 (Psalm xiv. 1) the man who calls the existence of such a 
 being into question. 
 
 Q. 19. Why is such a man a fool? 
 A. Because he is destitute of that without which man 
 is not man. 
 
 Q. 20. What is that which is so essential to the con- 
 stitution of true humanity? 
 
 A. The Divine image, and the consequent God-con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 Q. 21. What do you mean by the God-consciousness 
 in man? 
 
 A. The innate idea, or proclamation of the human 
 soul that there is a God. 
 
THE SOURCE OF BEING. 45 
 
 Q. 22. Is this feeling universal? 
 
 A. It is general. Creation has its moral as well as 
 its physical monstrosities. 
 
 Q. 23. What is a monstrosity? 
 
 A. An unusual production; that which is monstrously 
 out of the common order of things. 
 
 Q. 24. What is the cause of monstrosities in the 
 human race? 
 
 A. Moral monstrosities are the extreme results of 
 moral separation from God. See chapter on Death. 
 
 0. 25. Is the innate God-consciousness full and satis- 
 factory evidence to rational beings that there is a God? 
 
 A. The inward is complemented and corroborated by 
 the outward. 
 
 Q. 26. Does true science tend to show this? 
 
 A. Science has no higher mission than to hold forth 
 the great truth that "the invisible things from the crea- 
 tion of the world are clearly seen through the things 
 that are made even his eternal power and Godhead." 
 
 Q. 27. Does Substantialism, then, teach that God is 
 the only and infinite source of all things, and that he is 
 manifested in all things? 
 
 A. It not only holds and teaches this truth, but also 
 sets it forth and demonstrates it in a manner and by ar- 
 guments entirely different from anything hitherto known 
 to science. It is now possible to see as never before in 
 philosophy, that "by Him are all things," and "that 
 which may be known of God is manifest in them." 
 
 Q. 28. What has been wrong with the most influential 
 philosophy of the world that it could not occupy the 
 vantage-ground recently taken and now held by Substan- 
 tialism? 
 
 A. It started in a materialistic conception of being, 
 and moved in a materialistic trend of reasoning, until the 
 learned world has been led either to believe an unscien- 
 
46 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 tific lie, or stultify itself by denying the conclusions of 
 its own logic. 
 
 Q. 29. What is now the trileinma confronting the 
 modern materialistic philosopher and all scientists who 
 accept not the truth and obey not the gospel of Substan- 
 tialism ? 
 
 A. They are compelled to yield an unwilling assent 
 to the substantial existence of God as the only source of 
 all things; acknowledge that all things were created out 
 of nothing, manipulated by a being who has no substan- 
 tial existence, or admit the eternity of matter. 
 
 Q. 30. Thus confronted, how do they exercise the 
 power of choice? 
 
 A. Some, with mincing daintiness, take hold of the 
 first horn, and then try to deny that God has a substan- 
 tial being in any real substantial sens. They argue that 
 because God is a spirit his essence cannot partake of the 
 nature of substance. It is impossible to follow these 
 ethereal philosophers, as they immediately soar away 
 through their own spiritual skies to find refuge behind 
 the plea of "mystery" and false reverence for their un- 
 substantial God. 
 
 Q. 31. What does the second class of anti-substantial- 
 ists do when caught in the meshes of this trilemma? 
 
 A. They choose the creation-out-of-nothing theory, 
 creep into the second horn, and come out at the little 
 end, advocating as their authority the confessions of the 
 Church, while they lay great stress upon the omnipotence 
 of their unsubstantial God, and of his alleged consequent 
 ability to do the most unnecessary and ridiculous thing 
 that false philosophy could conceive of. 
 
 Q. 32. How about the third class? 
 
 A. They are atheists, either from the start or from 
 the force of their own reasoning in the premises. They 
 are frequently men of great intellects, and honest enough 
 
THE SOURCE OF BEING. 47 
 
 to follow their own logic to its ultimate conclusions. 
 They start with the eternity of matter, and deny that 
 there is anything more than matter and its supposed phe- 
 nomena in the universe. 
 
 Q. 33. What conclusion is reached through the in- 
 ductions of the philosophy of this third class? 
 
 A. The evolution theory. 
 
 Q. 34. What does the evolution theory involve? 
 
 A. That matter, starting in the moneron or in a less 
 organic state, finally reaches its highest possible form of 
 organic being in man, and that mind is nothing more 
 than phenomena or molecular motion. 
 
 Q. 35. Does Substantialism claim that mind is sub- 
 stance? 
 
 A. That is just what Substantialism teaches concern- 
 ing mind and all other forces in nature. 
 
 Q. 36. What is meant by the forces of nature? 
 
 A. Those invisible entities which, under God, uphold 
 and move the universe toward its final goal. 
 
 Q. 37 Name some of these forces. 
 
 A. Cohesion, magnetism, electricity, gravity, heat, 
 light, sound, life, mind, spirit. They will each receive 
 attention at the proper time in detail. 
 
 Q. 38. But is not matter also a force? 
 
 A. Matter has no force whatever. It may even be 
 questioned whether matter could have an existence in 
 the withdrawal and absence of all the physical forces by 
 which it is now constantly permeated, reconstructed and 
 made to occupy its place and serve its purpose in the 
 scale of being. 
 
 Q. 39. Does not matter possess the possibility of self- 
 action?* 
 
 * This materialistic theory that molecules and their inherent 
 motion constitute all there is in a living body, is one of the most 
 mischievous, as well as one of the weakest, doctrines ever taught 
 
48 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. It possesses no such possibility whatever. It can- 
 not act upon itself, neither can it act upon or produce 
 that which is not itself. 
 
 Q. 40. Is there nothing in the favorable attitude or 
 combination of the different molecules in a lump of mat- 
 ter that can generate molecular motion? 
 
 A. Substantialism denies the miserable assumption. 
 
 Q. 41. But may not a mechanical power be brought 
 to bear upon matter so as to jostle its molecules into 
 action and thus produce an immaterial force per se9 
 
 for science. The very notion that the ultimate material mole- 
 cules of a body are normally separated hundreds of times their 
 diameters apart, and that they are inherently in ceaseless mo- 
 tion, flying hither and thither, without some real and substantial 
 force filling the spaces between them, as the medium of motion 
 or the cause of such movements, is so puerile and irrational a 
 supposition that it is simply inconceivable how physicists of 
 sufficient intellectual capacity to conduct a scientific experiment 
 could have fallen into it, much less have been satisfied with it 
 after it had been adopted. Let us illustrate: 
 
 Had the inventor of the molecular theory chanced to see a 
 simple enlargement of his idea exhibited by some ingenious 
 mechanic, in the shape of a thousand cannon balls flying with 
 an enormous velocity hither and thither, criss-cross, and every 
 way throughout a ten-acre field, at the same time constantly 
 clashing with each other and glancing off in new directions, but 
 with no let-up to their pell-mell bombardment, is it supposable 
 for one moment that, as an intelligent investigator, he would 
 not have suspected that such movements in inert material 
 masses must of necessity be produced by some substantial energy- 
 producing cause, such as that of compressed air, steam, gun- 
 powder, tensioned springs, or other source of adequate me- 
 chanical power? Would he. with less logical intuition and 
 acumen than the most untutored savage, look on at such a 
 marvelous exhibition of mechanical energy and skill, and with- 
 out even a grunt of reflective inquiry, not suspect that an in- 
 visible but substantial cause, as real as the cannon balls them- 
 selves, was doing all this work of hurling them with such force 
 
THE SOURCE OF DEING, 49 
 
 A. None but the unscientific heathen have believed 
 and taught such nonsense! 
 
 Q. 42. What will become of them? 
 
 A. Since Substantialism has made its appearance, 
 giving them a " second probation," they must now re- 
 pent of their false theories or find themselves scientific- 
 ally damned. 
 
 and velocity, and without which it would have been impossible 
 for them to move at all ? 
 
 It seems to us that a child old enough to walk would suspect, 
 on seeing an exhibition of this kind, that some power would be 
 necessary, even if invisible, to produce such wonderful physical 
 results, and at the same time that such motions, in the nature of 
 things, cannot be the power or energy which produces them! 
 Yet the originator of the molecular theory simply pushed this 
 very exhibition of cannon balls so far back into the invisible as 
 to satisfy his intellect that the reduced missiles, which he now 
 terms molecules and atoms (just as inert and incapable of mov- 
 ing themselves or of being moved without adequate force as 
 would be cannon balls or even mountains), actually propel 
 themselves without any substantial cause, or else that they gen- 
 erate, by their motion, the very force by which the motion is 
 produced /Dr. Hall, in Mic. Vol. V., p. 199. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What general term does true science 
 use in denominating the entities of creation? 
 
 ANSWER. Substance. 
 
 Q. 2. How are substances in general classified? 
 
 A. Into corporeal and incorporeal substances. 
 
 Q. 3. What are corporeal substances called? 
 
 A. Matter. 
 
 Q. 4. Whence is matter derived? 
 
 A. It was produced from the one primordial sub- 
 stance which pervades all space. 
 
 Q. 5. Who produced it? 
 
 A. The Infinite, Personal God the fountain and 
 source of all normal things, tangible or intangible. 
 
 Q. 6. What is usually meant by the tangibility of 
 matter? 
 
 A. Its ability to be seen, felt or otherwise touched 
 through one or more of the lower organs of sense. 
 
 Q. 7. What is the normal or natural state of matter? 
 
 A. The solid.* 
 
 * According to the Substantial Philosophy matter is considered 
 to be perfectly homogeneous. A mass of matter may have 
 porosity, but the matter itself is homogeneous. 
 
 When a mass of matter is expanded by the application of 
 heat, every particle (so to speak) expands a grain or the million 
 million millionth part or any further millionth part of a grain of 
 
MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. 51 
 
 Q. 8. It is generally held and extensively admitted 
 that the earth was formerly in a fluid state. Revelation 
 also teaches that the earth was founded upon the seas 
 and established upon the floods. How then can it be 
 scientifically and consistently held that the solid is the 
 normal condition of matter? 
 
 A. If matter was originally in the fluid state, it was 
 then only in the process toward its present solid and 
 normal condition: just as normal manhood is attained 
 through the processive age of childhood. 
 
 matter expands just as we see one pound or one ton expand. 
 The expansion is not due to the separation of the particles farther 
 apart, but to the expansion of every particle as the mass is seen 
 to expand. A gas is simply a highly attenuated condition of any 
 particular form of matter, and depends for its existence on the 
 temperature of the medium in which it is found. The normal 
 condition of all the elements and their compounds is the solid, 
 and this view was first pointed out by Dr. A. Wilford Hall. It 
 is on account of the presence of the substantial heat-force, in 
 different degrees, which determines whether an element or its 
 compounds can exist as a liquid or a gas. Deprive a liquid or 
 gas of its heat and the result is a solid. Experiment has shown 
 that if any of the gaseous elements, which exist as such at the 
 average temperature, be subjected to pressure and deprived of 
 some of their heat, they will condense to a liquid, which can be 
 poured from one vessel to another. The gaseous and liquid 
 states of matter are forced conditions, and depend for their ex- 
 istence on the temperature of the medium in which they exist. 
 
 As the word " particle " will be used frequently during the 
 course of this article, it is best to understand what is meant by 
 it when used in connection with the Substantial Philosophy. 
 
 A particle of matter is a small mass of matter which is capa- 
 ble of being divided into smaller particles, these into still smaller 
 particles, and so on ad infinitum. In other words, according to 
 the Subsl antial Philosophy, matter is subject to infinite divisi- 
 bility. 
 
 With these brief remarks let us proceed to consider such argu- 
 ments as have been advanced to show that matter is heteroge- 
 neous and not homogeneous. H. A. Mott, LL. D., Microcosm, 
 Vol. V., p. 103, 
 
52 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 9. But is not childhood a normal condition of 
 humanity? 
 
 A. It is only the normal process by which the perfect 
 stature of manhood is reached. Second childhood, or 
 the state of decrepitude, is abnormal. 
 
 Q. 10. May normal matter undergo a change as to 
 its state and form? 
 
 A. It is susceptible of change into many forms. 
 
 Q. 11. Can matter change itself? 
 
 A. No more than the Ethiopean can change his skin 
 or the leopard his spots. It is passive in all its trans- 
 itions and transformations. 
 
 Q. 12. How then is the change produced? 
 
 A. By some other substance which is not material. 
 
 Q. 13. What is the general term applied to all such 
 immaterial substances? 
 
 A. True science calls them the force elements of 
 nature, and they will be more fully .explained in the 
 next chapter. 
 
 Q. 14. What is the force element under which matter 
 is known to undergo its greatest changes from the 
 normal or solid state? 
 
 A. Heat. 
 
 Q. 15. What is heat? 
 
 A. The answer to this question will be more fully 
 given hereafter. 
 
 Q. 16. Is matter composed of parts? 
 A. A lump of matter is composed of parts, and yet 
 each part is subject to infinite divisibility. 
 
 Q. 17. What is one of these parts called? 
 A. When fractionally reduced to minute dimensions 
 it is called a particle. 
 
 Q. 18. What holds these particles together in the 
 solid or normal condition of matter? 
 
MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. 53 
 
 A. They are held together by the substantial force of 
 cohesion which will be more fully explained at the proper 
 time in one 01 the chapters of this book. 
 
 Q. 19. Can a particle of matter, or any portion thereof, 
 become anything else than matter? 
 
 A. It cannot not even by a process of division ex- 
 tending unto infinity. 
 
 Q. 20. May it not by chemical process become some- 
 thing different from matter? 
 
 A. Neither the ancient science of alchemy nor mod- 
 ern chemistry have achieved any such results. 
 
 Q. 21. Does not materialism teach that matter can 
 develop itself into mind? 
 
 A. It so teaches; but such materialism is an unscien- 
 tific fraud, and teaches an untenable theory of falsehood. 
 
 Q. 22. May not a drop of water be divided into parts, 
 and any one of its parts or particles be separated into hy- 
 drogen and oxygen? 
 
 A. The process of such division or'chemical analysis 
 does not convert water into hydrogen and oxygen: they 
 already existed, and in their chemical union constituted 
 water. Water is a compound material substance, and by 
 certain known process may be analyzed or decomposed 
 into its constituents. 
 
 Q. 23. May not one of the constituents of a compound 
 substance be changed into something else? 
 
 A. If such a constituent be itself a compound, it 
 may be analyzed, or undergo further decomposition. 
 
 Q. 24. The end of such process being reached, what 
 have we? 
 
 A. We have a simple material substance, or matter 
 purely homogeneous. 
 
 Q. 25. What is meant by the homogenity of matter? 
 A. That matter, properly considered, is a simple ma- 
 
54 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 terial substance which cannot be decomposed or analyzed 
 by any power or process known to chemistry. 
 
 Q. 26. What is this simple, material, homogeneous 
 substance called when considered in its relation to other 
 simple substances as they all enter into the constitution 
 of a compound? 
 
 A. It is called an element. 
 
 Q. 27. How many distinct elements are now known 
 to chemistry? 
 
 A. About sixty-eight about the number of books 
 constituting the complete volume of God's Eevelation to 
 man. 
 
 Q. 28. Has a simple or homogeneous particle of mat- 
 ter any different elements in its being? 
 
 A. It has not. If it had, it would be heterogeneous. 
 
 Q. 29. To whom is science now indebted for demon- 
 strating that matter is homogeneous and not heterogene- 
 ous? 
 
 A. To Dr. Mott, in various articles in the Micro- 
 cosm. 
 
 Q. 30. Is the smallest possible particle of matter 
 porous? 
 
 A. Porosity ends where indivisibility begins. 
 
 Q. 31. Where is that? 
 
 A. Just one point on the other side of infinity. 
 
 Q. 32. But is not a particle divisible into molecules 
 or atoms? 
 
 A. A particle is still divisible into smaller particles, 
 and there can be no serious objection to calling a small 
 particle a molecule, but it is still nothing less than a 
 particle of the same size and nothing more than matter. 
 
 Q. 33. Why then are these small particles called 
 molecules? 
 
 A. To use them as pepper for the eyes of unsuspect- 
 
MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. 55 
 
 ing dupes and gullions to get them out of the chemical 
 domain into the realm of legerdemain. 
 
 Q. 34. Is there really such a thing as legerdemain in 
 science? 
 
 A. Yes, in false science. 
 
 Q. 35. Why do learned men resort to such things? 
 
 A. To cover up and hide the defect? and deformities of 
 false theories. 
 
 Q. 36. What is this whole system of false theories in 
 chemistry and physics called? 
 
 A. It is known by the general and appropriate term 
 materialism. 
 
 Q. 37. But is it not just as proper to use the term 
 materialism as it is to speak of Substantialism? 
 
 A. We do not object to the use of the term,, although 
 its apostles tacitly ignore that more important side of 
 God's creation which is not material, but we protest 
 against its positive falsification of the facts of nature, 
 and the unwarrantable conclusions to which its false 
 reasoning leads. 
 
 Q. 38. In what does materialism falsify the facts of 
 nature? 
 
 A. It attributes to matter forces which are independ- 
 ent thereof, and superior thereto. 
 
 Q. 39. What are these forces? 
 
 A. They will receive general attention in the next 
 chapter, and be treated more specifically in the following 
 chapters of this book. 
 
 Q. 40. Is there then nothing but transformality, di- 
 visibility and porosity predicable of matter? 
 
 A. Matter has other properties. 
 
 Q. 41. Will you name a few of the properties of mat- 
 ter? 
 
 A. Inertia, impenetrability, transparency, and elas- 
 ticity. 
 
56 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 42. What is the inertia of matter? 
 
 A. Its inability to move itself, and to cease moving 
 when in motion. 
 
 Q. 43. What is meant by the impenetrability of mat- 
 ter? 
 
 A. That peculiar property thereof by which it ex- 
 cludes other matter from the same space it occupies. 
 
 Q. 44. Is matter absolutely impenetrable? 
 
 A. It does not exclude all substances from the place 
 it occupies, as will be shown hereafter. 
 
 Q. 45. What is meant by the transparency of matter? 
 
 A. Its penetrability so far as it is able to receive 
 light. 
 
 Q. 46. Are all material bodies penetrable by light? 
 
 A. No; only such as have the ability to receive it. 
 
 Q. 47. Does light give matter its transparency? 
 
 A. No. Some bodies of matter have transparency in 
 their constitutional structure, and the entrance of light 
 gives them penetrability before the power of vision. 
 
 Q. 48. Is elasticity a property of matter? 
 
 A. It is a peculiar property in matter. 
 
 Q. 49. Of what is elasticity a property? 
 A. It is the effect of cohesion or constructive force 
 operative in some kinds of matter. 
 
 Q. 50. Is this cohesion and constructive force found 
 in all bodies of matter? 
 
 A. No; only in such as have the potential ability to 
 receive it. 
 
 Q. 51. In the process of change from one state to 
 another, say from the solid to the fluid, or the gaseous 
 form, is it possible for matter to suffer diminution or 
 loss of any of its particles? 
 
 A. We have no authority in either Revelation or 
 science for believing or teaching that God will permit 
 
MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. 5? 
 
 the annihilation of anything which He has made, and 
 which belongs properly to His creation. Out of nothing 
 nothing comes, and unto nothing nothing goes. 
 
 Q. 52. Is the material part of the universe therefore 
 everlasting? 
 
 A. Not in its present form. 
 
 Q. 53. Will the material heavens and earth undergo a 
 radical change? 
 
 A. They shall perish, and wax old as doth a gar- 
 ment, and they shall be changed. 
 
 Q. 54. Will there then be no more heavens and no 
 more earth? 
 
 A. There shall be new heavens and a new earth. 
 
 Q. 55. Will they be any less real or substantial than 
 the present heavens and earth, in whose constitution the 
 material elements now serve their purpose? 
 
 A. They will be more so indeed. The immaterial is 
 more real and more truly substantial than the corporeal. 
 
 Q. 56. Will the new heavens continue forever? 
 
 A. They who seek a more enduring substance shall 
 find a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens. 
 That which is eternal in the heavens is most probably in 
 the eternal heavens. 
 
 Q 57. Will there, then, be nothing material about the 
 new heavens and their contents? 
 
 A. Whatever of material substance enters into the 
 constitution of the future heavens, with the inhabitants 
 thereof and their environments, will be more highly at- 
 tenuated and refined than matter in its present state. 
 
 Q. 58. Through what agencies will this great change 
 be wrought? ^ 
 
 A. Science teaches that heat is the great chemical 
 dissolvent, and Revelation proclaims that the day cometh 
 that shall burn as an oven, that the elements of matter 
 shall melt with fervent heat. 
 
58 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 59. Will matter then continue to exist in the 
 melted or fluid form as a vast and universal sea of molten 
 material? 
 
 A. Reason teaches that God would not permit matter 
 to have a perpetual existence in any one of its abnormal 
 states, and Revelation teaches that there shall be no more 
 sea, except the sea of glass before his throne. 
 
 Q 60. What is primarily signified by the celestial sea 
 of glass? 
 
 A. It signifies that God's whole creation, which now 
 groaneth and travaileth in pain for deliverance from its 
 present comparative opacity, shall be so renovated as to 
 its morals, so refined arid attenuated as to its material, 
 and so rendered transparent as to the full and ultimate 
 scope of its meaning, as to admit the effulgent light of 
 the great white throne, and mirror back the image of the 
 " King in his beauty." 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 IMMATERIAL FORCES. 
 
 QUESTION 1. Since matter is inert, and consequently 
 incapable of moving itself, and since it is equally incapa- 
 ble of generating a motor-power of its own, whence is it 
 that the material substance of creation is made to serve 
 the progessive purpose of God in the vast machinery or 
 organism of the universe? 
 
 ANSWER. By Force. 
 
 Q. 2. What is force? 
 
 A. It is the energy which God imparted to creation 
 in the constitution of the universe, and which he still 
 continues to communicate thereto in his providential 
 maintenance, movements, and government thereof. 
 
 Q. 3. Does he impart or communicate this energy 
 from himself? 
 
 A. He does. There is no other primary source of en- 
 ergy or force. 
 
 Q. 4. Is the force element thus present in creation a 
 constitutional and essential part thereof? 
 
 A. So science teaches us to believe, and honesty com- 
 pels us to affirm. 
 
 Q. 5. Is not this force element in creation just what 
 the " Heidelberg Confession " teaches in question twenty- 
 seven to be "the almighty and everywhere-present power 
 of God/' and is not this "power" merely an abstract 
 attribute of the Deity without entity or substance? 
 
 A. There is no conflict between the above-named 
 
60 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 question of the old Reformation catechism and Substan- 
 tialism, unless the former be so interpreted as to teach 
 that the real and entitative universe can be maintained, 
 propelled, and governed by the nonentity of an ab- 
 straction. 
 
 Q. 6. But is not this the old heresy of emanationism 
 revived? 
 
 A. It is no more heretical to admit that energy pro- 
 ceeds from the Creator to creation than for infallible 
 inspiration to teach that virtue went forth from the Son 
 of God to heal the sick. 
 
 Q. 7. But does not such reasoning lead logically to 
 the conclusion that the flowing forth of energy from the 
 fountain diminishes the amount of energy therein? 
 
 A. That which is infinite cannot be diminished. At 
 least the Christian scientist will not admit that Christ 
 was any less virtuous after the efflux of healing force from 
 his person. 
 
 Q. 8. Does Substantialism, then, teach that some 
 things have a real entitative existence without being com- 
 posed of matter? 
 
 A. It so teaches with all the assurance that ascer- 
 tained facts justify, and with all the emphasis that obvi- 
 ous truth inspires. 
 
 Q. 9. Does it teach that these immaterial entities are 
 either infinite or spiritual? 
 
 A. According to Substantialism they are not neces- 
 sarily the one or the other. 
 
 Q. 10. How are the finite forces of creation classified? 
 
 A. They may be classified as vital and nonvital forces. 
 
 Q. 11. What are the nonvital forces called? 
 
 A. They may be denominated as the chemical or phys- 
 ical forces of nature. 
 
 Q. 12. How many physical forces are there in nature? 
 A, Their number is not known any more than the 
 
IMMATERIAL FORCES. 61 
 
 number of distinct elements in the domain of material 
 substances. 
 
 Q. 13. Will you name a few of the known forces of 
 nature? 
 
 A. Leaving odor as yet somewhat questionable in its 
 real constitution and nature, the Substantial Philosophy 
 is at present pushing seven different immaterial sub- 
 stances into the scientific arena of the world, emphasizing 
 them as among the fundamental forces of nature, with a 
 general challenge to the scientific world to dispute the 
 claim that it respectfully and yet defiantly makes in 
 their behalf. 
 
 Q. 14. What are these seven forces? 
 A. They are cohesion, gravity, magnetism, electricity, 
 light, heat and sound* 
 
 Q. 15. Are not these seven forces but one force with 
 different offices and operations in the extensive and man- 
 ifold realm of the physical department of finite being? 
 
 A. They are one in their primordial source and es- 
 
 * To teach, as do the received theories of science and philos- 
 ophy, that the physical forces of Nature, such as light, heat, 
 sound, magnetism, gravity, electricity, etc., are but modes o/ 
 motion among material particles, and not themselves substantial 
 entities, is as irrational and unsatisfactory to the mind of an in- 
 telligent Substantialist as to teach that the invisible spring in 
 the clock-case is only a mode of motion of the clock-wheels 
 which it drives. Substantialism therefore repudiates this notion 
 that any force of Nature is but a mode of motion; and hence it 
 claims as among its fundamental principles and original dis- 
 coveries that sound, as well as light and heat, instead of being a 
 mode of motion, is a real immaterial but substantial emanation 
 from the sources whence it radiates; and that but for trying to 
 make light and heat material emanations, as did Newton and 
 others in his day, instead of making them what they really are 
 immaterial entities the true Substantial Philosophy might 
 have been inaugurated a hundred years ago. Dr. Hall in the 
 Microcosm, vol. iv., p. 22, 
 
62 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 sence, and yet, like the seven spirits of God spoken of in 
 Revelation, proceeding from the same Spirit-fountain of 
 all, they are as distinct from each other as they are in- 
 separable from their common origin. Like the seven 
 colors in the rainbow, all of which proceed from the same 
 common source of light and yet form distinct arches in 
 Heaven's beautiful token of the Covenant with man, these 
 seven forces of nature, when seen in the light of true 
 science, constitute another arch of hope and promise that 
 creation shall not be forever deluged with the destructive 
 flood of materialistic philosophy, whose murky waters are 
 even now beginning to abate from the face of the earth. 
 
 Q. 16. Does Substantialism, then, teach that these 
 distinct forms of force, and the several simple elemental 
 substances denominated matter, have all been evolved 
 from and produced by the same Infinite source of all 
 being? 
 
 A. It so teaches unequivocally. 
 
 Q. 17. Are the adherents of the Substantial Philoso- 
 phy, then, to understand that force is a mere highly at- 
 tenuated form of matter?. 
 
 A. While force and matter have a common source of 
 existence, they differ qualitatively as to their respective 
 essences, as well as in the positions and purposes assigned 
 them in the dual constitution and progressive economy 
 of the universe. 
 
 Q. 18. Who first advanced and advocated these essential 
 and revolutionary tenets of philosophy? 
 
 A. Dr. A. Wilford Hall, of 23 Park Row, Ne^ York. 
 
 Q. 19. In what college or university was he schooled 
 in the principles and laws of physical science? 
 
 A. Instead of slavishly following the beaten path of 
 old and current theories, he placed and pressed his ear 
 upon the warm bosom of Nature, and felt the instinctive 
 throbbings of her sympathetic heart. 
 
IMMATERIAL FORCES. 63 
 
 Q. 20. Was not this presumption on the part of the 
 founder of Substantialism? 
 
 A. Yes, it was just such presumption as that which 
 gave Socrates honor above Sophists, Harvey an enviable 
 distinction in medical history, and Gallillea an immor- 
 tality of glory that fadeth not away. 
 
 Q. 21. Did not Dr. Hall take a paradoxical position 
 and pursue an unpopular course in crossing the paths of 
 current and accepted theories in science as taught in all 
 the old institutions of learning throughout the world? 
 
 A. His position was at first very unpopular. It is 
 not so unpopular to-day. 
 
 Q. 22. But is not the voice of the people the voice of 
 God? 
 
 A. Nonsense! In heaven the saying is true; on earth 
 it is generally false. 
 
 Q. 23. Was his course warranted by anything found 
 in Eevelation? 
 
 A. Yes, the Bible teaches that the wisdom of the 
 world is foolishness with God. 
 
 Q. 24. Why is it foolishness with God? 
 
 A. Because it is false, and its teachings not on a 
 line parallel with the facts as God has ordained them, 
 and as he would have them known in the study of his 
 Word and works. 
 
 Q. 25. Did the founder of Substantialism ignore 
 everything that science had already achieved in its ef- 
 forts to interpret Nature's entities and laws? 
 
 A. He did not. He rather made himself familiar 
 with the teachings of the past in order not only to know 
 the fundamental errors of many of its teachings, but also 
 to enrich himself with the wheat of truth which he found 
 in a great amount of theoretical chaff. 
 
 Q. 26. Does Substantialism consist merely of the 
 
64 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 truth as found only in the old theories after winnowing 
 the chaff of error therefrom ? 
 
 A. While the Substantial Philosophy accepts and 
 teaches some truths previously taught, it is radically dif- 
 ferent, as to its essential and distinguishing principles, 
 from anything hitherto taught as science. 
 
 Q. 27. What is the fundamental principle of the 
 Substantial Philosophy which distinguishes it from, and 
 makes it superior in truth and excellence to the current 
 teachings of' the schotols? 
 
 A. The Substantial Philosophy teaches that every- 
 thing in the universe, visible or invisible, tangible or in- 
 tangible, corporeal or incorporeal, of which the mind 
 can form a positive concept, is a real substance or objec- 
 tive entity.* 
 
 Q. 28. In what 'publication did this new philosophy 
 first appear and challenge investigation by the learned 
 and thinking world? 
 
 A. In the "Problem of Human Life." 
 
 Q. 29. When did Dr. Hall give this revolutionary 
 book to the public? 
 
 A. In 1877. 
 
 Q. 30. Does the birth of Substantialism bear the 
 same date as its formal announcement to the world? 
 
 A. It dates a number of years prior to the first ap- 
 pearance of the "Problem." 
 
 Q. 31. But was not this same doctrine advanced and 
 advocated by other philosophers previous to the inaugura- 
 tion of Substantialism? 
 
 A. If so, no record thereof is found upon the pages 
 of history. 
 
 Q. 32. Is it not an accepted and announced tenet of 
 the Christian religion that God is a substance? 
 
 * See The SubstantiaUsf s Creed, Scientific Arena, vol. I. p. 6, 
 
IMMATERIAL FORCES. 65 
 
 A. The Nicene Creed, one of the Catholic or Ecu- 
 menical confessions of Patristic Christianity, taught that 
 Christ was "of one substance with the Father," but the 
 subsequent trend of theological science has been so much 
 in the direction of a spiritualistic interpretation of every- 
 thing concerning the infinite God that any proper idea of 
 substance, as once held by the Church Fathers, has been 
 measurably spirited away or ignored by the world's most 
 popular and influential theologians. 
 
 Q. 33. But is not God a spirit? 
 
 A. God is indeed a spirit, and just as really a sub- 
 stance. 
 
 Q. 34. But the materialistic philosophy, at whose 
 doors Substantialism. continually lays the charge of 
 heresy, is certainly far enough removed from the spirit- 
 ualistic conception and construction of being. What, 
 then, is the matter with materialism ? 
 
 A. Materialism lies upon one side of the truth, while 
 spiritualisticism in religion, and idealism in philos- 
 ophy, are found in the opposite extreme. Between these 
 two extremes the pendulum of restless inquiry after the 
 truth has been swinging through all the centuries from 
 Platonism to Agnosticism, and it were strange, indeed, 
 if, in its constant oscillations, it did not pass near the 
 truth, even though it had no power until recently to tarry 
 in the vicinity thereof. 
 
 Q. 35. But did not Descartes and Leibnitz advance 
 the doctrine of substance several centuries ago? 
 
 A. It is true that these two great philosophers spoke 
 of substance, monads, and pre-existent things, yet they 
 were so high upon their transcendental stilts of theoret- 
 ical speculation that the world has finally abandoned any 
 further attempt to arrive at anything like a clear and 
 satisfactory solution of their ethereal subtleties. 
 
 Q. 36. Is not Substantialism also charged with being 
 equally incomprehensible? 
 
66 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. Its adherents have found no such fault. On the 
 contrary, they agree that it is more rational and lucid 
 than any other equally profound and extensive system of 
 thought that ever challenged the candid consideration of 
 thoughtful, intelligent, and unprejudiced minds. 
 
 Q. 37. What good reason can be assigned for the fact 
 that the Substantial Philosophy is being received with 
 such unprecedented enthusiasm and delight by those 
 who are willing to examine its claims upon their impar- 
 tial consideration? 
 
 A. The answer is simple. Man was made for the 
 truth, and it is only when the truth remains undiscov- 
 ered, or when discovered by the leaders it is for sinister 
 purposes withheld from the masses, or when the masses 
 have become perverse and obstinate under a long reign of 
 error that they choose to believe a lie in preference to the 
 truth. - 
 
 Q. 38. But may it not in truth be said that the cur- 
 rent materialistic theories of philosophy have met with a 
 general reception for many years and throughout the 
 scholastic world? 
 
 A. These theories have been received and taught for 
 want of something better, just as a majority of the hu- 
 man family are now worshiping idols for want of a 
 knowledge of the true God. There is, however, not that 
 enthusiasm in false philosophy that there is in false 
 religion. 
 
 Q. 39. Why are men less enthusiastic in false philos- 
 ophy than they are in false religion? 
 
 A. Because in philosophy truth is the only thing 
 sought after, while in religion there are other elements 
 besides truth entering into the constitution of that which 
 its votaries regard as the summum bonum, or chief good. 
 
 Q. 40. Is it not true that hitherto many have given a, 
 reluctant assent to some of the current theories of 
 
, 
 
 IMMATERIAL FORCES. ti7 
 
 science, for the sole reason that there was nothing better 
 to take their places in the curriculum of the schools? 
 
 A. Thousands of men converted by and to the truth 
 of the Substantial Philosophy are ready to so testify as 
 soon as their unconverted neighbors are willing to call 
 them to the witness-stand. 
 
 Q. 41. Will God hold men responsible for clinging to 
 error where the truth has not been revealed? 
 
 A. Possibly not. But the truth has been revealed 
 from the very throne of Nature, and therefore the times 
 of such unscientific ignorance will be no longer winked 
 at by Him who is anxious and has made it possible for 
 all men to come to a scientific knowledge of the truth. 
 
 Q. 42. What then is the only remaining condemna- 
 tion? 
 
 A. That new substantial scientific light has come into 
 the world, and some men choose darkness rather than 
 light because popular error is regarded as more respect- 
 able than unpopular truth. 
 
 Q. 43. Does Substantialism teach the correlation of 
 forces? 
 
 A. It does. 
 
 Q. 44. What is meant by such correlation? 
 
 A. That the several physical forces sustain mutual or 
 correlative relations with each other. 
 
 Q. 45. Are these forces convertible one into another? 
 
 A. Under favorable conditions, and within certain 
 limitations, they are. 
 
 Q. 46. Is force therefore destructible? 
 
 A. Science teaches the conservation of energy. Force, 
 like matter, cannot be annihilated. 
 
 Q. 47. What then is meant by the convertibility of 
 force? 
 
 A. It means its transformability, or its ability to 
 exist under another form of force or energy. Thus elec- 
 
68 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 tricity, by virtue of their common correlative relation to 
 each other, may be converted or transformed into heat, 
 light, magnetism or sound, or all of them. 
 
 Q. 48. Are the doctrines advanced in this chapter 
 controverted by any authorities upon the subject. 
 
 A. The teachings of Substantial ism are radically at 
 variance with accepted authorities on the most essential 
 points involved in the general science of physics. 
 
 Q. 4-9. What are accepted authorities? 
 
 A. Text-books in common use and the acknowledged 
 educators throughout the learned world. 
 
 Q. 50. Who are those representative men or personal 
 standards of authority upon the facts and laws of phys- 
 ical science? 
 
 A. Prof. P. G. Tait, of the University of Edinburgh, 
 is quite generally regarded as most ably and fairly repre- 
 senting the most advanced scientific thought, so far as 
 there can be any such thing as really scientific thought 
 in harmony with the current and accepted, theories in 
 physics. 
 
 Q. 51. Then Substantialism is not engaged in the 
 sham-battle of fighting a man of straw? 
 
 A. No, indeed. There is no straw in the powers 
 against which Substantialism wrestles, except that which 
 is found in the bundle of dry theories, and which will 
 give them combustibility in the near future, when every 
 man's work is to be tested of what sort it is. 
 
 Q. 52. What is Prof. Tait's position, and what does 
 he teach concerning force as he sounds and resounds the 
 key-note of the old campaign in physical science? 
 
 A. In a lecture recently delivered before a learned 
 audience,* he asserts that " there is probably no such 
 
 * In Edinburgh. See the destructive review of the lecture by 
 Dr. Hall and Dr. Mott in Microcosm, Vol. V., p. 1. 
 
IMMATERIAL FO14CES. 69 
 
 thing as force at all." "That it is, in fact, merely a 
 convenient expression for a certain rate" "the rate or 
 change of momentum/' The fact is, that in the near 
 future those who are now denying the existence of the 
 most essential elements and entities in God's creation 
 will learn, to their confusion and chagrin, that force is 
 not a mere "convenient expression," but a very ^con- 
 venient fact and substance throughout the veritable uni- 
 verse of God, and an entity that can never be satisfacto- 
 rily explained from the false standpoint still occupied by 
 the advocates of current theories in physical science. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 COHESION". 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is cohesion? 
 
 ANSWER. It is that form of force in Nature which 
 unites like particles of matter together in a homogeneous 
 mass. 
 
 Q. 2. Is cohesion a substance? 
 
 A. It is an immaterial substance, just as real as the 
 material particles of matter under its control. 
 
 Q. 3. Whence is cohesion derived? 
 
 A. Like all forms of force in the universe it is 
 evolved or created from the Personal Infinite and Abso- 
 ute Fountain of all normal energy. 
 
 Q. 4. Has cohesion an existence outside of matter? 
 
 A. Cohesion, like the other forces, was prior to mat- 
 ter, is superior to matter, and, therefore, independent of 
 matter. Matter, however, affords cohesion an opportu- 
 nity to manifest itself in the phenomena of nature. 
 
 Q. 5. Does Substantialisrn then teach that cohesion is 
 not a property of matter? 
 
 A. This, indeed, is one of the essential tenets and 
 teachings of the Substantial Philosophy. Instead of ex- 
 isting as a mere property of matter, cohesion is rather 
 one of the proprietors thereof. 
 
 Q. 6. In what sense is cohesion proprietory in matter? 
 
 A. In a limited degree it possesses and governs matter 
 by holding its particles in normal relation with each 
 other. 
 
COHESION. 71 
 
 Q. 7. Is cohesion recognizable through the evidences 
 of our senses? 
 
 A. It is not, except as to its effects. As a substantial 
 but immaterial entity it addresses itself to our higher 
 faculty of reason. In the proper exercise of this rational 
 and supersensuous faculty its true nature may be profit- 
 ably studied until it shall be perfectly known by its de- 
 monstrable effects upon matter. 
 
 Q. 8. Does cohesion hold the particles of matter into 
 absolutely close contact with each other? 
 
 A. As close as that property of matter known as 
 porosity will admit. 
 
 Q. 9. But can the inferior properties of mere matter 
 interfere with or limit the action of the superior sub- 
 stantial force elements of nature? 
 
 A. The forces of nature never act upon matter or in 
 matter in such way as to do violence to matter, or to any 
 of its properties or laws. The higher kingdom may suf- 
 fer violence, but it never does violence to the kingdom or 
 order of being next beneath it, and to which, according 
 to the general providence of the " King invisible," it con- 
 descends as a benefactor. 
 
 Q. 10. Is all matter porous? 
 
 A. Gold is as really porous as sponge. Under suffi- 
 cient pressure, water may be forced through a body or 
 plate of gold. 
 
 Q, 11. Does Substantialism then teach that the sub- 
 stantial force elements of nature penetrate matter by 
 virtue of its porosity? 
 
 A. This is just what Substantialism does not teach. 
 With all the emphasis that truth justifies, it teaches the 
 opposite doctrine. Some of the forces of nature pass 
 through platinum and glass more freely than they would 
 through a sponge or sieve, and yet platinum and glass 
 are considered impervious to and impenetrable by matter. 
 
72 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 12. Then cohesion does not reside in normal mat- 
 ter by virtue of its pores or interstices? 
 
 A. Not at all. As stated in a former chapter, mate- 
 rial substances are not absolutely impenetrable, as taught 
 in the current theories of Natural Philosophy. Im- 
 material substances and substances material may dwell 
 together in the same place, even when such place is 
 reduced in dimensions to the smallest possible measure 
 of finite extension. 
 
 Q. 13. Are the several force elements of Nature ca- 
 pable of being penetrated by each other? Is impenetra- 
 bility a property of immaterial substance? 
 
 A. It can be shown beyond dispute, that two or more 
 of the forces may dwell together in the same place that 
 they neither exclude each other from the same identical 
 locality, encroach upon each other's right-of-way, as they 
 severally move forward upon their respective missions, 
 nor stumble over each other until they tumble into con- 
 fusion like many of the untruthful theories of modern 
 materialistic philosophy. 
 
 Q. 14. But do not the several normal force elements 
 sometimes destructively antagonize each other by their 
 respective operations in and through nature? 
 
 A. Only in appearance is such antagonism destruc- 
 tive. They are as really co-operative in their services as 
 they are correlative in the one grand purpose of God, 
 and the one great solution of Nature's complex and com- 
 prehensive problem. 
 
 Q. 15. Which one of the force elements of Nature 
 seems to be destructively antagonistic to cohesion? 
 
 A. As stated elsewhere, heat, among the forces is the 
 great dissolvent, and therefore may be regarded as the 
 most direct counteractant of cohesion. 
 
 Q. 16. What degree of heat is required to overcome 
 cohesion in metal? 
 
COHESION. 73 
 
 A. Different degrees are required in different metals. 
 
 Q. 17. Why is less heat required in one metal than in 
 another?* 
 
 A. Because in some metals the particles of matter 
 are so arranged that heat and cohesion operate more 
 correlatively than in others. 
 
 Q. 18. How many degrees of heat, respectively, are 
 required to overcome cohesion in lead, tin, and bismuth? 
 
 A. Lead requires 619 deg. F., tin 442 deg. F., and 
 bismuth 510 deg. F. 
 
 Q. 19. What then should be the mean melting point 
 when in a certain proportion alloyed? 
 
 * Take another illustration, which a beginner in physical sci- 
 ence will comprehend, but which no physicist has ever at- 
 tempted to explain, simply because it is inexplicable according 
 to any present scientific theory. We refer to the well-known 
 fact that a certain proportionate alloy of lead, tin and bismuth 
 will fuse at 201 deg. F., while lead's fusing point is 619 deg., tin's 
 fusing point is 442 deg., and that of bismuth is 510. deg. Why 
 is it that these metals when mixed will melt at less than half the 
 heat required by the lowest, and less than one third the heat re- 
 quired by the highest of the three metals constituting the alloy ? 
 Surely here is a problem worth attacking by science. But diffi- 
 cult as it seems, all mystery disappears when we give proper 
 consideration to the nature and correlation of the forces as sub- 
 stantial entities. 
 
 The melting of any substance by heat consists simply in the 
 yielding of the cohesive force which holds the body in a solid 
 condition, sufficiently to liquify it. The intensity of heat re- 
 quired to melt any given body, and thus overcome its cohesion 
 as a solid, depends entirely upon the correlation existing be- 
 tween these two substantial forces, as regards the cohesive ar- 
 rangement of the particles of the particular substance to be 
 fused. Plainly the same metallic substances must exist in the 
 alloy which existed in the three separate metals before mixing, 
 the only difference, so far as the action of heat-force is con- 
 cerned, being a new and different cohesive arrangement of the 
 
74 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. The mean melting point should be 523 deg. F. 
 
 Q. 20. Does Wood's alloy require a temperature of 
 523 deg. to melt it? 
 
 A. It does not. It will melt at 201 deg. F. 
 
 Q. 21. How can this remarkable phenomenon be ac- 
 counted for? 
 
 A. It cannot be satisfactorily explained by any prin- 
 ciple hitherto known to chemical or physical science; 
 neither can the problem be solved by any rule of simple 
 or compound proportion hitherto found in the mathe- 
 matics of materialism. 
 
 Q. 22. IIo\v then may it be accounted for? 
 
 A. By a candid recognition and rational use of the 
 
 particles in the alloy, by which heat can the more easily master 
 and thus neutralize cohesion. If there is nothing in these forces 
 by which substantial co-operation or conflict can occur, then 
 the melting point of the alloy should be the mean of the three 
 separately; that is to say, about 523 deg. F., just as the weight of 
 the alloy \vould be the mean aggregate of the three weights be- 
 fore melting. This is as it should be, and according to observa- 
 tion, for the reason that no change takes place in cohesive force 
 in its relation to gravity in this act of forming an alloy, while 
 there does a change take place in cohesion in its susceptibility 
 to be overpowered by heat; for, instead of the fusing point in 
 the alloy occurring at the average mean temperature of 523 deg., 
 it is actually reduced to 201 deg. 
 
 The truth is, this mingling of the three separate arrangements 
 by cohesive force, in the three separate metals when alloyed, 
 simply weakens its hold on their combined particles, and, on 
 account of the peculiar contest it experiences with heat in the 
 alloying process, now makes it an easier prey to its chief enemy 
 in nature heat. If these forces were not as really substantial 
 as the metals upon whose particles they act, we see no possible 
 ground for an intelligible solution of the mystery they present. 
 As real substantial friends or enemies in the economy of nature 
 these forces may oppose or assist each other, as circumstances 
 require, and thus exhibit all the wonderful phenomena ob- 
 served, but not otherwise. Dr. Hall, in Scientific Arena, Vol. 
 I., p. 43. 
 
COHESION. 75 
 
 facts and laws recently presented in the Substantial 
 Philosophy. 
 
 Q. 23. What facts and laws are these? 
 
 A. That cohesion and heat are substantial forces; 
 that they are not only correlative in Nature, but also, and 
 as a consequence of their correlation, they have relative 
 strength, and that their respective degrees of strength 
 differ in different simple or compound metals, enabling 
 them to cling with a greater or less degree of tenacity 
 according to the arrangement or rearrangement of 
 particles. 
 
 Q. 24. What, then, is it that conditions the degree of 
 power which force may have over matter? 
 
 A. It is conditioned by the ability of matter to receive 
 force, and by the extent to which two or more forces are 
 able to correlate each other in any given body of matter. 
 
 Q. 25. But why may not question twenty-one be satis- 
 factorily answered from the old materialistic standpoint 
 in philosophy? 
 
 A. Because materialism denies the existence in matter 
 of any force which is not inherent therein, essential 
 thereto, or a property thereof. 
 
 Q. 26. How is the impotency of the current theories 
 of philosophy logically deducible from such a general 
 denial of the proper force elements of Nature? 
 
 A. It is logically deducible from what will generally 
 be admitted as fundamentally true in the following form- 
 ula: That which is a mere property of a thing, or an in- 
 nate quality thereof, has no poiver to amend the law of the 
 being upon which it depends for its own existence, and 
 just as little poiver to change the conditions of its convert- 
 ibility from one state or form to another. 
 
 Q. 27. But is not cohesion a mere quality in matter, 
 or a property thereof and dependent thereupon? 
 
 A. No more than the soul is a mere property of the 
 
7ti THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 body, or dependent upon the body for existence, as shown 
 elsewhere in this book. 
 
 Q. 28. Is cohesion dissolvable by heat? 
 A. Cohesion is an entity, and therefore incapable of 
 destructible dissolution. 
 
 Q. 29. Is immaterial substance divisible. 
 
 A. In the physical domain immaterial substance is an 
 element and therefore is divisible into particles, even as 
 it is transformable; in the biological domain of being, 
 as will be hereinafter shown, immaterial substance is 
 grounded in life, and therefore involves the possibility of 
 manifestation in numerous individuals. 
 
 Q. 30. What then does heat, as a dissolvent, separate? 
 
 A. Heat swells the mass and every portion and par- 
 ticle of the mass but does not separate them. 
 
 Q. 31. As heat in the swelling of material bodies and 
 particles does not destroy cohesion, what is its peculiar 
 effect upon cohesive force in matter? 
 
 A. Heat overpowers cohesion sufficiently to expand 
 the body only, however, to extent of heat applied. 
 
 Q. 32. What then becomes of that particular portion 
 of cohesive force thus superseded and suspended by the 
 superior force of heat? 
 
 A. As to its positive workings as an agent for the 
 God of Nature, it temporarily retires from that portion 
 of the field, and falls back to report for duty at the 
 fountain-head of all authority and power. 
 
 Q. 33. Will cohesion ever return again to the field 
 from which it had been driven to bring the decomposed 
 body of matter back to its former and normal condition? 
 
 A. As soon as heat has completed its mission in any 
 lump of matter, and consequently relinquishes its sway, 
 cohesion again appears upon the hotly contested field, 
 takes the cooling particles of the former body of matter 
 
COHESION. 77 
 
 into its embrace, gives them a pressing reception, arid 
 holds them in their normal relation to each other. 
 
 Q. 34. Does cohesion ever fail to reappear under the 
 aforenamed conditions. 
 
 A. Never. Like all the other forces of nature, it is 
 always at its post wherever the law of nature's economy, 
 or the solution of nature's problem require its services, 
 and whenever such services are possible. 
 
 Q. 35. But may not cohesion be antagonized by some 
 extrinsic force mechanically applied? 
 
 A. It may be, and frequently is so antagonized, as ? 
 for instance, by the projection of a lump of matter 
 against a pane of glass, or when a boy blows his breath 
 into a soap-bubble. 
 
 Q. 36. What is the effect of such collision between 
 bodies, or such conflict of forces? 
 
 A. The effect varies according to the properties of 
 the matter composing the bodies, and the relative 
 strength of the forces thus antagonizing each other. 
 
 Q. 37. What is the effect in a case of collision be- 
 tween fragile bodies? 
 
 A. The usual effect is that one or both colliding 
 bodies are broken into fragments. 
 
 Q. 38. What may prevent the instantaneous frag- 
 mentation of one or the other, or both of the colliding 
 bodies? 
 
 A. Elasticity. 
 
 Q. 39. Is not elasticity therefore another term for 
 cohesion? 
 
 A. Cohesion, in the common acceptation of the term, 
 is not broad enough to include in its mission of con- 
 structing bodies, the arranging of their particles, the re- 
 arranging of them into more contracted or expanded 
 forms, etc. 
 
 Q. 40. What then would be a more adequate tern? 
 
78 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 for cohesion in its broader meaning and in the broader 
 domain of its mission as a force-element in Nature? 
 
 A. Constructive force. 
 
 Q. 41. What does such constructive force include? 
 
 A. It includes cohesion, in the narrow sense of the 
 term, adhesion, the power of readjustment and chemism.* 
 
 Q. 42. Is tins constructive force equally operative in 
 all elements and in all the combinations of elements in 
 bodies of matter? 
 
 A. No. As already seen, only according to the elas- 
 ticity thereof, and its consequent ability to receive the aid 
 of such constructive force. 
 
 * Having thus defined force, energy, inertia, and momentum, 
 we have now to ask what is meant by the * property" of any 
 given body, and how does it originate ? And here we approach 
 one of the most profound and difficult fields of research and in- 
 vestigation in the entire domain of physical science. To this 
 field, and the mighty problems it opens up, we propose now to 
 give our serious attention; and we ask the reader to accompany 
 us with all the powers of discrimination he can summon, as the 
 task even of grasping the problems involved, after they are met 
 and explained, is an immense one. 
 
 We say, first, that, while a property of a body is not a force or 
 any form of energy in the true sense of these terms, yet its ex- 
 istence as a condition, quality, or characteristic of a body is al- 
 ways an effect of one or many forms of substantial force. Thus 
 elasticity, for example, is the name of a certain property of 
 bodies, as the result chiefly of the form of force commonly 
 known as cohesive attraction, and by which the particles or 
 smallest conceivable portions of a body are not only held together 
 when united, but by which also they were originally placed to- 
 gether under certain laws and arrangements at present unknown 
 to man. 
 
 Indeed, we are not at all satisfied with the term cohesive force, 
 as applied to the various natural operations not readily attribu- 
 table to some other recognized form of force. The term is not 
 broad enough to include the original construction of bodies, the 
 arranging of their particles, the rearranging of them into a 
 more contracted or expanded form, etc., etc. Constructive 
 
COHESION. 79 
 
 Q. 43. Is elasticity primarily a property of matter, or 
 an immaterial force-element of Nature? 
 
 A. As already stated, it is a peculiar property in mat- 
 ter, or a fruit of cohesion asserting its conditional power 
 over matter. Without the constructive energy of co- 
 hesive force in arranging the particles of an elastic body, 
 and the continued static persistence of its energy in main- 
 taining them in such relation to each other, no such 
 property could exist in matter. 
 
 Q. 44. To what extent, if any, may the force-element 
 of cohesion be concentrated at a given point, and thus 
 augment its power to withstand extrinsic or counter- 
 force? 
 
 force would be a more generally appropriate term, making it to 
 include cohesion, adhesion, rearrangement of bodies, chemism, 
 etc. Then when destruction or disintegration of a body takes 
 place by any form of force, the cohesive form of this construct- 
 ive force would be destroyed, or, what is better, converted into 
 heat or some other form of force, as when a piece of metal is 
 pulverized into impalpable dust. The bulk of cohesion in such 
 a case disappears, to be regenerated from the force-element of 
 nature by the action of heat, as when this dust is melted into a 
 liquid, and then cooled into a solid mass. When a chem- 
 ical compound is produced, this general constructive force 
 acts as chemism, and when the chemical union is destroyed 
 by heat or electricity, such constructive force is relegated 
 to the force-element, to be regenerated as chemism when 
 the separated substances are again united, either with each 
 other or with some other substance in practical chemical 
 proportions. But we use cohesive force at present, as we have 
 done in the past, with many grains of mental reservation, en- 
 tering this mild protest as a part" of the record of Substan- 
 tialism. 
 
 Returning, then, to the cause of the elastic property of bodies, 
 we say that without the original constructive energy of this 
 force of cohesion in arranging the particles of the elastic body, 
 and the continued static persistence of its energy in maintain- 
 ing them, no such property as that of elasticity could exist in 
 matter, nor could the opposite property of inelasticity exist 
 either. Dr. Hall, in Scientific Arena, Vol. I., p. 29. 
 
80 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. Cohesive force cannot permeate matter to a de- 
 gree of strength or energy beyond a certain limit. 
 Q. 45. What is the point or law of its limitation? 
 A. The limit of the ability of matter to receive it. 
 
 Q. 46. Does a body of matter in which there is the 
 property of elasticity receive more cohesive force than an 
 inelastic body of matter? 
 
 A. Like a well- arranged fort for the defense of a city 
 elastic bodies have not only the ability to receive, but 
 also the peculiar power to retain and utilize the force- 
 element of cohesion under the sudden shock or constant 
 pressure of the extrinsic or opposing force. 
 
 Q. 47. Is the retentive ability of elastic bodies lim- 
 ited? 
 
 A. It is limited, and may be overpowered by supe- 
 rior extrinsic force mechanically or chemically applied. 
 
 Q. 48. When an elastic cord is stretched beyond the 
 point limiting the cohesive force which it contains, what 
 is the result? 
 
 A. If the cord at every point or place be equally con- 
 stituted in uniform size, the same elements of matter 
 with the particles thereof similarly related in each and 
 every section of the line, the same temperature prevailing 
 in every part of the cord, and around it from end to end, 
 and the extrinsic stretching force be applied without vio- 
 lent suddenness, so as to distribute such force equally 
 along all sections of the line, and the extrinsic force, thus 
 applied, augmented gently and gradually until it over- 
 comes the cohesive force within, the result will be a 
 breaking of the cord at the same instant at every lineal 
 point, and the fragments of disintegration will be ex- 
 actly equal to the number of material particles lineally 
 contiguous from end to end in the center of the line. 
 
 Q. 49. What would be the result in the absence of 
 one or more of the above-named conditions? 
 
COHESION. 81 
 
 A. If either the power of endurance or the force ap- 
 plied be unequal at every point, the cord would break 
 either at the weakest place or place under the greatest 
 degree of applied force. 
 
 Q. 50. What would become of the force retained in 
 the fragments or pieces of the cord ? 
 
 A. Its first duty would be to care for the wounded. 
 This would be done by restoring each piece to its former 
 condition. 
 
 Q. 51. What, then, would become of the force over- 
 powered at the snapping point? 
 
 A. A small portion at that point would be liberated, 
 or excused from immediate duty, and fall back to head- 
 quarters. Just as the spirit of man, when the silver cord 
 is loosed by the shock or constant strain of mortality, re- 
 turns to the Fountain of its being "the God who gave 
 it" to await further orders, so will any force, or any 
 portion of a force, when liberated by temporary defeat in 
 the elemental warfare of Nature, fall back to the pri- 
 mordial fountain or reservoir of all force-elements, to 
 await further orders from the God of nature, who is at 
 the same time the commander-in-chief in the general 
 campaign of forces and counter- forces throughout the 
 universe in the gradual solution of the grand central 
 problem thereof, 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 MAGNETISM. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is magnetism? 
 
 ANSWER. It is one of the force-elements of Nature. 
 
 Q. 2. In what does it differ from cohesion? 
 
 A. Cohesive force joins contiguous particles of homo- 
 geneous matter concretely together, and holds them in 
 the latter relation until it is neutralized by some superior 
 force, as seen in Chapter IV. Magnetism draws separate 
 bodies of matter together, and holds them in contiguity 
 until the expiration of its term of service at any particu- 
 lar point in the wise and systematic economy of Nature. 
 
 Q. 3. In what other respect do cohesion and magnet- 
 ism differ? 
 
 A. In their modes of laying hold, of matter. 
 
 Q. 4. What are their different modes respectively of 
 seizing and clinging to material substance? 
 
 A. Cohesion seizes matter directly; magnetism lays 
 hold of matter through the medium of its own reciprocal. 
 
 Q. 5. Is it true that a magnet attracts a piece of 
 iron ? 
 
 A. It is not strictly true in science. 
 
 Q. 6. How, then, does it pull the iron toward its em- 
 bracing arms? 
 
 A. As in a case of pure and genuine courtship, inter- 
 vening distance is diminished by sympathy. 
 
 Q. 7. Is there really such a thing as sympathy exist- 
 ing in some of the force-elements of Nature? 
 
MAGNETISM. 83 
 
 A. Indeed there is, and also, of necessity, the possi- 
 bility of repulsion.* 
 
 Q. 8. Is this sympathy directly between the magnet 
 and the pieces of iron? 
 
 A. It is not. It is rather in and between magnetic 
 force or forces potentially or actually resident in both the 
 magnet and the distant piece of iron. 
 
 Q. 9. How, then, are the two distinct and separate 
 bodies of matter brought together? 
 
 A. When these sympathetic and reciprocal forces ap- 
 proach each other with a tendency toward elemental 
 union, they carry with them the bodies of material in 
 which they respectively reside and over which they have 
 a limited control, f 
 
 * While every entity in the physical domain of being is a sub- 
 stance, it is also, relatively, a shadow of better things to come, 
 according to the law of continuity in the one organic universe 
 of God. There is an order of sympathy which serves the pur- 
 pose of sex in plants. The lower animals woo their mates in 
 their unconscious obedience to the behests of brutish sympathy. 
 In human kind a higher magnetic force, or 
 
 " love will find its way 
 Through paths where wolves would fear to .prey." 
 
 The highest imagery of Revelation represents a second process 
 of sympathetic attraction between the Redeemer and his spouse 
 the Church, which will be consummated finally when they 
 meet in the Millennial air; why, then, after witnessing the 
 demonstrations which magnetism affords, should we for one 
 moment deny the existence of a low and prophetic order of 
 sympathy in the inorganic or physical sphere of existence, even 
 though its manifestations and purposes are less apparent than in 
 the biological domain of being ? 
 
 t We say in common parlance that a magnet attracts a piece 
 of iron, and that the earth attracts a stone. Neither is strictly 
 and scientifically true. As just hinted, it is the active force of 
 the substantial magnetism radiating from the magnetic poles 
 which seizes by sympathy the latent magnetic force residing in 
 metal of a similar quality with the magnet (it does not affect the 
 
84 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 10. Can the truth of the above assertion be con- 
 clusively proven? 
 
 A. It is above the need of any testimony admissible 
 merely through the organs of sense to the perceptive 
 powers of the mind. 
 
 Q. 11. How then can the alleged fact be known? 
 A. It is demonstrable to and clearly cognizable 
 through the higher faculty of reason. 
 
 material metal itself), thus drawing the two bodies together by 
 cords of sympathetic force. The earth, in like manner, only 
 draws a stone downward by the substantial cords of gravital 
 force from the earth interlocking sympathetically with the same 
 substantial force centering in small quantity also in the pebble. 
 If by any means this almost infinitesimal quantity of gravital 
 force in any body of the metal could be neutralized or destroyed, 
 the earth's gravity would not act upon such metal in the slight- 
 est degree to cause it to fall, any more than magnetic force can 
 attract copper or other metal which contains no latent magnet- 
 ism for it to take hold of. Hence this is exactly the reason why 
 the piece of copper or silver falls slowly through a dense at- 
 mosphere of magnetic force. Such force tends to neutralize the 
 small quantity of gravital force as it resides in copper and silver 
 only, owing to some unknown quality of those two metals, thus 
 partially breaking the sympathetic hold of the earths gravity. 
 It is not the obstruction caused by the dense collection of mag- 
 netism which impedes the fall of the piece of copper on the 
 principle of a body's settling through " mud," as Sir William 
 Thomson supposed, but its neutralizing effect upon the gravity 
 within the copper, thus rendering it unfit, so to speak, for the 
 gravity of the earth to take hold of. In evidence of the simple 
 correctness of this position, that gravity is partially neutralized 
 in a piece of copper while within a dense magnetic atmosphere, 
 weigh it in that position, and it will be found to weigh almost 
 nothing. A child might thus lift a ton of copper with one finger 
 by simply bringing the two poles of a magnet, powerful enough, 
 on the two opposite sides of the mass of copper, thus neutraliz- 
 ing its inherent gravity, and thereby destroying the hold of the 
 earth's gravity upon it. Dr. Hall, in the Microcosm, Vol. IV., 
 p. 28. 
 
MAGNETISM. 85 
 
 Q. 12. Can it be illustrated? 
 
 A. It can. For example: A gentleman and a lady 
 may attract each other in the sphere of pure and unadul- 
 terated love, but it would be neither true in science nor 
 honorable in contemplated matrimony for either of them 
 to think or speak of attracting each other's iron or gold. 
 When they legitimately attract each other, or the image 
 which each one begets in the other, or, to speak more 
 scientifically, when the mutual and reciprocal life-force, 
 resident complementally in them both, attracts or pulls 
 them together in virtue of the distinction of sex, the 
 effect of such sympathetic attraction is not only* a union 
 of hearts and hands, but also, as a consequence, a domes- 
 tic community of any material property or goods pos- 
 sessed respectively by the parties before the interesting 
 pulling process began. 
 
 Q. 13. What is the more scientific term for this mys- 
 terious sympathy in the domain of chemistry and phys- 
 ics? 
 
 A. Affinity. 
 
 Q. 14. Does this affinity, or complemental property 
 of interlockular force exist in all the force-elements of 
 
 Nature? 
 
 A. Its presence is more marked and manifest in mag- 
 netism than in some of the other force-elements of which 
 we have a partial knowledge. 
 
 Q. 15. Why is it not as obviously present, and its 
 manifestations equally apparent in all the forces? 
 
 A. Because the God and source of all power and 
 energy has different missions for his different elemental 
 servants in the wise and prudent economy of Nature. 
 
 Q. 16. Are all bodies of matter equally subject to 
 magnetic force? 
 
86 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. They are not. Matter is governed by magnetism 
 only to the extent that it is able to receive it. 
 
 Q. 17. But is there not static magnetism in all bodies 
 of matter? 
 
 A. Static force pervades all space, even that space 
 which is occupied by matter. 
 
 Q. 18. Is force then generated or developed? 
 A. Under favorable conditions it is liberated, gen- 
 erated or developed. 
 
 Q. 19. From what is it developed? 
 A. Any distinct form of force is developed from the 
 general reservoir of all force-elements in Nature. 
 
 Q. 20. Does Substantialism, then, teach that there is 
 static force in everything and everywhere? 
 A. It so teaches. 
 
 Q. 551. Is not force therefore omnipresent in the sense 
 that that incommunicable attribute is predicable of 
 Deity? 
 
 A. Finite or created force is under the general cate- 
 gory of the finite, conditioned and limited order of being, 
 even though the finite mind of man is bewildered in its 
 fruitless attempts to fix the bounds thereof. 
 
 Q. 22. Is magnetic force a substance? 
 A. It is just as really a substance as the matter which 
 it permeates and controls. 
 
 Q. 23. How may the substantiality of magnetic force 
 be made to appear as a scientific fact beyond the attempt 
 of a rational contradiction? 
 
 A. It has already been demonstrated to the faculty 
 of reason in the unprejudiced mind by the universally 
 admitted fact that magnetism can lift a body of matter 
 at a distance from the magnet. 
 
MAGNETISM. 87 
 
 Q. 24. But is not the weight thus lifted, raised up 
 by the unsubstantial rays of magnetic influence? 
 
 A. It is impossible to conceive of such an achieve- 
 ment, except where the mind is controlled by the " influ- 
 ence " of unscientific hocus-pocus.* 
 
 Q. 25. May not the pulling be accomplished by mo- 
 lecular vibration, without any substantial means of con- 
 tact or connection between the magnet and the distant 
 piece of iron? 
 
 A. The whole miserable theory of molecular vibra- 
 tion, as generally employed in current teachings of phys- 
 ics, is as untenable as it is ridiculous, f 
 
 * If magnetism were not a real substance, it could not lift a 
 piece of metal bodily at a distance from the magnet, any more 
 than our hand could lift a weight from the floor without some 
 substantial connection between the two. It is a self-evident 
 truism as an axiom in mechanics, that no body can move or dis 
 place another body at a distance without a real, substantial me- 
 dium connecting the two through which the result is accom- 
 plished, otherwise it would be a mechanical effect without a 
 cause a self-evident absurdity in philosophy. Hence, the force 
 of magnetism is a real, substantial entity. Dr. Hali, in the 
 Arena, Vol. I., p. 18. 
 
 f And that real thing which causes the motion of a body for- 
 ward, as in the case of an armature, cannot be the vibration of 
 the molecules of the medium which fills the space between the 
 two bodies thus separated. Mere vibration of a medium cannot 
 pull or push a body at all. At most such vibration could only 
 cause the body to tremble. As well talk of pulling a balloon to 
 the earth by causing an atmospheric tremor, or of pulling a boat 
 to the shore by causing a tremor among the molecules of the 
 water! Indeed, modern science, with its prodigious disclosures, 
 actually proposes to pull the boat through the water alone by 
 the molecular tremor of the shore, and that, too, without any 
 force to make the shore vibrate. A magnet, Sir William Thom- 
 son tells us, will pull a bar of iron from a distance through a 
 perfect vacuum (or without any intervening medium) alone by 
 the molecular tremor of the magnet and without any force to 
 
88 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 26. Is magnetic force an immaterial substance? 
 A. It is just as immaterial as it is real, and just as 
 real as matter itself. 
 
 Q. 27. What proof can be given that magnetism is 
 not matter? 
 
 A. The best and most incontrovertible evidence of its 
 immateriality is in the fact that it passes unimpeded 
 through the most impenetrable and impervious bodies of 
 matter. * 
 
 Q. 28. What kinds of material bodies are, by common 
 consent, classed among the most impervious? 
 
 * If magnetism were not an immaterial substance, then any 
 practically imporous body intervening between the magnet and 
 the attracted object would, to some extent at least, impede the 
 passage of the magnetic current, which it does not do. If mag- 
 netism were a very refined or attenuated form of matter, and if 
 it thus depended for its passage through other material bodies 
 upon their imperceptible pores, then, manifestly, some difference 
 in the freedom of its passage, and in the consequent attractive 
 force of the distant magnet should result by great difference in 
 the porosity of the different bodies tested, as would be the case, 
 for example, in forcing wind through wire netting having larger 
 or smaller interstices, and consequently offering greater or less 
 resistance. Whereas, in the case of this magnetic substance, no 
 difference whatever results in the energy of its mechanical pull 
 on a distant piece of iron, however many or few of the prac- 
 tically imporous sheets of glass, rubber, or whatever other mate- 
 rial body be made to intervene, or if no substance whatever but 
 the air is interposed, or if the test be made in a perfect vacuum. 
 The pull is always with precisely the same force, and will move 
 the suspended piece of iron at the same distance away from it 
 in each and every case, however refined and delicate may be the 
 instruments by which the tests are measured. Dr. Hall, in 
 Arena, Vol. L, p. 18. 
 
 make the magnet tremble. Why not, then, pull a steamship to 
 its mooring without a rope, by simply making the wharf trem- 
 ble, or by letting it tremble without any cause? Nonsense! 
 Rev, F. Hanilin, D. D., Microcosm, Vol. V,, p. 98, 
 
MAGNETISM. 
 
 A. Glass is among the most impervious. 
 
 Q. 29. Will magnetism pass through a solid plate of 
 glass? 
 
 A. Glass is no impediment or obstruction m the way 
 of magnetic force. 
 
 Q. 30. But may not the magnetic force pass around 
 the edges of the plate of glass in such a cunning, crafty 
 way as to deceive the most skillful experimenter, and 
 thus attract its object on a curved line, or on a line with 
 angles more or less acute? 
 
 A. Magnetic force is neither materialistic in its phi- 
 losophy nor unscrupulous in its methods. It therefore 
 never skulks from the direct line to the point at issue, 
 neither does it fail to grapple fairly with its object at the 
 end of the line. 
 
 Q. 31. Will magnetic force lay hold of distant parti- 
 cles or pieces of iron when both the magnet and the iron 
 are shut up in different, distant bottles closed with 
 tightly fitting stoppers, sealed and immersed in water? 
 
 A. Just as directly and effectually as though no 
 material substance surrounded either one or intervened 
 between the two. 
 
 Q. 32. But does not magnetism pass as a material 
 substance through the glass by virtue of the porosity of 
 the latter? 
 
 A. Glass is more imporous than gold, and more im- 
 pervious to material substances than any known body of 
 matter. 
 
 Q. 33. But is it absolutely impervious? 
 
 A. It is so much so that any substance which pene- 
 trates, permeates, and passes through it cannot be com- 
 posed of material particles. 
 
90 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 34. What is the result when the test is made in a 
 vacuum? 
 
 A. The result is the same. Neither empty space nor 
 mountains of matter can interfere with the free workings 
 of any one of the substantial and immaterial force-ele- 
 ments which the Personal, Infinite Fountain of all force 
 has wisely and with beneficent design ordained and dele- 
 gated to manipulate and manage the material elements 
 of this vast universe until the ultimate meaning thereof 
 shall fully appear to its rational intelligences when the 
 tremendous tidal-waves of its declarative glory are finally 
 rolled back to the throne of His majestic presence. 
 
CHAPTER YI. 
 
 GRAVITY. . 
 
 QUESTION 1. What does Snbstantialism teach as to 
 the nature of gravity? 
 
 ANSWER. The Substantial Philosophy holds and 
 teaches that gravity, like cohesion and magnetism, is a 
 force-element in Nature. 
 
 Q. 2. In what does it differ from cohesion? 
 
 A. Cohesion unites particles of matter in concrete 
 mass; gravity draws material particles, or aggregations 
 of massed particles into approximate nearness with each 
 other. 
 
 Q. 3. Does gravital force assist cohesion in the per- 
 formance of its work? 
 
 A. Where gravity ends its peculiar mission cohesion 
 may begin its work upon the same material; e. g., gravity 
 pulls the melted mineral into the mold, and cohesion 
 concretes it into a hard body or mass. 
 
 Q. 4. But do not the several particles in such a hard 
 body still continue to attract each other gra vitally? 
 
 A. There is gravital force between material particles 
 wherever located and however distant from or near to 
 each other; but gravital force is comparatively inactive 
 in the proper sphere of cohesion. 
 
 Q. 5. In what particular does gravity differ from 
 magnetism? 
 
 A. As seen in Chap. V., magnetism involves affinity: 
 affinity implies sympathy, even as sympathy involves the 
 
92 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 possibility of repulsion. On the other hand, gravity 
 never acts as a repellent. 
 
 Q. 6. But does not gravity, like magnetism, involve 
 elemental sympathy? 
 
 A. The respective gravital forces of particles in dif- 
 ferent bodies interlock sympathetically it however in- 
 volves no possibility of repulsion as in the spheres of 
 magnetism and in some of the higher spheres of biologi- 
 cal being. 
 
 Q. 7. Why does not gravital sympathy also involve 
 the possibility of repulsion? 
 
 A. Because gravity, as a force-element, is not so high 
 as some other immaterial entities in the graduated scale 
 of being. 
 
 Q. 8. Does not gravity neutralize other forces?* 
 A. Under certain conditions gravity neutralizes mag- 
 netic force, e. g., when the piece of iron or copper con- 
 tains preponderant gravital force, the force of the mag- 
 net fails to lift it up. 
 
 Q. 9. May not gravital force be neutralized by other 
 forces? 
 
 A. Superior magnetic force, or force in a greater 
 degree of density may counteract and overcome gravital 
 force and lift bodies of matter from the earth, f 
 
 Q. 10. Does gravital force act where there is no matter? 
 A. Where there is no matter there is no opportunity 
 for its action. 
 
 Q. 11. But does not gravity therefore depend upon 
 opportunity for its existence? 
 
 * See Dr. Hall's review of Sir Wm. Thomson. Microcosm, 
 Vol. IV., p. 26. 
 
 f His inability to seize and comprehend this truth left Sir 
 Wm. Thomson unscientifically swamped in his " thin mud " dif 
 ficulty. See the Scientific American of May 17th, 1884. 
 
GRAVITY. 93 
 
 A. It only depends upon opportunity for an oppor- 
 tunity to act. 
 
 Q. 12. What is the state or condition of gravity 
 when inactive? 
 
 A. Gravity, like all other forces when not active, is 
 latent or static. 
 
 Q. 13. Is there gravity in heaven, and among the 
 angels of God? 
 
 A. It is probable that nearer the Fountain the purer 
 the stream. 
 
 Q. 14. Is gravity active in heaven? 
 
 A. Yes, if there is. material there to act upon. 
 
 Q. 15. Who discovered gravity? 
 
 A. Dr. A. Wilford Hall discovered its real character 
 as an entitative force-element. 
 
 Q. 1G. Did not Newton first make the great dis- 
 covery ? 
 
 A. Starting with some of the secrets vhich Kepler 
 had extorted from the bosom of Nature, Sir Isaac New- 
 ton discovered Gravitation. 
 
 Q. 17. What is gravitation? 
 
 A. It is the law of gravity's action.* 
 
 Q. 18. What is law? 
 
 A. It is the will of God "on earth as it is in heaven," 
 or Heaven's mode of operating through its own ordained 
 forces. 
 
 Q. 19. Does Law, then, differ from Force ? 
 
 * " The natural laws originate nothing, sustain nothing; they 
 are merely responsible for uniformity in sustaining what has 
 been originated and what is being sustained. They are modes 
 of operation, therefore, not operators; processes, not powers. 
 .... Newton did not discover gravity that is not yet discov- 
 ered. [The Caledonian philosopher had not "yet" read the 
 " Problem of Iluman Life."] He discovered its law, which is 
 gravitation, but that tells us nothing of its origin, of its nature, 
 or of its cause." Drummond's " Natural Law," p. 5. 
 
94 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. True science makes a distinction between the two. 
 
 Q. 20. What is that distinction? 
 
 A. Force, under God, is the motor power of the uni- 
 verse; law is the mode according to which the motor 
 power moves the vast machinery. Force operates; law 
 is the eternally and internally ordained rule of its opera- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. 21. Did Newton formulate to perfection all the 
 truths involved in gravitation ? 
 
 A. He did not. It is as impossible for science as it 
 is for religion to have an infallible human pope.* 
 
 * Neither was Newton infallible. As a member of the fallen 
 family of man, he shared the infirmities of the race. Pope's 
 couplet: 
 
 " Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night; 
 God said * Let Newton be,' and all was light," 
 
 contains more English pride than poetry, and, still, more poetry 
 than truth. Though born on Christmas Day, he was not the 
 light of the world. Although the "Principia" is a master- 
 piece of mathematical skill, it is not the production of unerring 
 wisdom. It contains light enough to make darkness distinctly 
 visible. The above expression should be considered as a flat- 
 tering compliment to the noblest work of any living man. 
 Newton's great mind was not capable of supposing that the 
 " Principia " was perfect, and that it would need no revision in 
 the progress of the ages. A consciousness of its defects was 
 probably one element in that reluctance which inclined him to 
 desire a suppression of its further publication. Neither is there 
 any evidence that Halley, in assuming the financial responsi- 
 bility of bringing the astounding work before the public, looked 
 upon its author as the avatar of astronomical science. Such 
 superstition enters a more modern temple: such idolaters pour 
 out the oblations of their sycophancy in a more modern wor- 
 ship. They fill the front pews of the scholastic Church; and 
 their hands go up with holy horror at the mere mention of 
 " Newton's oversights." They consider it no sacrilege to revise 
 the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, and correct the 
 "oversights" of King James' translators. They also seem to 
 think it eminently proper to change the English text of God's 
 
GRAVITY. 95 
 
 Q. 22. Why did he fail to carry his principle to 
 greater perfection? 
 
 A. Partially because he had failed to discover the true 
 character of gravity. 
 
 Q. 23. But did not Newton in his letter to Bentley 
 deny that gravity was something "innate, inherent and 
 essential to matter "?* 
 
 * Because that mysterious something called gravitation, 
 which pulls a weight toward the earth, can neither be seen, 
 heard, felt, tasted, nor smelt, it is no proof that gravity is not a 
 substance as really and truly as is water, iron, or even platinum, 
 the heaviest of all known substances, only the substantial cor- 
 puscles or attenuated threads of gravity are of such a nature 
 that we cannot recognize them except through our higher fac- 
 ulties of reason, by what they accomplish. The German laborer 
 who placed his bucket beneath a dripping rock to catch water, 
 was astonished when he undertook to carry it home. He could 
 neither lift it nor stir it, with all the strength of his arm. Yet 
 he saw nothing to cause such a result except the water the 
 bucket contained. It could not have frozen to the ground for 
 it was a hot summer's day. Yet something held it down with 
 immovable but invisible power. The secret was soon revealed. 
 The bucket was nearly full of quicksilver which had dripped 
 
 Word in order to make it read more in harmony with those 
 most ancient extant manuscripts recently discovered by the 
 same spirit of search and research which has since blessed the 
 human family with the " Problem of Human Life." Some of 
 them are possibly ready to march with Robertson Smith in his 
 crusade of criticism upon the very subject-matter in the oracles 
 of the Most High; or, perchance, swell the ranks of Beecher- 
 onean vandalism with a determination to either dry the fount- 
 ain or dam the stream of God's Revelation to man; but a 
 critical examination of Newton's astronomical calculations is 
 too sacrilegious for their pious toleration. While they cannon- 
 ade the Pentateuch, they canonize the " Principia." and swear, 
 with an idolatrous veneration for the bones of a fallible man, 
 that Wilford Hall shall not stand in the assembly of the right- 
 eous, because, forsooth, he has dared to question the iinmacu 
 late conception of Newton's " yard -stick," 
 
96 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. He did; yet to tell what a thing is not is some- 
 thing different from discovering and defining its positive 
 character. 
 
 Q. 24. What was Newton's most fundamental and 
 fatal oversight concerning the nature of gravity? 
 
 from the rock with the water. Had this quicksilver still re- 
 mained invisible, after the covering of water had been removed, 
 and had it been even unobservable by any other of the senses, or 
 could the hand have been passed through it without feeling it 
 in the slightest degree, it would still have been none the less a 
 real substance so long as its effects were the same in holding the 
 bucket to the earth. We must therefore judge of the substantial 
 or entitative nature of anything of which the mind can form a 
 concept, not by its recognizable or unrecognizable qualities 
 through the direct evidence of our senses, but by its demonstra- 
 ble effects upon other and known substances under the exercise 
 of our rational faculties in judging, analyzing, comparing, etc. 
 Thus gravity is a substance as really and truly as was the invis- 
 ible mercury in the bucket, but its nature is such that it is hid- 
 den from all our senses. Our hands can pass through it without 
 feeling it. It permeates and passes through all substances that 
 may intervene between the earth and a suspended weight, and 
 when the cord that supports the weight is severed, the invisible 
 and intangible threads of this all- pervading substance seize each 
 molecule of the weight and pull it to the earth. 
 
 Those who are thus forced to admit the substantial nature of 
 magnetic rays, have stepped into a new world, filled with new 
 entities and verities. They are mentally and logically compelled 
 at once to look upon gravity in the same light. Sir Isaac New- 
 ton caught a glimpse of this new world of incorporeal entities 
 as he contemplated the law of gravitation. In a letter to Bent- 
 ley he says: 
 
 "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to 
 matter, so that one body may act on 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 the other, is to me so great an absurdity that 1 believe no man 
 who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of think- 
 ing, can ever fall into it." 
 
 The greatest of philosophical reasoners, though inspired with 
 
GRAVITY. 97 
 
 A. He failed to discover and recognize it as u sub- 
 stance. He denied the substantiality of everything be- 
 yond the range and testimony of the senses. 
 
 Q. 25. How else than by the bodily senses can force 
 be discovered? 
 
 A. Just as Xewton discovered gravitation or law by 
 rightly exercising the royal faculty of reason. 
 
 Q. 26. But did he not hold that light was a real sub- 
 stance ? 
 
 A. This question is answered in Chap. IX. 
 
 Q. 27. Was Newton's oversight as to the nature of 
 gravity followed by oversights in his great work of for- 
 mulating the laws of gravitation? If so, what were they? 
 
 A. The above questions cannot be satisfactorily an- 
 swered until gravity, as now viewed in the better light of 
 the Substantial Philosophy, is permitted to assist in the 
 interpretation of the law of gravitation. 
 
 Q. 28. Does Substantialism differ from Newton as to 
 the law of squared distance inverse? 
 
 A. The principal disagreement is as to the proper 
 place of beginning the calculation, or in the adoption of 
 the proper unit of measure. 
 
 Q. 29. Have mathematicians outside of the Substan- 
 tial School disagreed among themselves as to what New- 
 ton meant to teach concerning the proper unit of meas- 
 ure? 
 
 this hrilliant dash of intellect, did not, however, take advantage 
 of such a sparkling revelation, and, by dint of logic, carry it out 
 to magnetism, electricity, life, mind, spirit even up to the sub- 
 stantial throne of the Deity Himself. He entered the portals of 
 the new dominion of philosophical thought, but unfortunately 
 stopped there, and spent his life in contemplating and eluci- 
 dating the substantial wonders and all-pervading effects of that 
 mighty entitative force which his own genius had formulated, 
 if it had not discovered." Problem of Human Life,'* p. 29. 
 
98 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. A recent discussion upon the subject has made 
 such disagreement most manifest.* 
 
 Q. 30. Is gravity a substance? 
 
 A. It is just as really a substance as the bodies of 
 matter which it draws together. 
 
 Q. 31. Could it not pull bodies together without 
 being a substance? 
 
 A. Substance cannot be seized by anything which is 
 not substantial, or, if it could be so seized, the unsub- 
 stantial nonentity of which the mind can form no ra- 
 tional concept would have no power to draw different 
 bodies of material together. 
 
 Q. 32. But it is claimed that the human mind can 
 form no rational concept of the Infinite, and that Reve- 
 lation teaches the existence of an all-powerful God who 
 upholds all things in their proper relation to each other. 
 
 * We have noticed: (a.) The several vindicators of Newton 
 have disagreed among themselves as to just what the great 
 astronomer meant to teach in his gravitation law of squared- 
 distance-in verse, as applied to the question of the moon's di- 
 vergence from a given tangent, and the double displacement of 
 both earth and moon by virtue of reciprocal attraction, (b.) 
 They have not agreed as to the best line of defense against the 
 assaults of the Microcosm. General symptoms of lunacy are 
 the only common badges of their mathematical brotherhood, 
 (c.) They have contradicted themselves, and changed both their 
 terms and tactics when met by truth and valor, and pressed to 
 close engagement, (d.) They have conceded several points 
 which they had warmly disputed in the beginning of the dis- 
 cussion, (e.) They have blown the breath of suspicion upon the 
 dogma of Newtonian infallibility by charging the great astrono- 
 mer with using a " rough measurement " in the service of " pure 
 mathematics." (/.) They have thus, consequently, played the 
 pitiable poltroon when it was found necessary to forsake their 
 master in order, if possible, to save themselves from inevitable 
 defeat in the last ditch of desperation. The author, in Micro- 
 cosm, Vol. II. , p. 239. 
 
GRAVITY. 99 
 
 How can this objection be answered without an abandon- 
 ment of the fundamental teachings of Substantialism? 
 
 A. The objection is met, First: God, is himself 
 substantial in the essence of His being. Second: Be- 
 cause God is a substantial being the human mind can 
 form a concept, or rather is intuitively possessed of an 
 innate idea of Deity, or God consciousness, as already 
 shown in Chapter I. 
 
 Q. 33. Can a man then comprehend God? 
 
 A. He cannot. Neither can he comprehend gravity. 
 
 Q. 34. Is gravity a material substance? 
 
 A. It is not. If it were such, it would have the 
 property of inertia like all matter, and consequently 
 could not move itself, much less that which is not itself. 
 
 Q. 35. Is it then an immaterial substance ? 
 
 A. It is. 
 
 Q. 3G. What is the best evidence of its immateriality? 
 
 A. The fact that it passes unimpeded through all 
 material substances, no matter what may be their prop- 
 erties, such as impenetrability, imporosity and impervi- 
 ousness. 
 
 Q. 37. Does gravity exist in all kinds of matter? 
 
 A. It does. 
 
 Q. 38. Is it resident in equal quantities in all bodies 
 of matter of equal size and solidity? 
 
 A. It is not. Glass is more solid, because less porous 
 than gold, and yet gold contains more gravital force than 
 glass. 
 
 Q. 39. Why is this the case? 
 
 A. For the same reason that one star differeth from 
 another star in glory. The peculiar constitution of the 
 material substance known as gold is such that it is able 
 to receive and retain more gravital force than glass, even 
 as iron is so constituted that it contains more magnetic 
 force than gold. 
 
100 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 40. Does not the heaviest matter contain the most 
 gravity? 
 
 A. Yes, just as the hotest metal contains the most 
 heat, and just as the figure 9 contains more quantity than 
 the figure 2. 
 
 Q. 41. But are figures mere expressions of numbers 
 and indications of quantity? 
 
 A. They are, indeed, and so is weight the mere index 
 of the measure of gravital force resident in any given 
 lump of matter. 
 
 Q. 42. Has gravity a mechanical force? 
 
 A. Gravital force may be harnessed to machinery. 
 
 Q. 43. When so attached, is it really the motor power 
 which, under God, causes the rotatory and other movable? 
 parts of the machinery to move? 
 
 A. The affirmative answer to this question is one of 
 the cardinal teachings of the Substantial Philosophy. 
 
 Q. 44. Do not other and current theories of Natural 
 Philosophy teach the same thing? 
 
 A. If so, our reading has been too limited to make the 
 discovery. 
 
 Q. 45. But is it not the water that turns the wheel, 
 that moves the machinery, that connects with the burrs, 
 that grinds the corn and bolts the meal in the mill that 
 Jack built? 
 
 A. Such is not the case in the mills of God and true 
 science. 
 
 Q. 46. What is the motor power in such mills? 
 
 A. It is gravital force which overcomes the inertia of 
 matter and pulls it down upon the water-wheel, causing 
 every part of the more complicated machinery to move 
 in obedience to this impelling energy of Nature. 
 
 Q. 47. But does not gravity use water to make the 
 master- wheel go round? 
 
 A. Yes; and so does man use gravity to accomplish 
 
GRAVITY. 101 
 
 the same end, and yet no one who is not blind to the 
 facts of nature, the principles of science and the rules of 
 logic, will, for that reason, identify man with gravity, or 
 gravity with water. 
 
 Q. 48. How is gravity correlated to cohesion? 
 
 A. Gravity may begin its work at a point where cohe- 
 sion relinquishes its hold upon any given portion of matter. 
 
 Q. 49. Can the foregoing truth be illustrated? 
 
 A. It can. For example: Through heat or some 
 other force of nature, cohesion may be overpowered 
 where a rocky cliff projects above the water. As co- 
 hesion relinquishes its hold, a piece of rock passes im- 
 mediately under the predominating force of gravity; 
 gravital force thus pulls the bowlder down into the lake 
 beneath the granite cliff that overhangs its border. 
 
 Q. 50. What then may be predicated of gravity as to 
 the effect produced upon the lake beneath? 
 
 A. Under God, gravity is the efficient cause of all the 
 changes made upon the watery surface, or in the water 
 under the surface. 
 
 Q. 51. But has not the elasticity or compressibility 
 of the water something to do in causing the change or 
 changes in the lake? 
 
 A. Compressibility is not a force in Nature, but 
 primarily a property in matter, by which matter is able 
 to receive a sudden application of extrinsic force in such 
 a way as to be recovered from the immediate effects 
 of the shock. 
 
 Q. 52. What is meant by the immediate effects of the 
 shock? 
 
 A. A temporary displacement of particles around, a 
 removal of the water immediately beneath the falling 
 stone and a very brief vacancy above it. 
 
 Q. 53. By what force then is the displacement of 
 particles adjusted, and the vacancy filled? 
 
102 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. Cohesion avails itself of the opportunity afforded 
 in the slight compressibility of water, and operates as a 
 constructive force, while gravity seizes the advantage at 
 hand in the liquidity of such matter to restore the former 
 evenness and tranquillity of the lake's surface. 
 
 Q. 54. But is not the water deeper than it was before 
 the fall of the rock? 
 
 A. It is. 
 
 Q. 55. Does this small increase of depth extend over 
 the entire surface of the lake? 
 
 A. True science so teaches. 
 
 Q. 56. In effecting this change of depth, is every drop 
 of water in the lake more or less affected? 
 
 A. Not necessarily. The mobility and slight com- 
 pressibility of the water in the vicinity of the rock, and 
 along the line of its descent from the surface to the bot- 
 tom of the lake, shields the more distant portions of the 
 water from the effects of the shock. 
 
 Q. 57. From what portions of the lake is the water 
 taken which is distributed over the entire surface thereof? 
 
 A. It comes exclusively from no particular locality or 
 place of definable limits, but from the entire portion in 
 which the disturbance and displacement occurred, from 
 the final resting place of the fallen rock, upward along 
 the line of its descent, and out over the entire portion of 
 the lake immediately beneath its new or raised surface. 
 
 Q. 58. And gravity does the work? 
 
 A. The falling rock performed an instrumental or 
 mechanical part, but the efficient work was done by 
 gravity, as ordained by the wisdom and operated under 
 the power of Him who calmed the storm on Galilee, and 
 tranquillized the troubled elements of wind and water 
 from the aerial heights above to the aqueous depths be- 
 iieath. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ELECTRICITY. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is the current theory of science 
 with reference to the nature and laws of electricity? 
 
 AHSWETL There is great divergency, disagreement 
 and confusion concerning this branch of physics, running 
 from Thales to Tait, and ranging from matter to mo- 
 tion.* 
 
 Q. 2. How can such confusion in our progressive age 
 be satisfactorily accounted for? 
 
 A. Only upon the supposition that the schools and text- 
 books are radically wrong in their basic theories of elec- 
 tricity. 
 
 Q. 3. But do not the pretended leaders claim to be 
 agnostic in this branch of physical science. 
 
 * Edison, the greatest practical electrician now living, de- 
 clares: " They (the text-books) are most misleading. I get mad 
 with myself when I think how I have believed what was so 
 learnedly set out in them. There are more frauds in science 
 than anywhere else. Take a whole pile of them that I can name 
 and you will find uncertainty if not imposition in half of what 
 they state as scientific truth. . . . Professor this or that will 
 controvert you out of the books, and prove out of the books 
 that it can't be so, though you have it right in the hollow of 
 your hand all the time and could break his spectacles with it. 
 Edison in New York Herald of Dec. 31, 1879, and quoted by 
 Dr. Hall in the " Problem of Human Life," p. 8, 
 
104 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. Some of them in this particular are beautifully 
 consistent.* 
 
 Q. 4. Do they all make such concessions and confes- 
 sions? 
 
 A. They do not. Some of them define electricity as 
 imponderable matter. \ 
 
 Q. 5. Do the most of modern electricians agree to the 
 foregoing definition? 
 
 A. There is no general agreement. Gordon, in his 
 "Phys. Treat, on Elect, and Mag. /'says: "We must 
 not, however, commit ourselves to the idea that electric- 
 ity is a [material] substance. We do not know whether it 
 is or not. There are many other instances of quantities 
 which are not substances. "J 
 
 Q. 6. What does he mean by " unsubstantial quanti- 
 ties"? 
 
 A. His meaning is obvious from his illustrations; 
 e. g.) he speaks of pressure as a quantity without sub- 
 stance, and represents the pressure as produced by the 
 pulling of a horse, unmindful that the pressure of which 
 he speaks is mechanical force, produced by or converted 
 from the life-force of the animal, which force is a quan- 
 titative substance. 
 
 Q. 7. What is the latest theory, and the one most 
 
 * Prof. John Trowbridge, in Pop. Sci. Monthly, says: " We 
 shall never know what electricity is." Prof. Nichols, of Boston, 
 says: " Electricity in itself considered, and much of its attend- 
 ant phenomena, belong to the realm of the unknown. . . . 
 Considered as a thing, we know as much of spirit as we do of 
 electricity. Dr. H. A. Mott, LL.D., in Microcosm, Vol. V. p. 145. 
 
 f This is called Lym men's theory, and of which Ganot says: 
 " It is quite hypothetical, but its general adoption is justifiable 
 by the convenient explanation it gives of electrical phenomena." 
 See Dr. Mott, ibid., p. 147. 
 
 \ Ibid., p. 146. 
 
ELECTRICITY. 10 
 
 alarmingly epidemic in the densely populated metropolis 
 of false science? 
 
 A. That electricity is a condition of an all-pervading 
 material called ether, and that electric attraction and 
 repulsion are only a palpitation of ether's great heart. 
 
 Q. 8. But is electricity really knowable? 
 
 A. If it is something entirely beyond the power of 
 human investigation and comprehension, it has no mis- 
 sion in a world whose entities and activities all culminate 
 in the superior endowments of the human mind. God 
 speaks to man in every entity, by every force and through 
 every law of Nature, and it would be exceedingly disre- 
 spectful to the God of nature to even intimate that he 
 has spoken in an absolutely unknown and unknpwable 
 tongue. 
 
 Q. 9. Why then this babel of confusion? 
 
 A. The light of Nature, like that of Eevelation, may 
 shine in darkness and the darkness comprehend it not. 
 Confusion in science is sometimes the result of educated 
 ignorance and formulated falsehoods. Concerning elec- 
 tricity there has been great ignorance as to its real 
 nature. 
 
 Q. 10. Have there been any recent discoveries throw- 
 ing new light upon the subject? 
 
 A. The recent discoveries of certain laws and facts 
 in Nature are conservatively revolutionary in their bear 
 ing upon the general field of science, and as a result 
 electricity will be studied from the new standpoint of in- 
 quiry into its real character. 
 
 Q. 11. Why was not the discovery made sooner? 
 
 A. For two sufficient reasons: 1. The learned world 
 persisted in shutting out the new light by interposing 
 the opacity of its own scholastic prejudice. 2. God has 
 his set time to favor Science as well as to favor Zion. 
 
 Q. 12. "What then is electricity as to its real nature? 
 
106 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. It is a real, substantial force element and a verita- 
 ble entity of being, independent of all matter, and ab- 
 solutely dependent only upon the Infinite Source of its 
 finite being. 
 
 Q. 13. In what does electricity surpass and differ from 
 some other force-elements in Nature?* 
 
 A. It surpasses some of them in its performance of 
 the most marvelous functions in the complicated system 
 of the physical realm, and by certain phenomena indi- 
 cating that it is possibly a connecting link which unites 
 the physical with the biological realm about it. 
 
 Q. 14. How is electricity produced? 
 
 A. It is developed or excited into a more active state 
 of being. 
 
 Q. 15. From what is it developed? 
 
 A. From static electricity, or electric force in a state 
 of rest. 
 
 Q. 16. Is static electricity really or only apparently at 
 rest? 
 
 A. It is only apparently at rest. Indeed, it may be 
 questioned whether any force is ever really at rest. 
 
 Q. 17. Does not such a statement seem unwarrantable 
 and unscientific? 
 
 A. It ought not to seem unreasonable to the material- 
 ists who have the venturesome arrogance to affirm, and 
 who are bound by all the cords of their own stubborn 
 sophistry to teach, that inert matter is always moving 
 upon the rickety vehicle of molecular motion. 
 
 Q. 18. In what does static electricity reside? 
 
 A. In all forms and kinds of matter. In some there 
 is more than in others. 
 
 * " Had we eyes or a sense which could unfold the part which 
 electricity plays in the economy of Nature, our knowledge would 
 be greatly increased, and scenes as varied as a gorgeous sunset 
 woukl be disclosed to us." Dr. H. A. Mott. 
 
ELECTRICITY. -107 
 
 Q. 10. How is static electricity developed so as to give 
 manifestation of itself by its phenomena and power over 
 matter? 
 
 A. It maybe developed by friction or contact of differ- 
 ent bodies. 
 
 Q. 20. May this be done independent of all condi- 
 tions? 
 
 A. God has ordained that in the tranquil workings of 
 his perpetual Providence, as well as in the possible 
 catastroph.es in Nature, nothing is done without the 
 presence of required conditions. 
 
 Q. 21. Can electricity be developed from the other 
 force-elements of Nature? 
 
 A. Under the required conditions other force-ele- 
 ments, such as adhesion, cbemism, cohesion, heat and 
 light are converted or transformed into electricity. 
 
 Q. 22. In order to change one or more forces into 
 electricity does it require a friction of forces 9 
 
 A. It does not. The possibility of such transforma- 
 tion is based upon the constitutional correlation and con- 
 sequent convertibility of forces. 
 
 Q. 23. Is work or life -force convertible into elec- 
 tricity? 
 
 A. Yes; e. y., when a piece of glass is rubbed with a 
 piece of silk the life-force thus expended is converted 
 through the mediate forces of adhesion and heat into 
 electricity. 
 
 Q. 24. What is life-force 9 
 
 A. This question is answered in chapter XL, which 
 treats of Life. 
 
 Q. 25. Are there two electricities, or only one? 
 
 A. Electricity, like humanity, is one in the essential 
 unity of its substance and constitution. Humanity in- 
 volves a twofoldness of sex as essential to the essence -of 
 its being, as well as to the law of its development; so 
 
108 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 docs electricity involve a certain twofoldness of attrac- 
 tion and repulsion, by which it continues to complement 
 itself in its development and in the performance of its 
 important functions in nature. 
 
 Q. 26. But are there not opposite, or positive and 
 negative poles in electricity? 
 
 A. There are different electrical states or potentials, 
 but the opposition is only apparent.* The distinction 
 between attraction and repulsion is involved m the con- 
 stitution and laws of one positive force- element. in nature 
 electricity. 
 
 Q. 27. What is the meaning of '"potential," as em- 
 ployed above? 
 
 A. In an electrical sense, the word is used to express 
 the degree in which a body is charged with electrical 
 force. 
 
 Q. 28. Then the terms positive and negative express 
 quantity rather than quality? 
 
 A. They express quantity in a relative sense. The 
 electrified body is said to be positively or negatively 
 charged, according as it has -{- or , greater or less elec- 
 tricity than surrounding bodies, f 
 
 * 'i'here is no opposition necessarily involved in the distinction 
 of sex as long as these complementary parts of humanity are 
 kept in their normal and legitimate relation to each other. 
 When it is abnormally otherwise, look out for thunder and light- 
 ning extraordinary. 
 
 f It must be borne in mind that substantial electrical force, 
 like substantial heat and the substantial force of gravitation, is 
 a simple form or manifestation of the force-element of Nature. 
 A metal rod, heated at one point, has its heat potential at that 
 point raised, and there is an immediate flow of heat to the 
 colder part, or part of lower potential, which continues till the 
 equilibrium is restored, by raising the lower potential and lower- 
 ing the higher. (See the Electrician article by Atkinson, Vol. 
 II'., p. 270.) 
 
 Fill with water two vertical pipes, connected below, and it 
 
ELECTRICITY. 109 
 
 Q. 29. Can electricity travel? 
 
 A. It has demonstrated its ability to move at a very 
 rapid rate of speed. 
 
 Q. 30. What substances conduct it? 
 
 stands at the same level in each. Press it down with a piston two 
 feet below the level in one, and it rises two feet above the level 
 in the other; and the force of the piston is the exact measure of 
 this difference of potential. Decrease this force, and the ten- 
 dency to equilibrium at once becomes manifest; remove it, and 
 the equilibrium is restored. 
 
 So with the substantial electrical force, -f and electrical 
 force are simply difference of potential. In a large conductor 
 like the earth, the potential over any limited area, as stated, is 
 equal or at zero; hence the potential of the earth is taken as the 
 standard. 
 
 If two insulated conductors are oppositely charged (i. e. , at 
 different potential), and either of them placed in electric con- 
 nection with the earth, its equilibrium is restored; in the +, by 
 a flow of electricity to the earth, and in the by a flow of elec- 
 tricity from the earth. If both, while insulated, are placed in 
 connection with each other, equilibrium takes place between 
 them by a flow from + to ; and their potential will then be 
 above or below that of the earth, that is, at + or potential, 
 according as the original potential of either was the greater. If 
 the potential of one was exactly equal to the -f- potential of 
 the other, the resulting potential would be zero, like the earth. 
 Charged bodies at the same potential naturally repel, and at 
 different potential attract each other, the flow of electricity 
 being from + to ; a charged body, then, is one whose equilib- 
 rium is disturbed by a change of potential above or below the 
 potential of the earth, and therefore shows a tendency to equi- 
 librium. 
 
 These two kinds of potential have for another reason been 
 called + and , because when added together (as in algebra) 
 they combine, and the substantial electrical force disappears, 
 under some conditions, to reappear as substantial sound, sub- 
 stantial heat, substantial light, etc.. which in turn disappear, to 
 reappear in some other form, or go back to be conserved in the 
 force-element of nature. Dr. Henry A. Mott, in Microcosm. 
 Vol. V., pp. 149, 150. 
 
110 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. Under proper conditions all finite substances are 
 conductors of this wonderful force.* 
 
 Q. 31. Then there can be no such thing as a perfect 
 insulator? 
 
 A. No more than there can be a perfect vacuum. 
 Nature, not having been made out of nothing, despises 
 a vacuum, and, to be consistent, must despise the theory 
 that there is an effectual blockade in the royal right-of- 
 way of her forces. 
 
 Q. 32. But are not some substances better conductors 
 of electricity than others? 
 
 A. They are; and the same is true of heat and all the 
 other force-elements in nature. 
 
 Q. 33. What is one of the best known conductors of 
 electricity? 
 A. Silver. 
 
 Q. 34. Why is it one of the best, or why has it the 
 most conducting ability? 
 
 A. Because in silver the substantial force of cohesion 
 is so permitted to exercise itself in holding the particles 
 of that metal in concrete mass as to assist the passage of 
 electrical force with greater ease and facility than is 
 possible in many other kinds of matter. 
 
 Q. 35. Does matter really conduct electricity? 
 
 A. It does not. Matter is always passive. It allows 
 that entity to pass, and the extent of the permission is in 
 exact proportion to the degree of ability that matter 
 possesses to justify the charter for the transit. 
 
 Q. 36. If matter then is merely passive in permitting 
 the passage of traveling electricity, what is really the 
 conductor thereof? 
 
 * Dr. Hogeboom thinks that perfectly dry ashes is one of very 
 few exceptions. See his article on Electricity in " Appleton's 
 Cyclopedia." 
 
ELECTRICITY. Ill 
 
 A. Force is the active agency in the conduction of 
 force. 
 
 Q. 37. Is electricity then its own conductor? 
 
 A. Electric force travels with ease according as the 
 cohesive and heat force in any kind of matter gives 
 it facility for speed. Thus silver admits of a better rate 
 of travel than charcoal because of the more favorable ar- 
 rangement of its particles by the substantial force of 
 cohesion. 
 
 Q. 38. Is electricity convertible or transformable into 
 other forces? * 
 
 A. It may be transformed into heat, light, and 
 sound, f 
 
 Q. 39. Is electricity a material or an immaterial sub- 
 stance ? 
 
 A. True science teaches that it is an immaterial sub- 
 stance. 
 
 Q. 40. Why is it unscientific to teach that electricity 
 is matter,, even in its highly attenuated and alleged 
 ethereal form? 
 
 A. For two general reasons: 1. It is destitute of prop- 
 erties which belong to all matter. 2. It possesses dy- 
 namic powers which are not predicable of matter. 
 
 * The Substantial Philosophy has not yet undertaken the 
 tempting task of investigating and explaining the relation 
 which may exist between electric force and that obviously in- 
 stinctive force by which the young pigeon returns directly to its 
 distant home, and to that spirit force by which the child of 
 heaven seeks with constant yearnings his home beyond the 
 clouds. 
 
 f It must be clearly understood that, according to the theory 
 of Substantial ism, the all-pervading force-element of Nature is 
 capable of manifesting itself in various forms, according as it is 
 acted upon, and that each of the forms of manifestation of this 
 reservoir of force is capable of being converted into any one of 
 the forms which can be produced from the original condition of 
 the force-element. Dr. Mott, in Mic., Vol. V., p. 151. 
 
112 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 41. But is not electricity matter in motion, or a 
 peculiar condition of ethereal matter? 
 
 A. Nonsense in motion! Electricity moves matter. 
 That which moves matter can be called matter in neither 
 truth nor science; and that which changes the condition 
 of matter cannot be predicated as a mere condition 
 thereof. 
 
 Q. 42. At what velocity docs lightning or electricity 
 travel? 
 
 A. It has been estimated at 300,000 miles per second 
 by the copper wire route. 
 
 Q. 43. And are there men upon the earth in this 
 scientific age who teach that inert matter, or some " con- 
 dition " of matter can travel at such an astounding rate 
 of speed? 
 
 A.- Yes, gentle reader, there are still some teachers 
 who stuff their unsuspecting students with such super- 
 lative bosh. 
 
 Q. 44. Why do they teach it? 
 
 A. Because they have been so long chained to the 
 fatal rock of false assumptions that the vultures of edu- 
 cated prejudice have eaten out their very vitals of proper 
 independence as pretended searchers after the truth. 
 
 Q. 45. But is it not a mere influence going out from 
 matter, or from an assumed condition of matter, as an 
 immaterial nonentity producing certain results which the 
 human mind is bound to relegate to the domain of mys- 
 tery? 
 
 A. Mysterious things are not produced of nothing 
 any more than the things which are more fully accounted 
 for and comprehended. The works which electricity 
 performs bear testimony to the unprejudiced reasoning 
 faculties of man that it is a substantial force-element in 
 the constitution of Nature. 
 
ELECTRICITY. 113 
 
 Q. 46. What works does electricity, under God, per- 
 form? 
 
 A. It is just now a leading question in the minds of 
 advanced thinkers* as to what works are not performed 
 by electricity in the physical economy of Nature. It 
 should for the present be satisfactory to all earnest in- 
 quirers after the truth that electricity must be a sub- 
 stance, a force and an active entity in Nature, or it could 
 not accomplish what every schoolboy of ordinary intelli- 
 gence knows to be above and beyond all rational contro- 
 versy. Time itself would fail before its manifold func- 
 tions in Nature could be told. It purifies the atmosphere 
 and conserves the conditions of animal life. It is capa- 
 ble of moving tho machinery of industrial civilization, 
 and of illumining all the cities of the globe. It carries 
 messages of human intelligence at lightning speed over 
 the mountains and under the oceans of the world. In- 
 stead of dissipating, it conserves the energy and renews 
 the vigor of its youth; and will so continue to conserve 
 itself until its marvelous phenomena shall .culminate in a 
 grand display of its elemental glory, when the coming 
 of the Son of Man, as lightning shining from the east, 
 even unto the west, shall be heralded by a corresponding 
 display of its correlative forces in the heat of burning 
 worlds, the light of blazing planets, and the last long 
 sound of GabrieFs mighty trumpet. 
 
 *Rev. B. T. Kavanagh, D. D., of Owingsville, Ky., a forcible 
 and voluminous writer, has advanced the theory that the heav- 
 enly bodies are all moved by electrical or magnetic attraction. 
 This bold theory, plausible in many of its features, has now 
 been before the world for a number of years, and yet down to 
 this present writing there has been no unusual wreck of matter 
 or crash of worlds in any visible portion of the zodiac as a con- 
 sequence of the change from gravital to electrical motive power. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 HEAT. 
 
 QUESTION" 1. "What may be properly considered under 
 this general subject of heat? 
 
 ANSWER. Its source, nature, action, and motor-power. 
 
 Q. 2. Whence has heat its origin? 
 
 A. God is primordially the source of all substantial 
 things. (See Chapter I.) 
 
 Q. 3. But is not the sun in some sense the source of 
 heat? 
 
 A. Mediately heat comes from the sun as the great 
 thermal store house or reservoir in our solar system. It 
 also comes from its latent state in Nature when devel- 
 oped by mechanical or chemical action. So does it pass 
 from any body of higher relative temperature. 
 
 Q. 4. Is heat made by mechanical or chemical action? 
 
 A. It is not. There is static or latent heat in all 
 matter, and it may be produced by friction or favorable 
 combination, just as sound is liberated and electricity 
 developed by compliance with certain conditions ordained 
 of God to such ends. 
 
 Q. 5. What is heat as to its nature 9 
 
 A. It is that force in Nature which, by entering our 
 tactile nerves, produces the sensation called warmth. 
 
 Q. 6. Has heat an objective existence independent of 
 such sensation? 
 
 A. It has; just as light would still have an existence 
 even though all sensuous beings were to become as blind 
 
HEAT. 115 
 
 as materialistic philosophers, or as nearsighted as sensa- 
 tionalists in science; just as the aesthetic world would 
 have no less beauty though all angels and men were to 
 lose their powers of admiration; just as flavor would 
 still be found in the savory viands of the sumptuous 
 feaet though all the guests should be deprived of their 
 gustatory nerves; and just as sound would still have its 
 objective existence even though all men and birds and 
 beasts were to become as deaf as adders are supposed to 
 be. 
 
 Q. 7. Is heat a real substance? 
 
 A. It is just as really a substance as the water which 
 it converts into vapor, the air which it rarifies, the 
 clay which it hardens, the wood which it reduces to 
 ashes, or the material elements of the building which it 
 licks up with the cloven tongues of its conflagration. 
 
 Q. 8. But do not the text-books of the schools and the 
 representative physicists of the world teach that heat is 
 " only a mode of motion"? 
 
 A. They all so taught until recently, when the ap- 
 pearance of the glorious gospel of the Substantial Phi- 
 losophy began to show the tremendous fallacy of such 
 teaching; and even yet there are some who still cling to 
 this mode of motion theory of heat.* 
 
 Q. 9. What do such authorities say in support of this 
 theory? 
 
 A. They lay down false premises and start their 
 sophistry from a false assumption; viz.: that rest is an 
 abnormal state of matter, and that therefore "even the 
 molecules of a solid are in constant vibration. This as- 
 sumed voluntary activity of inert matter is supposed to 
 produce heat. Thus the cart is placed before the horse, 
 
 * See " Appleton's Cyclopedia," Vol. 8, p. 568, Steele's " Nat. 
 Philosophy," p. 228, and " Heat as a Mode of Motion," by John 
 Tymlall, 
 
116 . THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 and as they with the driver go rolling and tumbling down 
 the hill amidst the adulation of thoughtless fools, the 
 regular symposium of the world's philosophers look ex- 
 ceedingly wise at what they call thermo-dynamics. 
 
 Q. 10. Then heat is something more than vibratory 
 rotation of molecules in matter? 
 
 A. Indeed it is. True science rejects the whole mis- 
 erable assumption and sophistry of molecular motion. 
 Eest or quiescence is the normal state of matter. If 
 gravity had been recognized as a force-element in the 
 universe, the learned world would never have fallen into 
 such a fundamental fallacy. Inertia is a property of 
 matter in lump; why should it not be considered a prop- 
 erty thereof in smaller quantity? If matter cannot move 
 itself in mass, why should science conclude that it can 
 do so in molecule? The sooner the world's bookful block- 
 heads abandon the theory built upon such an assumption 
 the better will it be for all parties except those who are 
 building precarious reputations for wisdom out of the 
 wood, hay and stubble of false science. 
 
 Q. 11. Is inertia a property of immaterial substances? 
 
 A. Not in the same sense that it belongs to matter. 
 God has given to some immaterial substances power to 
 move themselves. He has not endowed matter with such 
 power. Heat being an immaterial force-substance, has 
 derivative dynamic power in itself. 
 
 Q. 12. Why should heat have such power when it has 
 been withheld from matter? 
 
 A. Because it was in accordance with the pleasure 
 and wise purpose of God, the great source of all things 
 material and immaterial, so to ordain it. He may have 
 created the horse to pull the wagon because the wagon 
 cannot move itself. 
 
 Q. 13. What is the first peculiar motion of heat as a 
 force? 
 
HEAT. 117 
 
 A. Diffusion. 
 Q. 14. What is- diffusion? 
 
 A. That property or ability of heat by which it trav- 
 els or disperses itself. 
 
 Q. 15. Is it not ascribing to heat an attribute of Deity 
 to concede to it the power of self-motion? 
 
 A. It is not claimed by the Substantial Philosophy 
 that heat either originates itself or endows itself with 
 self -impelling energy, but that it came into existence 
 from God's own substantial being, and brought with it ( 
 the principle of its peculiar impulse as a force-element in 
 Nature, as well as the law of its diffusive activity. The 
 same is true of magnetism, electricity, sound, and also of 
 all the life-forces, even up to the intellectuality and spir- 
 ituality of the human person. See Chapter XL 
 
 Q. 16. By what law or rule does heat travel? 
 
 A. While it has some things in common with, all the 
 forces of Nature, its law of travel has some peculiarities 
 of its own. 
 
 Q. 17. Does it travel equally well through all kinds 
 of matter? 
 
 A. It does not. Like sound and electricity, heat 
 travels better and faster through some bodies than others. 
 
 Q. 18. Does heat require a material medium or con- 
 ductor through which to travel? 
 
 A. It does not. Heat travels with greater freedom 
 and speed when by strict radiation it darts away in every 
 direction, and like gravity and light shoots its rays from 
 world to world. 
 
 Qi 19. Do rays of heat elevate the temperature of the 
 media through which they pass ? 
 A. They do. 
 
 Q. 20. What is the teaching of the text-books upon 
 this point? 
 
118 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. The language of the text-book* before us is: 
 " Kays of heat do not elevate the temperature of the 
 media through which they pass/' But let the professor 
 lay his hand on a bar of iron with one end heated, and 
 thrust it into a vessel of cold water, and he will soon 
 feel the temperature of the medium rise high enough to 
 burn his hand possibly high enough to burn his book. 
 
 Q. 21. How does he attempt to prove his fallacy in 
 science? 
 
 A. By the statement that " space is not warmed by 
 the sunbeam." 
 
 Q. 22. Is not this latter statement correct? 
 
 A. It is correct, because space is nothing, and conse- 
 quently there is nothing in its emptiness to warm. It is 
 just as impossible to warm space as it is to warm motion 
 or a triangle. It is, however, different when the medium 
 of heat's travel is a material substance. Space being 
 nothing, it is not media. It is room for something. 
 
 Q. 23. But is not all interstellar space filled with 
 ether, and, if so, is not this ether necessary to the con- 
 duction of heat? 
 
 A. Yes. False science, in its ignorance of substantial 
 immaterial forces, manufactured ether, arid out of it con- 
 structed some hypotheses which it will be glad to get 
 clear of as soon as the brightening, broadening splendor 
 of revolutionary truth succeeds in driving such imagi- 
 nary " jelly " from the skies. 
 
 Q. 24. Is there any difference between the conduction 
 and radiation of heat? 
 
 A. The term conduction is most proper in speaking 
 of the travel of heat through dense material, while radia- 
 tion primarily signifies the dispersion of heat from the 
 surface of a dense body containing more heat than the 
 
 * Steele's " Fourteen Weeks in Philosophy," p. 245. 
 
HEAT. 119 
 
 surrounding atmospnere, space or ether, provided there 
 be such a thing in existence. 
 
 Q. 25. What is the effect of heat upon matter? 
 
 A. Its direct tendency is to overcome cohesive at- 
 traction and expand the mass. In chemistry and in the 
 sphere of life its effects are numerous, and often the 
 very reverse of each other. It changes the form of 
 matter differently, as in the thawing of ice, and in the 
 hardening of an egg by boiling. It hardens clay while 
 it melts iron. 
 
 Q. 26. Why does heat have such an opposite effect 
 upon different kinds of matter? 
 
 A. Because in different kinds of matter the particles 
 are differently arranged by the force of cohesion; and 
 also because other forces operative in matter are differ- 
 ently correlated with heat and with each other. Forces 
 act less freely when largely antagonized or neutralized by 
 other forces. 
 
 Q. 27. What was the purpose of God in endowing 
 heat with the power and facility of manipulating mat- 
 ter, and traveling through matter by way of conduction, 
 and radiating from matter by way of general diffusion? 
 
 A. To enable it to accomplish its mission in the gen- 
 eral economy of the universe. 
 
 Q. 28. What is its peculiar mission as a traveler? 
 A. Like electricity it serves to restore equilibrium be- 
 tween extreme conditions. 
 
 Q. 29. Between what two extremes does radiation 
 seek to restore equilibrium? 
 A. Between intense heat and severe cold. 
 
 Q. 30, Why is such intermediate state or moderate 
 temperature demanded in the economy of Nature? 
 
 A. In order to serve Nature's higher purpose the 
 preservation and propagation of animal life. 
 
120 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 31. What degree of heat is most favorable to the 
 accomplishment of such a purpose? 
 
 A. The required degree of heat or warmth differs ac- 
 cording to circumstances, according to the specific nature 
 of the animal or animated being, according to its environ- 
 ments, and the specific purpose each animal or living 
 being is to serve in the general economy of Nature. 
 Human life attains its fullest earthly development and 
 finest earthly form in the Temperate Zone and a degree 
 of warmth not far from the half-way point between 
 sixty degs. below zero and boiling water point, 212 degs., 
 above. 
 
 Q. 32. If then the proper equilibrium or temperature 
 more favorable to the preservation and perpetuation of ani- 
 mal being is more or less adjacent to the middle point be- 
 tween a destructive degree of intense heat and the sever- 
 ity of extreme cold, and if heat, as Substantialism 
 teaches, is a positive entity, does it not follow in reason 
 that cold is also something substantial in its nature, since 
 it seems to join with heat in producing certain results? 
 
 A. It does not so follow. Cold is a negative idea of 
 which we can have but a negative concept. It is a non- 
 entity. On this point the text-books are mainly right. 
 And it would be strange indeed if it were otherwise. 
 The current materialistic theories of physical science, 
 while they deny the positively substantial character of 
 all cntitative force-elements in Nature, would be unpar- 
 donably inconsistent if they should hesitate or fail to 
 call a genuine nothing by its right name. 
 
 Q. 33. Do the analogies of Nature tend to confirm 
 the correctness of this view? 
 
 A. They do. Negative darkness is the absence of 
 light. Silence is the absence of the substantial force - 
 element called sound. Death or lifelessness is the nega- 
 tive of life a nothing of which the human mind can 
 form no positive concept. Absolute vacuity, if such a 
 
HEAT. 121 
 
 thing were possible, would be the absence of everything 
 a realm of emptiness space nothing. 
 
 Q. 34. Is absolute cold the absence of all heat? 
 
 A, Theoretically, it is; practically, it is an, impossi- 
 bility. Nature despises a vacuum, and raises her protest 
 against it in every part of her domain. If all other sub- 
 stances were to rebel and secede from the territory of her 
 dominion, her partial desolation would still cry out through 
 inter-stellar space: "Let there be gravity!" and "Let 
 there be light!" 
 
 Q, 35. What do our experience and observation teach 
 concerning the presence of some heat in all places and 
 in all matter of which we have any knowledge? 
 
 A, They teach, in harmony with Eevelation, that 
 since God "set a tabernacle for the sun" "there is noth- 
 ing hid from the heat thereof," Two pieces of ice rubbed 
 together will develop heat, proving that there is a limited 
 quantity of heat even in the cold bosom of an iceberg,* 
 
 * And here let us say, in passing, that this natural law or tend- 
 ency to diffusion, which causes heat to radiate from one body 
 of greater heat into another possessing less heat, thus seeking 
 to establish equilibrium, would seem necessarily to preclude the 
 possibility of the absolute non- presence of heat, even in the cold- 
 est ice of the arctic regions. . . . Ice can be frozen solid at 
 30 deg. F. But it becomes colder and colder by thermometric 
 test down to zero, then on down to 40 deg. below zero, when the 
 mercury solidifies in the bulb of the Fahrenheit thermometer. 
 Of course it could only become colder by the radiation of more 
 and more heat, and therefore there must have been some heat 
 there to get out. Then by another thermometer of greater range 
 we still trace the further radiation of heat even from that arctic 
 ice down to the equivalent of 60 deg. or 70 deg. F. , and all the 
 time it is solid ice, though all the time having some heat yet to 
 part with, making the cold, as we call it, or heat-absence, more 
 and more intense. Clearly, if there were not some heat left in 
 ice at 60 deg. below zero, it is plain that a thermometer in con- 
 tact with it could not continue to go down. Dr. Hall, in Micro- 
 cosm, Vol. III., p. 283, 
 
122 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q, 36. Does cold join with heat to restore an equi- 
 librium does it draw heat? 
 
 A, No more than an empty stomach can draw a loaf 
 of bread.* 
 
 Q. 37. If cold is not an entity and positive force, how 
 can we account for the apparent fact that it solidifies 
 water and other liquid forms of matter, converts mill- 
 ponds into skating-rinks, bursts solid masses of metal by 
 the freezing of a few drops of water, when confined within 
 them, and turns melted mineral into pig-iron, cog-wheels, 
 and cooking-stoves? 
 
 A. Scientifically speaking, cold does nothing of the 
 kind. It is the radiation or departure of heat from 
 liquid mineral that gives cohesion an opportunity to re- 
 assert its power in restoring mineral matter to its more 
 normal state. The same is true in the freezing of water. 
 Heat radiates from water as long as its temperature is 
 above the mean temperature of all adjacent and sur- 
 rounding substance. After the temperature of the water 
 is thus reduced to freezing point, any farther radiation 
 restores water to its more normal condition ice.f The 
 
 * If two water-tanks, one full and the other empty, were con- 
 nected at the bottom by an open faucet, it is plain that the 
 emptiness of the one tank (corresponding exactly to thermal or 
 magnetic cold) does not force the water out of the other tank; 
 but it merely permits the water to run out by a law of Nature 
 in order to establish an aqueous equilibrium. How plainly this 
 appeals to our common sense! Ibid. 
 
 f Freezing into ice and expanding into greater bulk, are not, 
 therefore, the action of cold at all, scientifically spoaking, but 
 are the effect of the natural radiation of heat from the liquid 
 body which thereby allows it to return to its normal condition 
 of solid ice. The bursting of a mass of iron by the expansion of 
 a little confined water in the act of turning into ice is not, there- 
 fore, properly the work of cold in any positive sense, but is 
 simply the work of heat in the act of withdrawing by radiation 
 
HEAT. 123 
 
 normal condition of water requires for it more room than 
 when cramped up in its abnormal state of lukevvarmness; 
 hence the bursting of the metal globe or vessel in which 
 freezing water is confined. 
 
 Q. 38. Why does congealed water require more room 
 than water in a moderate temperature and fluid state? 
 
 A. Because the particles when thus crystallized will 
 not fit together with the same compactness as when in 
 their fluid and abnormal condition.* 
 
 Q. 39. But will not heated water also burst the vessel 
 in which an attempt is made to confine it; and if so does 
 
 * The reason why ice takes up more room in the act of form- 
 ing than liquid, is this: the particles of water being round fall 
 together with the greatest possible compactness and with the 
 least possible intersticial spaces between them, thus taking up 
 the least possible room. Now it is evident that all the particles 
 of a given mass of water would not radiate their heat with the 
 same facility, or at the same instant. Hence those particles first 
 giving up their heat will form themselves into crystallized par- 
 ticles of irregular shapes, which of course will take up more room 
 than the perfectly round particles. As there is no place for them 
 they commence wedging themselves in between the fluid par- 
 ticles, forcing them apart, which being almost entirely incom- 
 pressible (and acting also as frictionless wedges see solution 
 of hydrostatic pressure) must begin to exert a powerful strain 
 upon the inclosing cylinder; till finally, as the crystallization 
 continues, millions of these infinitesimal wedges have formed 
 and come into play, thus bursting the cylinder asunder. It is 
 simply split by the action of an infinite number of mechanical 
 wedges. That's all. Now to say that cold bursts the cylinder, 
 is the same as to say that vacuum crushes the thin glass receiver 
 surrounding it; whereas it is only the pressing of the air which 
 causes the collapse. Dr. Hall in Microcosm; Vol. 3., p. 214. 
 
 from the inclosed water, thus allowing it to return to its normal 
 condition or more enlarged form of ice, which necessarily bursts 
 the cylinder containing it. Dr. Hall, in the Micrcosm, Vol. III., 
 p. 3i4. 
 
124 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 it not follow that steam like ice is also a normal condi- 
 tion of matter. 
 
 A. In either case it is heat which causes the bursting 
 of the vessel. Cold has nothing to do with it in any 
 positive way. As Dr. Hall has so forcibly illustrated 
 with the thin glass receiver, the vacuum does not do 
 the crushing; it is the work of the air, or more properly 
 the work of gravity making use of the air at the rate 'of 
 fifteen pounds to the square inch on the outside. Put one 
 receiver into another and pump (radiate;) out all the air 
 not confined within the inclosed receiver, and the result 
 will be the crushing out of the walls of the small re- 
 ceiver. Hence whether crushed in or .out the work is 
 performed by the same force.* 
 
 * Other difficulties have been suggested, such, for example, as 
 the fact that a touch of the naked flesh to ice in the polar re- 
 gions, at forty degiees below zero, will raise a blister the same 
 as would the touch of hot iron, and will even cook meats the 
 same as will boiling water. Is it possible, it is asked, for heat 
 and cold both to produce the same results, and one of them be 
 merely the absence of the other ? We answer, as before, that 
 cold does not do it, strictly speaking. Our key will unlock even 
 this mystery. Normally, flesh could not exist at all. It is an 
 abnormality, a creature of heat operating in a partial degree of 
 intensity, say 86 deg. F. Increase this heat 126 deg., or to 212, 
 and flesh is disintegrated or destroyed as living organic sub- 
 stance; reduce this same heat, which allowed flesh to organize, 
 126 deg., or to 40 below zero, thus exposing it to a condition in 
 which normally it could not have come into existence at all, 
 and its texture is equally destroyed as living flesh, or, in other 
 words, it is cooked, and it will so appear when returned to that 
 degree of heat which organized it. Hence, the canning of 
 cooked meats is claimed to be done as effectually by the absence 
 of heat as by its excess. Thus the life-point of heat for organiz- 
 ing flesh, 86 deg. F., seems to be exactly midway between the 
 tw T o extremes of heat or its absence where flesh will, after organ- 
 ization, become disintegrated; or, as we commonly designate it, 
 cooked. Keep it at either extreme, and it will not putrify for 
 
HEAT. 125 
 
 Q. 40. Is it true that heat can be generated by the 
 contact of a moving body with another at rest or in 
 motion? 
 
 A. It is not true, save so far as such stoppage of mo- 
 tion by contact produces friction in either body among 
 its displaced particles. Mere contact of two bodies, where 
 there is no distortion and resultant friction, would pro- 
 duce no appreciable heat, however large the colliding 
 bodies might be, or however swift their motion when 
 coming into contact, even should it be two worlds as 
 large as our own. As motion, per se, is absolutely noth- 
 
 ages one on account of the intensity and the other on account 
 of the want of heat, but neither of them as the result of cold. 
 
 Take the experiment of testing the temperature of different 
 substances in a room where they are equally exposed to the 
 same degrees, and it is easily explained by this simple philo- 
 sophical law. The iron, for example, is certainly colder under 
 the same conditions of exposure than would be an equal mass 
 of wool; not because cold is a substance, or because it can get 
 into the iron with better facility than into the wool; but because 
 substantial heat radiates or departs from iron with greater 
 facility than from wool, and thus restores it quicker to its nor- 
 mal condition. Indeed, such is the affinity of heat for wool or 
 fur that it will not entirely radiate for a long time, even in a 
 region of the lowest temperature. Hence the heat of a man's 
 body communicated to clothing of wool is retained in the 
 woolen fiber, while a person clothed in the same weight of 
 linen might freeze to death because of its greater facility to 
 radiate or part with the heat of the person wearing it. In like 
 manner iron, exposed to the sun's rays above a medium tem- 
 perature, absorbs heat with the same facility with which it 
 parts with it in excessive cold, or cold below a medium tem- 
 perature; while with wool and many other substances it is 
 vice versa. Hence, iron in a hot sun will blister the hand, 
 while the heat of woolen cloth, similarly exposed, will scarcely 
 be felt. How completely all this harmonizes with the views 
 here set forth, that heat is the only real entity involved in the 
 premises! Dr. Hall's discussion with Dr. Roberts on "cold" 
 as an " entity," in the Microcosm, Vol. III., p. 215, 
 
126 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ing, the mere stoppage of motion cannot produce heat 
 only as the conflicting inertia of the two bodies causes 
 displacement of their particles and resultant friction. A 
 leaden bullet, when fired from a gun and stopped by con- 
 tact with a steel target, will show sensible heat, because 
 in flattening out its particles powerfully abrade each other; 
 but fire a tempered steel bullet and stop it in the same 
 way, and not even a small fraction of the heat observed 
 in the lead will be noticed, because there can be but very 
 little distortion of the metal, and therefore but very little 
 friction among its particles, though its motion was just 
 as suddenly stopped as in the case of the leaden bullet. 
 Dr. Hall was the first scientist to oppose this popular 
 view of the text-books, that the mere stoppage of motion 
 will generate heat. 
 
 Q. 41. But since the sudden compression of air or 
 other elastic gas is known to generate sensible heat, why 
 should not mere contact of weighty bodies produce the 
 same effect? 
 
 A. It is a serious mistake of physicists that the sud- 
 den compression of air under a piston generates any sensi- 
 ble heat, the only heat thus generated being the inappre- 
 ciable modicum caused by the friction of the air-particles 
 among themselves and against the sides of the containing 
 vessel, an amount which is too trifling to be recorded by 
 the most sensitive thermometer. 
 
 Q. 42. If this be true, how is it that a piece of punk 
 placed in a tube will take fire by the sudden compression 
 of the air upon it by means of a piston, as shown by Prof. 
 Tyndall in his " Heat as a Mode of Motion," and his 
 "Lectures on Sound'"? 
 
 A. The substantial heat already in the air of the tube 
 is condensed to a smaller compass, or brought within 
 a smaller space, and to the same degree that the air itself 
 is condensed or made more compact, thus intensifying 
 the heat already there, and not in any sense increasing 
 
HEAT. 127 
 
 the heat by compression. This new law in physical sci- 
 ence, first discovered by Dr. Hall, if irrefutable, over- 
 turns the entire philosophy of heat as a mode of motion, 
 since manifestly nothing can be condensed into a smaller 
 compass, and be thereby intensified in the same ratio, 
 unless it be a substantial entity, either material or imma- 
 terial. As well insist that air itself is a mode of motion, 
 and not a substantial entity, since it shows precisely the 
 same result of increased intensity or compactness by com- 
 pression, as does the heat contained in it before the piston 
 moves. * 
 
 * Having already shown, according to the current theory of 
 acoustics, that the locust, which is able to fill four cubic miles of 
 air with its sound, ought also to fill the same air with heat, 
 whether its stridulating force sent out shall result in sound or 
 not, we now come to another phase of the discussion, namely, the 
 real effect of atmospheric condensations and rarefactions, as re- 
 lates to the heat and cold observed in the same; and we have no 
 hesitation in promising the critical reader in advance one of the 
 most, if not the most, important scientific discussions in this 
 connection which we have ever had the honor of producing 
 in these pages. 
 
 At the very threshold of the argument, therefore, we venture 
 to announce what we, as well as others, regard as a new and 
 most revolutionary law in physical science, to wit: that the heat 
 observed, when a mass of air is suddenly condensed, is not " gen- 
 crated " at all by such act of condensation, as the present theory 
 teaches, but that it was already in the air and to the same 
 amount precisely before the condensing operation was com- 
 menced, its apparent "generation" being only the concentration 
 of this substantial heat to a smaller space, thereby intensifying 
 it in the same ratio as the air containing it was reduced in 
 volume. 
 
 If this law be true, it necessarily overturns the present theory 
 of " heat as a mode of motion," and demonstrates heat to be a 
 real substantial entity, or objective existence, as much so as is 
 the air, only that heat is an immaterial, while air is a material 
 substance. For surely if heat is capable of being condensed, 
 an<l thereby concentrated to greater intensity, the same as is the 
 
128 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 43. Is heat "a motor power in the mechanical and 
 commercial industries of the world? 
 
 A. It has been so utilized for more than eighty years, 
 and will probably be so applied in the future until the 
 inventive genius of man shall triumph in- the discovery of 
 some force more powerful or of some new application of 
 force in a manner that will render it more powerful and 
 economical in the performance of the same or similar 
 service. 
 
 Q. 44. But is it not the elastic force of steam which 
 
 air containing it, it must in all reason be as really a substantial 
 entity as is the air itself. 
 
 The present theory teaches that the heat observed, when con- 
 fined air is compressed, is actually " generated," or conies into 
 existence, by the conversion of the mechanical force which was 
 expended in compressing the air: not one single physicist having 
 conceived the idea, so far as the record shows, that by putting 
 two volumes of air into the space of one we necessarily put the 
 two volumes of substantial heat contained in the air into the 
 space of one, thus doubling its intensity. This position, there- 
 fore, if true, is so revolutionary and startling, in the very face 
 of the present theory of "heat as a mode of motion, "that it 
 cannot be too carefully analyzed and impressed upon the 
 reader's mind. 
 
 We do not wish it to be inferred, from this assumed law, that 
 we discard the fact of the conversion of mechanical force into 
 heat, as well as into light, electricity, sound, magnetism, and 
 even other forms of force. In the usual experiment of com- 
 pressing air into a tube by means of a tightly-fitting piston, 
 there is no doubt that a slight but inappreciable amount of heat 
 is generated by the friction of the piston against the sides of the 
 tube, and also by the friction of the air particles against each 
 other in the act of being compressed, which trifling heat may be 
 properly attributed to the conversion of mechanical force; but 
 this is by no means the intense increase of heat observed in the 
 compressed air, nor has it anything to do with the heat claimed 
 to be " generated" in such experiments, as taught by the whole 
 scientific world. This will be shown so clearly as to satisfy 
 every attentive reader. Dr. Hall in Microcosm, Vol. V, p. 160, 
 
HEAT. 129 
 
 drives the engine and moves the cargoes of commerce to 
 the marts of the world? 
 
 A. The text-books so teach;* but they are radically 
 wrong. As shown in a former chapter of this book, elas- 
 ticity, while it is a very peculiar property in matter by 
 which cohesive attraction is enabled to become a con- 
 structive force in nature, it is not strictly a force element, 
 but rather a property of matter. 
 
 Q. 45. Has heat, as a motor power, anything analo- 
 gous among the other forces of nature? 
 
 A. It has. Gravity uses water to turn the water- 
 wheel of the mill, as shown in Chapter VI., and heat 
 uses steam to whirl the burs and press-rollers of the 
 flouring-mill and to drive the multiplied and multiform 
 machineries of the world's busy workshop. 
 
 Q. 46. What will be the final result of the rapid 
 strides now being made by the inventive genius, utilita- 
 rian tact and grand achievements in the world's march 
 of progress? 
 
 A. The effect upon science, which is now, as never 
 before, learning to see God's invisible things in Nature, 
 and to trace their origin back to the Divine hand and 
 the Divine substance, will be to make it more devout, and, 
 in its increased devotion to the truth, make religion more 
 scientific.! 
 
 * See " Steele's Nat. Philosophy," p. 247. 
 
 f To illustrate: If the engine moves, we know it must be by 
 the force of the steam behind the piston; but what moves the 
 steam ? It, too, must have a force behind it by which it acts, 
 as steam is as much an inert entity as the water from which it 
 has been expanded into vapor. That force which makes steam 
 effective is heat. But heat, again, is an entity a substantial, 
 objective, finite, or limited thing and as such can only act, and 
 thereby move the water, changing it into vapor, thereby acting 
 on the piston, thereby moving the engine, thereby propelling the 
 
130 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 train, and, finally, transporting the passengers. What force is 
 it that moves this substantial heat into effective action? * * * 
 Does not wisdom, then, utter her voice and cry aloud even in 
 the streets, assuring us that there must of necessity be an ulti- 
 mate, intelligent, self-existent, and unoriginated fountain of 
 force as the moving power of all the forces, and other entities in 
 nature, and as the primordial First Cause of all the minor causes 
 in this universe which come within the observation of sentient 
 beings? Dr. Hall, in Scientific Arena, Vol. I., p. 13. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is light? 
 
 ANSWER. Light is that form of physical force by 
 which the sense of sight in men and animals is addressed 
 and affected. 
 
 Q. 2. Is light anything different and distinct from the 
 effects or sensations produced thereby? 
 
 A. There is as much difference and distinction be- 
 tween the two as there is between odor and the sensation 
 of smelling, or any other force in Nature and its phenom- 
 enal effects. Light exists external to our senses. If it 
 had no such external existence, it could not so act upon 
 our organs of sight, or come into such contact with the 
 retina as to bring distant objects within the compass of 
 our observation and under the power of our recognition. 
 
 Q. 3. Is light, then, an objective entity without any 
 dependent relation to that which it may produce in the 
 way of subjective experience? 
 
 A. Its existence is as really objective as that of the 
 sun; and Milton merely echoed back the revealed truth 
 of God when his pen recorded the poetic sentiment: 
 
 "Before the sun, 
 
 Before the heavens thou wert, and at the voice 
 Of God as with a mantle didst invest 
 The rising world of waters dark and deep." 
 
 Q. 4. If light is an objective entity, may it not be a 
 subject for scientific investigation, in search of what it is 
 
132 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 per se, without primary reference to that branch of phys- 
 ical science called optics, as usually treated in the text- 
 books? 
 
 A. The effects and phenomena of an entity may assist 
 us in our attempts to attain to a correct knowledge of the 
 nature of such entity; yet the investigation of the sub- 
 ject in search after the real nature of the objective entity 
 should be held as something entirely distinct from any 
 consideration of or inquiry into its phenomena. 
 
 Q. 5. How may the positive investigation of an 
 entity be gradually approached? 
 
 A. By considering it negatively, or as to what it is 
 not. This implies also the clearing away of any false or 
 defective theories which may have stood in the way of 
 science, in its attempts to attain to a more perfect 
 knowledge of the real nature of such entity. 
 
 Q. 6. What two theories of light have been assumed 
 as correct and taught in connection with the science of 
 optics during the last few hundred years? 
 
 A. The Emission theory and the Undulatory theory. 
 
 Q. 7. When and by whom was the emission theory 
 originated? 
 
 A. It seems probable from the readings of history, 
 that it began to take form under the powerful mind of 
 Descartes, in the first part of the 17th century, and 
 reached its highest form of defective perfection, as well 
 as the earliest stage of its abandonment, under the math- 
 ematical genius of Newton in the beginning of the fol- 
 lowing century of the Christian era. 
 
 Q. 8. What was the emission theory. 
 
 A. That light consisted of material corpuscles or little 
 luminous balls sent off from the luminous bodies, and by 
 virtue of their supposed elasticity* bounded and re- 
 
 *The property of elasticity has been superficially mistaken by 
 all writers on physical science, ancient and modern, for one of 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 133 
 
 bounded through space and all transparent media at the 
 enormous velocity observed, entering our eyes, and thus 
 causing the sensation of sight. 
 
 Q. 9. Was it really held and taught as science that 
 these luminous balls were of material substance? 
 
 A. The popular scientists, then as now, had no proper 
 conception of any other than material substance. 
 
 Q. 10. What is the undulatory theory? 
 
 A. Truth and justice require that it be defined by one 
 of its ablest apostles and scholarly friends. Prof. J. Dor- 
 man Steele, on page 189 of his " Fourteen Weeks in 
 Philosophy/' says: "The Undulatory TJieory of Light. 
 There is supposed to be a fluid termed ether, constituting 
 a kind of universal atmosphere, diffused throughout all 
 space. It is so subtile that it fills the pores of all bodies, 
 eludes all chemical tests, passes in through the glass re- 
 ceiver, and remains even in the vacuum of an air-pump. 
 A luminous body sets in motion waves of ether, which 
 pass off in every direction. These [waves] move at the 
 rate of 183,000 miles per second, and breaking upon the 
 eye, give to us the impression of sight. This ethereal 
 
 the forces of nature, instead of being, as it is, the effect of force 
 merely. This error runs through every text-book we take up, 
 and the most critical investigators, we are sorry to say, even 
 after their attention has been called to it, still persist, on ac- 
 count of their prejudice or habits of thinking, in trying to make 
 a plausible showing of argument in defense of this most un- 
 scientific blunder of their predecessors. 
 
 We are humbly proud of the honor, and we say it without 
 boasting, of having been the first to announce the true expla- 
 nation of elasticity as in no sense a force, but as a char- 
 acteristic or property of a material body superinduced by the 
 action and persistence of the force of cohesion in so arranging 
 and sustaining the particles of the body in relation to each 
 other as to permit the mechanical force, after distorting the 
 body, to store itself up in it, and thus react, when outside re- 
 sistance is removed, by which to restore the distorted body to 
 its original form. See Microcosm, Vol. IV., pp. 346, 347. 
 
134 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 wave-motion is precisely like that of sound, except that 
 the vibrations are transverse (crosswise) to the line of 
 direction." 
 
 Q. 11. What is the fundamental diiference between 
 the two theories? 
 
 A. According to the emission theory, light is the trans- 
 ference of luminous matter; according to the undulatory 
 theory, it is the vibration or motion of something "sup- 
 posed " to be ether. 
 
 Q. 12. By what other name was the emission theory 
 called? 
 
 A. It was known also as the corpuscular theory. 
 
 Q. 13. Were these coi^mscles, of which light was sup- 
 posed to consist, material or immaterial? 
 
 A. As already stated, in answer to Question 9, before 
 the appearance of the " Problem of Human Life," the 
 world had never conceived of anything like immaterial 
 corpuscles. 
 
 Q. 14. Did Newton finally abandon his emission the- 
 ory of light? 
 
 A. He does not seem to have continued holding it 
 with clear conviction and entire satisfaction after the 
 undulatory theory had been introduced.* 
 
 Q. 15. Was it supported by the testimony of observed 
 facts? 
 
 * With a moment's reflection, the reason must be clear to 
 every reader, why Sir Isaac Newton could not maintain his 
 corpuscular or emission theory of light; for a more unreasona- 
 ble or impossible hypothesis was never propounded. How he 
 could, for a moment, have supposed that "material particles" 
 however minute, could penetrate and pass through the hardest 
 crystals even diamonds without meeting with resistance, to 
 say nothing of pouring into the eye at such an enormous velocity 
 without injury to that delicate organ, is one of those profound 
 mysteries which great scientists are called upon to explain. Dr. 
 Hall, in Microcosm, Vol. II., p. 351. 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. , 135 
 
 A. Indeed it was not. On. the contrary, its assump- 
 tions were proven false by the inexorable logic of math- 
 ematics as applied in calculating the astounding velocity 
 of light. 
 
 Q. 16. What did such applied mathematics show? 
 
 A. That light had nearly a million times the velocity 
 of sound through the atmosphere. This was considered 
 too much speed for the travel of matter, even though 
 the luminous balls of matter were supposed to be small 
 enough to be called corpuscles. 
 
 Q. 17. What insuperable incongruity stood in the 
 way of the emission theory? 
 
 A. It was out of harmony with the undulatory theory 
 of sound, which then, as now, taught that sound con- 
 sisted of atmospheric waves. 
 
 Q. 18. What was done to bring agreement and har- 
 mony among the several members in the family of 
 physical sciences? 
 
 A. The theories of heat and light were both so recon- 
 structed as to bring them into greater harmony with the 
 science of acoustics. 
 
 Q. 19. Did the change of light and heat into modes 
 of motion really harmonize physical science as taught 
 at that time? 
 
 A. Not by any means. This change, so far from har- 
 monizing science and reconciling its discrepancies, 
 merely subverted two of the forces (light and heat) from 
 an already false basis (material corpuscles) to another 
 false basis (material wave-motion) by which to make 
 them conform to another and underlying false basis (air- 
 waves in sound), thereby trying to bring about the im- 
 possible harmonious congruity of error as the result. 
 Yet when these three forces were thus temporarily rec- 
 onciled, there stood directly in the face of this patched- 
 up scientific truce, the overwhelming fact that odor was 
 
136 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 known and admitted to be real substantial emanations 
 by which the sense of smell is addressed by the actual 
 contact of odorous particles with the nasal membrane, 
 and that no mode-of-motion theory or wave-hypothesis 
 could swerve this sensation-producing cause from its 
 substantial anchorage as a scientific fact. 
 
 Q. 20. Did the scientists of that age, in their discus- 
 sions of light and their final abandonment of the cor- 
 puscular theory, ever acknowledge the difficulty of odor 
 standing in their way? 
 
 A. No; so far from acknowledging it, they apparently 
 ignored it, as have done all other scientists since their 
 day when discussing light, heat and sound as modes of 
 motion. One of those early scientists gave it as the 
 strongest possible analogical proof that light must be the 
 wave-motion of some kind of substance, since it would 
 be unreasonable to suppose that Nature would make such 
 an abrupt leap from the sense of hearing, addressed by 
 wave-motion, to that of sight addressed by the contact 
 of substantial light-particles. Yet these great physicists 
 overlooked the fact, that they had forced Nature to leap 
 just as abruptly from the sense of smell, addressed by 
 actual substance, to the sense of hearing influenced alone 
 by wave-motion! The author of the " Problem of 
 Human Life " was the first writer on record to introduce 
 in these discussions the senses of touch, taste and smell, 
 and the substantial agents which actuate those senses, as 
 an overwhelming analogical proof that the other senses, 
 as well as sensation-producing causes, must continue 
 right along the line with the same substantial order of 
 things, merely grading the refinement of the substantial 
 contacts to suit the various senses, and thus to correspond 
 with their delicate structure. 
 
 Q. 21. What other objection has since been raised to 
 the emission theory of light? 
 
 A. It has been found by careful calculation to be 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 137 
 
 dangerous to the delicate little membrane known as the 
 retina of the eye, as well as destructive of its own eyes 
 when once exposed to the incandescent light of true 
 science. 
 
 Q. 22. How can it be made to appear as something 
 dangerous to the eyes? 
 
 A. The degree of perfection to which the science of 
 optics has been carried, even though conducting its in- 
 vestigations upon a radical misapprehension as to the 
 nature of light, accompanied by a careful examination 
 of the eye, has shown, in a manner most alarmingly con- 
 clusive, that the organ of sight is such a delicate piece 
 of anatomy that it can no longer endure to be shot at 
 from some great celestial gun, charged with mysterious 
 dynamics and multiplied bullets every time the eyelid is 
 raised and the retina exposed to the enfilading fires of 
 the emission battery. 
 
 Q. 23. Did the emission theory really involve such a 
 dangerous doctrine ? 
 
 A. It has been settled beyond dispute, by the assist- 
 ance of the science of astronomy, as applied in observing 
 the motions of Jupiter's moons when passing into the 
 shadow of that planet, and by the conclusions reached 
 from other confirmatory observations, that light moves 
 with a velocity of not less than 180,000 miles per second. 
 Now this was considered to be decidedly unsafe for any- 
 body's eyes, especially for eyes affected and afflicted 
 with unscientific myopy, and it was finally decided either 
 to get out of the destructive range of the emission guns 
 or to invent some other theory, more easily managed and 
 less dangerous to the very valuable organ of human 
 vision. 
 
 Q. 24. But were not these material particles or 
 luminous bullets very small? 
 
 A. They were almost infinitesimally small, it is true, 
 but the astounding velocity with which they flew would 
 
138 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 still give them a very dangerous quantity of momentum, 
 according to the truth of the generally admitted formula 
 that " the momentum is always proportioned to the 
 quantity of matter multiplied into the velocity." Just 
 think of several thousand little bullets shot into one's 
 eyes with several hundred times the velocity of a rifle- 
 ball! 
 
 Q. 25. But were not these little luminosities impon- 
 derable without any weight? 
 
 A. According to the theory of which they were a 
 part, they were material. Being material, they must 
 have had the properties of matter. Ponderability is one 
 property of matter. As each material corpuscle, there- 
 fore, was a fraction of a pound, as to its quantity, its 
 weight must have had the same fractional proportion. 
 
 Q. 26. So the emission theory had to pass away? 
 
 A. Like the wave-theory of sound at the present time, 
 it began gradually to recede. 
 
 Q. 27. What should then have been introduced in its 
 stead? 
 
 A. The theory of substantial immaterial substance. 
 
 Q. 28. Was it not then suggested? 
 A. It was not even dreamed of. 
 
 Q. 29. Why not? 
 
 A. God's set time to favor science in such form had 
 not yet come. The Malakhoff of all the physical sciences 
 was yet held by the old false theory of sound, and it was 
 simply impossible to conceive, formulate, and hold a cor- 
 rect theory of light as long as the citadel of acoustical 
 science was occupied in ignorance of the truth, even 
 though its ramparts were strong in nothing but the ac- 
 cumulated moss of past centuries. If the true theory of 
 sound, as advanced by Dr. Hall in his writings, and as 
 formulated in Chapter X. of this book, had then been 
 suggested, the intellectual and moral giants of the sev- 
 
THE NATURE OP LIGHT. 139 
 
 cnteenth century, instead of barricading themselves be- 
 hind their prejudices, would have repented in dust and 
 ashes for the nonsense which they previously held con- 
 cerning these forces of Nature. But they never saw the 
 truth in the light of the glorious sunrise of Substantial- 
 ism; and for that reason they shall be able to rise up in 
 judgment and condemn much that is popularly unscien- 
 tific in this generation. 
 
 Q. 30. What was substituted for the emission theory? 
 
 A. The undulatory theory of light. 
 
 Q. 31. In what did it differ from the former? 
 
 A. It rejected, or denied, the materiality of the rays 
 or beams of light, and substituted motion for matter. 
 
 Q. 32. Motion of what? 
 
 A. Yes, there now, dear reader. That question is 
 very hard to answer. It has been called motion of 
 energy without any clear conception or definition as to 
 what is meant by energy. The text- books are full of cir- 
 cular syllogisms. They talk about the properties and laws 
 of light without any conception of entitative light upon 
 the subject. To assume the existence of motion without 
 something to move may do in the sphere of abstractions, 
 but it will not do in a world of concrete realities. Such 
 talk is just about as rational and satisfactory to scientific 
 minds as it would be for a hungry man to attempt to 
 take breakfast on motion, dinner on vibration and supper 
 on obtuse angles and abstract zigzags. 
 
 Q. 33. Did not the theory meet with some opposition 
 at its first introduction? 
 A. Indeed it did. 
 
 Q. 34. What was the ground of such opposition? 
 
 A. It was rationally claimed that there could be no 
 vibration where there was nothing to vibrate no reflec- 
 tion where there was not something to reflect. And as 
 it was known that the atmosphere of our planet did not 
 
140 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 extend more than t\vo milliontlis of the distance to the 
 sun, the difficulty was to get the rays of light down from 
 the vicinity of that luminous orb in the shape of vibra- 
 tions without something to vibrate. 
 
 Q. 35. What was done in the extreme exigency of the 
 case? 
 
 A. Some of the great minds of that Newtonian age 
 began to stir up the latent powers of their inventive gen- 
 ius. About that time a prolific Dutchman, who was 
 already rising to eminence as a physicist, came over 
 from Holland and suggested ether as the very thing that 
 was required to keep the light turned on. 
 
 Q. 36. But was not ether an article of mythologic 
 and scientific faith before the time of Huygens? 
 
 A. Yes, some of the poets had already sung its 
 praises as something intimately related to their most ex- 
 cellent gods. Some had invoked their deities to teach 
 them how to strike their lyres and send their loftiest 
 strains abroad and up through ether's boundless temple. 
 Some praised it as the " supposed " primordial principle 
 of fire; others sought its acquaintance that they might 
 do it homage as the worshipful source of all being. 
 Descartes even intimated that it was the medium through 
 which light came down from the skies; but it remained 
 for Huygens to invent it in such fluid form and obliging 
 subtileness as to meet the requirements of that peculiar 
 scientific crisis. 
 
 Q. 37. Has the great invention of Huygens been prop- 
 erly valued by the scientific world? 
 
 A. His services have been fully appreciated, especially 
 by the advocates of the undulatory theory of light. 
 
 Q. 38. Why do they have such high appreciation of 
 his services in this particular department of physical 
 science? 
 
 A. The reason is obvious. Something of the kind was 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 141 
 
 an absolute necessity. Without ether the undulatory 
 theory could have had no existence. Ether was the anaes- 
 thetic administered to both mother and child upon the 
 occasion of the uncomely baby's birth. The theory in- 
 hales ether as the breath of its precarious life, and upon 
 ether it has subsisted for 200 years. In ether it lives and 
 moves and has its being, and with ethereal luster shines. 
 
 Q. 39. What evidence is there that there is such an 
 element in existence? 
 
 A. The only evidence of its existence is supposition. 
 ( ' There is supposed to be a fluid termed ether/' says the 
 text-book before us. The undulatory theory is built 
 upon ether, ether rests upon supposition, and the suppo- 
 sition is based upon a radical misapprehension of Nat- 
 ure's forces. Such a theory is rather too ethereal for any 
 earthly use. For our part, we would sooner have a few 
 of Newton's material corpuscles shoot us in the eyes than 
 to be made so unscientifically blind by the transverse 
 vibrations of an ethereal supposition. 
 
 Q. 40. Have we no evidence of the existence of ether 
 through the testimony of the senses?* 
 
 * Well, what was all this prodigious discovery of ether for; 
 and what was it that led to this scientific leap from the frying- 
 pan into the fire ? Why, it all came from the apparent difficulty 
 of light-refraction in water, and occurred solely because New- 
 ton and Huygens did not grasp at that time the true and beauti- 
 ful doctrine of Substantialism. Had they realized that light 
 was an incorporeal substance instead of matter, they would 
 have had no more difficulty in explaining refraction by waves 
 or pulses of substantial light itself, than by waves of substan- 
 tial ether for the existence of which there has never been either 
 use or evidence. And further, had they been fortunate enough 
 at that time to have caught the broad idea of innumerable im- 
 material substances, it is plain to reason that not only light but 
 sound itself would for a hundred years up to this date have 
 been taught as substantial emissions in all the colleges of the 
 world, instead of being held as the nonsensical wave-motions of 
 
142 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. None whatever. Eye hath not seen it, ear luith 
 not heard it, neither hath it offered testimony to the 
 gustatory nerve. It has never been recognized through 
 the olfactory organ of our sensuous being; neither has it 
 evoked our recognition by any tactile touch. 
 
 Q. 41. But may not the same be said of the immate- 
 rial forces which underlie the whole system of the Sub- 
 stantial Philosophy? 
 
 A. No, indeed. The works which these forces, man- 
 ifestly perform bear testimony of their real entitative ex- 
 istence. The advocates of the undulatory doctrine of 
 light admit their existence, and dispute their substantial 
 character for no other obvious reason than that such ad- 
 mission would destroy the necessity for their ether, sap 
 the foundation of their theory, and tumble the whole 
 miserable mendicancy of its nonsense into merited ruin 
 and rubbish. The substantial force-elements of Nature 
 authenticate themselves through the right use of the 
 faculty of reason, when exercised with rational scientific 
 faith, while ether is absolutely unknown, except through 
 the tactile touch of supposition. 
 
 Q. 42. May not the motions of the ether- waves, as 
 supposed and taught in the undulatory theory of light, 
 cause the sensation of seeing by the tremulous action of 
 such refined form of matter against the optic nerve, sim- 
 ilar to the action of sound-waves in air, and their tremu- 
 lous effect upon the ear-drum? 
 
 A. No; for while such an assumption is forced and 
 far-fetched, it has not one rational analogy in Nature to 
 justify it, as will be more fully shown when we come to 
 treat of the nature of sound. Motion of itself is noth- 
 ing but the changing position of some substance in space, 
 
 the air; and the author of the "Problem" would have been 
 spared the terrific battles with stubborn scientists he has been 
 obliged to fight during the last two years. Dr. Hall, in Micro- 
 cosm, Vol. II., p. 351. 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 143 
 
 and if any substance changes position, however tenuous 
 or refined such substance may be, it can only be in con- 
 sequence of a substantial force acting upon it. Hence, 
 if such a material substance as ether exists, it must 
 change its position in order to move and thus act upon 
 the optic nerve in the form of waves or undulations; and 
 such action must be caused by the operation of some 
 force. Why not then assume this force, which is thus 
 required to put the material ether into motion, to be the 
 light itself, acting directly upon the sense-nerve, and 
 thus avoid a useless circumlocution? This would bo the 
 rational view to take, since the ether being an inert ma- 
 terial substance, according to the undulatory theory, can 
 no more move of itself, or without the application of 
 an adequate force, than can a granite rock ? 
 
 Q. 43. To what extent is this mythical element sup- 
 posed to exist? 
 
 A. It fills all space, surrounds all worlds, and pours it- 
 self through the interstices of all matter. The founders 
 and advocates of the undulatory theory of light were not 
 parsimonious in making provisions for its maintenance 
 in the future. They seemed to fear that in the march of 
 revolutionary progress something more substantial might 
 arise above the sombrous horizon' of such superficial 
 science. Seeing that the known universe was every- 
 where filled with light, and that all the lamps in heaven's 
 illumined chamber were burning in constant brilliancy, 
 the undulatory gods became generous in the exercise of 
 their creative power, and sent large quantities of this 
 supposed commodity into every longitude and latitude of 
 interstellar space. 
 
 Q. 44. What are the alleged properties of this sup- 
 posed ether? 
 
 A. Those who have a suppositional acquaintance 
 speak of it as being, like their theory of light, exceed- 
 ingly thin and subtile, with power to elude all chemical 
 
144 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 tests, and to insinuate itself through the glass receiver 
 and take up its residence in the vacuum of an air-pump. 
 
 Q. 45. Has the undulatory theory of light ever been 
 suspected of involving anything that might possibly be 
 injurious to the eye? 
 
 A. Yes; as acoustical science continued to become 
 more cautious than correct, some of the prudent opti- 
 cians, like Tyndall, concluded that this ether ought to 
 be softened a little and reduced to the consistency of 
 something like " jelly." Ether itself was regarded as ab- 
 solutely harmless, but there was no telling what dis- 
 astrous results might follow its vibratory dashes into the 
 visual organ when accompanied with whole floods of 
 luminous motion at the rate of 180,000 miles per second 
 and many millions of "transverse" movements in the 
 same short period of time.* 
 
 Q. 46. But suppose that science should yet demon- 
 strate and prove beyond all doubt that ether is all and 
 possesses all now claimed in its behalf, could the theory 
 then be held in the light of true science as tenable and 
 correct? 
 
 A. Not at all. 
 
 Q. 47. Why not? 
 
 * But now comes the amusing part of this mathematical 
 abandonment of the corpuscular, and adoption in its stead of 
 the undulatory theory of light. After they had determined, by 
 careful figuring, that the " emission theory" was no good, be- 
 cause its " material light- particles " would put out people's eyes 
 even if they (not the eyes but the particles) weighed only the 
 millionth part of a pound each, they decided to adopt a newly- 
 invented " ether" like a " jelly," " with the properties of a solid " 
 and " possessing inertia," as Tyndall tells us, whose material 
 waves would dash into the eye with the velocity of light, and 
 at the rate of only " 699,000,000,000,000 waves in a second"! 
 (Tyndall on Light, p. 66.) And of course, anybody's eyes ought 
 to stand that much "jelly" ! Dr. Hall, in Microcosm, Vol. II., 
 p351. 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 145 
 
 A. Because it does not admit the entitative and sub- 
 stantial realm of light. That which is not entitative has 
 nothing more than a phenomenal existence, and that 
 which has no substance has no positive being. It follows, 
 therefore, that that which is built upon a nonentity or a 
 negation must be equally empty of contents, and sooner 
 or later perish from the earth, or only continue to linger 
 as the shadow of a setting sun. 
 
 Q. 48. But might not this ether be an immaterial sub- 
 stance of which, as the Substantial Philosophy claims, the 
 universe is fuJl? 
 
 A. No. To assume ether to be an immaterial sub- 
 stance would be to abandon the undulatory theory, and 
 at once to do away with the necessity of material waves 
 of any kind for causing the sensation of light, similiar to 
 the supposed air-waves which cause the sensation of 
 sound. If ether were assumed to be an immaterial sub- 
 stance, then of what use would it be in the physical sys- 
 tem, since light itself, as an immaterial substance, would 
 answer the same purpose as ether, and could travel from, 
 the sun to the eye either asivaves of force, pulses of force, 
 or steady streams of force just as the economy of Nature 
 might require? In this way it could reach the eye with- 
 out any of the complication of first having to act as a sub- 
 stantial force in order to throw the material ether into 
 waves, and then necessarily to accompany these material 
 waves to keep up their mechanical undulations till the 
 eye was reached and the retina was shaken. Surely the 
 simple and harmonious process of the direct action of the 
 substantial force of light upon the eye, radiating from 
 luminous bodies by a law peculiar to such form of force, 
 as here presented, appeals to our reason as well as con- 
 forms to the natural fitness of things as observed all 
 around us. 
 
 Q. 49. What is to be offered in the place of the undu- 
 latory theory of light? 
 
146 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. The emission theory of immaterial substance. 
 
 Q. 50. In what will this theory, when fully for- 
 mulated, differ from Sir Isaac Newton's corpuscular 
 theory?* 
 
 A. Just as immaterial substances differ from material 
 substances as force differs from matter. 
 
 Q. 51. Then the Substantial Philosophy holds that 
 light is a substance and a force? 
 
 A. Precisely so. Substantialism has taken this posi- 
 tion and can hold it until all the analogies of Nature are 
 deprived of their power to speak the truth, and their 
 harmonious utterances proven false to all the inductive 
 processes of right reason. 
 
 Q. 52. Does the Substantial Philosophy teach that 
 light has a substantial existence independent of vibration 
 or motion? 
 
 A. Nothing has an existence separately independent 
 of its essential attributes. God Himself could not so 
 exist. Light has attributes and properties, and yet its 
 existence is its own. Vibration, velocity of movement 
 
 * The truth is, the fundamental idea of Substantialism, which 
 is so deeply taking root in the minds of thoughtful investigators, 
 and upon which the present corpuscular doctrine is based, never 
 entered the mind of Newton. That fundamental idea consists 
 in the general classification of substance, under two heads 
 material and immaterial, corporeal and incorporeal, ponderable 
 and imponderable; and that one of these classes is as really and 
 truly substantial or entitative as the other. Had Sir Isaac New- 
 ton caught a glimpse of this dual nature of the substantial uni- 
 verse, he would have avoided the inglorious failure of his theory 
 of " material light particles" by never having adopted such a 
 wretched position in science, and all the waste of mathematics 
 in figuring about the required smallness of such " material par- 
 ticles" to avoid putting out one's eyes, would have been saved 
 by him and his friend Huygens. Dr. Hall, in Microcosm, Vol. 
 II., p. 351. 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 147 
 
 and refrangibility may be properties of light, but cannot 
 in their union of action produce their proprietor. 
 
 Q. 53. But would there be anything left of essence or 
 substance if all its attributes or properties were to be 
 separated from it? 
 
 A. It is impossible to separate the essential attributes, 
 properties or laws of being from the essence or substance 
 of such being. Essence involves the potentiality of its 
 attributes; and such potentiality has reality even before 
 it is fully actuatized. Without such realism, creation is 
 a burlesque, and Compte was right. Substantialism in- 
 volves a proper realism. Universalia in re. The law of 
 diffusion cannot be separated from odor, and yet odor is 
 something more substantial than diffusion. The pulling 
 effect of gravity is inseparable from gravity, where there 
 is anything to pull, aod yet gravity is something deeper 
 in the ground of its being. Sound may have intensity, 
 pitch and timbre, and yet sound is a substance back of 
 and in all such sonorous peculiarities. Heat may radiate, 
 and yet it requires something more forcible than mere 
 radiation to move the master-wheels of machinery or to 
 melt the minerals in the furnace. So with light. It 
 may be vibratory in its effects, bend from a straight line 
 by virtue of its refrangibility, and produce colors either 
 by virtue of its rays being differently refrangible as New- 
 ton taught, or by virtue of different rates of pulsation as 
 now held, and yet no one but a consummate quack in op- 
 tical science will say that light is only a mode of vibra- 
 tory motion, divergency from a straight line when passing 
 through different media, or the color in which, under 
 certain conditions, this substantial force takes modified 
 form. 
 
 Q. 54. Since the emission theory of Newton regarded 
 light as consisting of material corpuscles, in what way 
 did he account for the passage of the light through solid 
 bodies, such ab diamond, crystal, glass, etc. ? 
 
148 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. He had no possible way of accounting for such 
 fact except the porosity of the solid body. As it is an 
 undeniable physical law that no two material substances 
 can occupy the same place at the same time, it follows 
 that the material light- particles of Newton were com- 
 pelled to find their way through glass by penetrating the 
 pores of that solid material and thus make their visible 
 egress on the other side. 
 
 Q. 55. If light could thus pass through glass by pene- 
 trating its pores, how did Newton account for the fact 
 that it did not pass through opaque bodies, such as wood, 
 sandstone, burnt bricks, etc. bodies vastly more porous? 
 
 A. He could give no explanation whatever of such 
 fact except the general statement that it was the nature 
 of the material molecules and their crassitude to inter- 
 fere with the particles of light passing through them. 
 One would have thought that the fact of the free passage 
 of light through distilled and boiled water and through the 
 diamond better than through any other substances, when 
 these bodies are the most imporous of all known sub- 
 stances, would have driven that great investigator to the 
 Substantial Philosophy as a dernier ressort, and to the un- 
 avoidable recognition of its grand classification of all the 
 objective entities of the universe into material and imma- 
 terial substances. But it had no such effect that revo- 
 lutionary philosophical idea having never been conceived 
 till within the present decade of years, thereby making 
 the last quarter of the nineteenth century 'the most 
 memorable for profound and far-reaching philosophical 
 discovery of any similar period in the world's great his- 
 tory. 
 
 Q. 56. Do not these same difficulties of opacity, 
 porosity, etc., stand in the way of ether and of the un- 
 dulatory theory of light? 
 
 A. Precisely the same. Ether being claimed as a 
 material substance, as much so as cwr atmosphere, only 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 149 
 
 more attenuated, could no more pass through a solid 
 except by entering its pores, than could Newton's ma- 
 terial light corpuscles. But the undulatory theory 
 teaches that this supposed ether, which has the proper- 
 ties of inertia, weight, rigidity, elasticity, compressibil- 
 ity, etc., and possessing as it does the mechanical nature 
 of a jelly, actually circulates freely through and among 
 the molecules of all bodies, oscillating to and fro in its 
 wave- motions as do the particles of water in a system of 
 water-waves. As all solid bodies, according to Prof. Tyn- 
 dall and Sir William Thomson, contain this ether circu- 
 lating among their molecules, as much so as does glass, 
 it becomes the mystery of mysteries, according to that 
 theory, why the ether- waves do not find their way 
 through a sheet of iron as readily as through a sheet of 
 glass, since the latter is so much less porous, and thus 
 make iron transparent. 
 
 Q. 57. Do any of these objections and difficulties lie 
 against the substantial theory of light, regarding all the 
 forces of nature as immaterial substances? 
 
 A. Not one. The Substantial Philosophy explains 
 every mystery of nature on the principle of the correla- 
 tion and co-operation of the substantial forces. The sub- 
 stantial force of cohesion is indisputably the governing 
 force in all material bodies, since it holds them together 
 as tangible matter; hence it may be inferred that no 
 other form of force can produce the slightest effect upon 
 any mass of matter except in some form of correlation or 
 co-operation with or opposition to this regnant force of 
 cohesion. If one body, such as glass, allows light to pass 
 through it, the whole mystery is explained by the corre- 
 lation and co-operation of these two forces light and 
 cohesion and the manner in which cohesive force has 
 arranged and controls the particles of such material body. 
 If another body will not permit the passage of light, it is 
 simply because the ruling force of cohesion has arranged 
 
150 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the particles differently; and this is often the case even 
 when the two bodies are constituted of the very same 
 material substance. 
 
 Q. 58. Is there any direct illustration of this latter 
 statement? 
 
 A. Many such illustrations. Take apiece of the most 
 transparent crystal, pulverize it to flour, and then con- 
 dense it into a solid mass under a powerful hydraulic 
 press. Though it is now constituted of the same sub- 
 stance as before, light will not pass through it, simply be- 
 cause cohesion has its particles now arranged in a differ- 
 ent order, being coerced into such new arrangement by 
 the mechanical form of force which did the pulverizing 
 and compressing. 
 
 Q. 59. Can cohesive force ever restore this flour of 
 crystal to its old arrangement, or order of particles, so 
 that light can co-operate with it and pass freely through 
 such material substance? 
 
 A. Easily; but only in co-operation with another form 
 ,of substantial but immaterial force called heat. Let this 
 force act on the pressed cake of crystal flour till it is 
 melted and brought to a white heat, and it helps cohesion 
 to rearrange the particles as formerly, and thus bring 
 them into such relation to each other that the substantial 
 force of light can now enter and pass unobstructedly 
 through it the same as before. 
 
 Q. 60. Are there no other similar illustrations in the 
 action of this governing force of cohesion in its correla- 
 tion with heat? 
 
 A. Yes; the whole realm of physics is full of such in- 
 stances of correlation and opposition among the forces. 
 An entire volume of such illustrations could be culled 
 from Dr. HalFs writings, in which he has repeatedly 
 shown that no possible solution of nature's mysteries can 
 be looked for except on this principle of the substantial 
 correlation of the various forms of force with that of co- 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 151 
 
 hesive attraction, and upon which general law this author 
 and discoverer has declared his conviction that no prob- 
 lem in physical research is too profound for this talisman 
 of philosophy to unravel and make clear. 
 
 Q. 61. What are a few of these cases of inexplicable 
 mystery, according to any previous theory of science, 
 which this substantial view of the forces and their corre- 
 lation can explain? 
 
 A. Take the melting of platinum, which only occurs 
 at a very high temperature. Why? Because, as already 
 shown in Chapter IV., the cohesive force, which arranges 
 and holds its particles together, refuses to co-operate with 
 heat, or perhaps more correctly, is able in that fortified 
 arrangement of particles to resist the inroads of heat to a 
 vastly greater extent than in its intrenched position 
 among the particles of other bodies, such, for example, as 
 lead. But when cohesion in lead has been forced to sur- 
 render to heat and thus allow this metal to become liquid, 
 a piece of platinum, which, if alone, is able to withstand 
 incandescent heat, yet if immersed in this molten lead, 
 will instantly succumb to the combined heat and cohesion 
 there in action, and will melt at less than one-fifth the 
 temperature before required. In like mystery, when 
 three metals, such as tin, lead and bismuth, are alloyed 
 together by the action of heat in overcoming their re- 
 spective cohesive arrangements, and thus demoralizing, 
 so to speak, this ruling force, such alloyed mass will now 
 succumb to heat and yield up its cohesive resistance at less 
 than one-half the temperature required for either of the 
 metals when separate, thus showing how cohesive force 
 can be converted into heat, or how it can be made to 
 desert its post and retire to the force-element of Nature. 
 But as there is no room here for these lengthy discussions, 
 the student is referred to the various volumes of the Micro- 
 cosm and the Scientific Arena, of which Dr. Hall is the 
 editor. 
 
152 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 62. As light is a substantial force, what relation 
 has color to this immaterial entity? 
 
 A. The same relation that shape, form, general ap- 
 pearance, or even color holds to a material body, or that 
 any other property of matter may hold to such body. 
 Color is a property of light, as timbre is a property of 
 sound. No property, quality, or peculiarity of any sub- 
 stantial thing is an entity, though it may take an entity 
 or several entities or substantial things to constitute a 
 certain property of a substance; as, for example, it takes 
 the combination of matter, cohesion and gravity, all of 
 which are substances, to constitute the property of 
 weight; or as it takes numerous overtones of varying de- 
 grees of pitch, in combination with a fundamental sound, 
 all substantial entities, to constitute the property of 
 timbre or quality in music. In like manner it takes 
 various rays of light, each of a given number of pulses 
 per second, to combine into a mass and form the property 
 of white light; while each ray thus combined is itself of 
 a certain number of pulses, and hence of a certain color 
 when separated. Take out or separate any one ray, rep- 
 resenting a certain rate of pulsation, from the white 
 combination or mass of rays, and the quality of its mass- 
 color is changed accordingly. When all the different 
 rays constituting the white light are individually sepa- 
 rated, we have the complete colors representing the dif- 
 ferent pulsation rates of the spectrum, just as the differ- 
 ent tones of a mass-sound maybe separated by resonators, 
 thus determining the various rates of vibration which go 
 to make up the timbre of any given combination of 
 sounds. 
 
 Thus, in a word, color may be called the timbre of 
 light, as timbre may be called the color of sound, each 
 constituting the property of the substantial force of 
 which it is a characteristic. It is surely as reasonable to 
 assume the color of a separate ray of light to depend on 
 
THE NATURE OF LIGHT. 153 
 
 its special rate of pulsation penetrating the eye or solid 
 crystal, as to assume it to depend on the number of 
 ether-waves which enter the eye, or pass through the prism 
 in a given time. By substituting immaterial pulses of 
 force for material undulations, the action of the prism 
 in dividing a ray of white light into its constituent parts, 
 becomes a simple and understandable process. There is 
 no scientific reason for doubting that a stream or ray of 
 light from a luminous body, as originally set forth in the 
 " Problem of Human Life," may come in the form of a 
 rapid succession of pulses on account of the tremulous 
 action 01 the luminosity which liberates such light-force, 
 something similar to the tremulous action of the sonorous 
 body which sends forth or liberates sound in the form of 
 pulses or jets. In this way the greater or less rate of 
 tremor of a luminous body would bring a greater or less 
 number of these light-pulsations into the eye in a second, 
 producing the color thus represented, a fact which physi- 
 cists have vainly tried to explain by waves of material 
 ether. Thus, by supposing light-force to come in the 
 form of a given rate of pulses per second, fully accounts 
 for color in light, as pitch is known to be caused by the 
 number of pulses in sound. 
 
 Q. 63. Has Substantialism fully formulated its im- 
 material theory of light so as to explain satisfactorily the 
 interesting phenomena of color? 
 
 A. It has not.* No one branch of physical science 
 
 * It is now admitted by many that the undulatory theory of 
 light, like the wave- theory of sound, has been shattered in the 
 central pillar of its support, and these persons of negative con- 
 version wish to know what theory will be substituted in its 
 stead. To such, we say, patience, gentlemen, patience, mingled 
 with a modicum of reason and common fairness. If it took the 
 world 200 years to build the undulatory castle, even after the 
 other had been bountifully provided free of charge, is it too 
 much to ask the full limit of one short decade of years to build 
 
154 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 can move forward to perfection in advance of kindred 
 branches any more than any one division, of an army can 
 move in advance of all other divisions that tarry behind 
 to play the poltroon or parley with the common enemy. 
 
 Q. 64. Are these different divisions now moving for- 
 ward to battle and to victory? 
 
 A. They are indeed. The several branches of phys- 
 ical and biological science are moving together against 
 the stronghold of long-intrenched fallacies. The general 
 bugle-blast of Substantialism has been heard along the 
 line, and the lovers of truth are gathering in scientific 
 battle array. The general advance has begun. The 
 result of a few clashing sabers has already demonstrated 
 that the Lord of Hosts is with us. Let the advancing 
 legions examine well the ground and rifle-pits over which 
 they pass, and press onward until they find themselves 
 fairly fortified within the citadel, above whose towers 
 and turrets the banners of truth shall wave in everlasting 
 triumph. 
 
 Q. 65. Which banner shall float the highest? 
 
 A. The one which is now being carried through the 
 hottest part of the general engagement, and upon which 
 is inscribed " The True Nature of Sound." 
 
 Q. 65. What, then, is sound? 
 
 A. This question is answered and exhaustively treated 
 in the next chapter. 
 
 a scientific citadel of everlasting truth ? But whose business 
 is it to supply the world with such a positively correct theory ? 
 Does that duty rest exclusively upon the shoulders of Dr. Hall, 
 and his coadjutants in the cause of true science ? We dispute 
 the reasonableness of any such assumption. A philanthropist 
 may fire a magazine and blow a pest-house out of the city. Is 
 he, therefore, bound to build a medical college in its stead ? 
 
CHAPTEK X. 
 
 THE NATUKE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND.* 
 
 The Substantial Tlieory of Acoustics. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is sound? 
 
 ANSWER. Primarily, sound is that form of physical 
 force by which the sense of hearing in men and animals 
 is addressed and affected. 
 
 Q. 2. Has sound any other meaning? 
 
 A. Yes; by a trope which we call metonymy the effect 
 is often put for the cause, and thus sound signifies the 
 sensation itself in our consciousness, which we call hear- 
 ing, and by which we distinguish tones, or recognize 
 their various peculiarities.! 
 
 * The questions and answers constituting this chapter are con- 
 densed, substantially, from the various writings of Dr. A. Wil- 
 ford Hall on this branch of physical science, as found rocorded 
 in his " Problem of Human Life," the five volumes of the Micro- 
 cosm, and the Scientific Arena, of which he is editor. This will 
 be partly shown by the copious foot-readings accompanying the 
 text as the discussion proceeds. J. I. S wander. 
 
 t SOUND, LIGHT, HEAT, ODOR, FLAVOR, ETC. 
 
 CLAYPOOL, KY. 
 Dr. Wilford Hall : 
 
 DEAR SIR, I have read some extracts from your " Problem 
 of Human Life " on the subject of Sound, but do not know that 
 I perfectly understand you; hence, I would be pleased to have 
 your definition of sound what is it, and what relation does it 
 sustain to aural beings ? 
 
156 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 3. What are these chief peculiarities of sound? 
 
 A. They are intensity, pitch, duration and quality, 
 the latter expressed under the general term timbre. 
 
 Q. 4. What is meant by the pitch of sound? 
 
 A. It is that peculiarity of tone by which we recog- 
 nize sounds as high or low, sharp or grave. 
 
 Q. 5. What is the chief use of pitch in sound? 
 
 A. It is the main foundation of all music, and the 
 basis of harmony, as when more sounds than one are em- 
 ployed at the same time. It is also one of the essentials 
 of ordinary vocal expression, by which words are modu- 
 lated in conversation. 
 
 Do you mean that it has any real, extrinsic existence ? Or, 
 in other words, do you mean to teach that it has any existence 
 apart from that particular condition of matter found in the 
 structure of the ear ? It has occurred to me that sound is only 
 a sensational phenomenon, and, like all other sensations, depend- 
 ent upon nerve matter; but if I perfectly comprehend you I 
 have an incorrect idea of it that is, if you are correct. Hoping 
 that you will take pleasure in answering my question, I am 
 very respectfully yours, W. S. JONES, M, D. 
 
 REPLY BY THE EDITOtt. 
 
 Sound, as well as any other of the sensation-producing causes 
 in nature, must of necessity be one of the physical forces, and 
 consequently must first exist outside of our sensations before it 
 can act upon the sense-nerves to produce its characteristic 
 effect. 
 
 Sound, in its primary sense or signification, is not at all the 
 sensation in our consciousness, as Dr. Jones thinks, which we 
 call hearing, and is only used in that sense by accommodation 
 of language, or by metonymy of speech, the effect being put 
 for the cause. Still, the use of such metaphors in our language 
 is both common and proper. The true and unfigurative mean- 
 ing of scientific terms, however, should always be preferred in 
 our philosophical discussions to any form of trope. 
 
 Sound, strictly speaking, is that force in nature which by 
 entering the ear, and by contact with the auditory nerve, pro- 
 duces in our consciousness the sensation of hearing. Light 
 is that force in nature which by entering the eye, and by 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 157 
 
 Q. 6. What causes pitch in sound? 
 
 A. As sound is developed by the vibratory action of 
 some sound-producing body, by which this peculiar form 
 of natural force is generated or liberated from the force- 
 element of nature, it follows, and has been abundantly 
 proved, that the pitch of sound depends upon the num- 
 ber of such vibrations in a given time by which any par- 
 ticular sound is produced and conveyed to the ear. 
 
 Q. 7. What is the range or extreme limits of such 
 vibrational rates, for producing the various audible 
 sounds in nature? 
 
 A. From the most refined experiments it has been 
 
 contact with the optic nerve, produces in our consciousness 
 the sensation called seeing or sight. Heat is that force in 
 nature which by entering our tactile nerves, which are dis- 
 tributed all over the body, produces in our consciousness the 
 sensation called warmth, and metaphorically also called heat. 
 Odor is that force in nature which by entering the nose, and 
 coming in contact with the olfactory nerve, produces in our 
 consciousness the sensation we call smell. And flavor is that 
 force in nature which by contact with the palate and gustatory 
 nerve produces in our consciousness the sensation we call 
 taste. 
 
 If there is no such thing as sound in nature outside of our 
 ears and auditory nerves, then there surely is no such thing as 
 light outside of our eyes, no such thing as heat outside of our 
 tactile nerves, no such thing as flavor outside of our gustatory 
 membranes, and no such thing as odor outside of our noses. 
 Are the old theorists, who wish to confine sound to our sensa- 
 tions in order to avoid Substantialisni. prepared for the applica- 
 tion of their logic to light, heat, flavor and odor? If not, let 
 them do a little sober reflecting before making their points. 
 Let us now put the matter in the form of a few very simple 
 questions and see how it will hold together. 
 
 If there is no sound as a physical force outside the ear, is it 
 not plain, as just hinted, that there is no light as a physical 
 force outside the eye ? But would not the sun shine just the 
 same if all eyes were put out ? Suppose all sensuous beings 
 should shut their eyes at one time; would that extinguish the 
 
158 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 determined, that sounds can be heard by the best ears 
 from 16 up to about 16,000 vibrations in a second. 
 (Some authors place this upper limit much higher, but it 
 is manifestly a mistake.) The average range of tone, 
 however, in orchestral music is believed to extend from 
 about 30 to 8000 vibrations per second. 
 
 Q. 8. Do any tones exceed the extreme limits of vi- 
 bration here given for the capacity of human ears? 
 
 A. It may be fairly inferred from various natural 
 analogies, that sound-force is really generated both by 
 lower and higher rates of vibration than those named as 
 producing audible sound, but that its form, in such 
 cases, exceeds the capacity of our sensations. 
 
 light of the sun ? If all light (like sound is claimed to be) is in 
 our sensations, then what produces the chemical effect on a 
 metallic plate, changing it into what we call a daguerreotype ? 
 Has that inert, inanimate piece of metal an optic nerve? 
 Would not the same chemical effect have taken place by the 
 action of the light under the same conditions, if there were no 
 eyes in existence? Then again: If heat (like sound is supposed 
 to be) is only in our tactile sensations, and not a physical, sub- 
 stantial force outside of them, how does it burn down a build- 
 ing ? Does a frame house possess tactile nerves and a conscious 
 sensation ? 
 
 Then, coming right home to the question in hand, if sound is 
 only in our sensations, and not a real, substantial force in 
 nature outside of our conscious being, what is it that sets a 
 stretched string into sympathetic vibration ? Has a steel wire 
 got ears ? Does a tensioned chord possess an auditory nerve and 
 animal consciousness ? Would not that stretched wire be thrown 
 into action by sympathy all the same, under the same circum- 
 stances, if there were not an ear in existence ? If so, what could 
 do it but the external, physical force called sound ? And how 
 could sound do it, if sound exists only in conscious sensation ? 
 
 No, Doctor, we may rest assured that the lightnings would 
 flash, and the thunders would roar, and the windows would 
 rattle all the same if there were not an eye or an ear in the 
 universe to take cognizance of them; and that the wild rose 
 would continue to " blush unseen and waste its fragrance on 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 159 
 
 Q. 9. From what natural analogies may this be in- 
 ferred ? 
 
 A. From all the other sensation-producing causes. 
 Heat, for example, may be so trifling that we cannot feel 
 its warmth., while very refined instruments, such as the 
 most sensitive galvanometers, will plainly detect and show 
 its presence. A light may be so faint as to be wholly 
 unrecognizable by our sensations, yet a cat could so 
 gather and utilize the rays, as to see and distinguish ob- 
 jects. Odor may be entirely unrecognizable by our sense 
 of smell, and yet be intensely recognizable by certain 
 species of hound;* etc., etc. So, in like manner, some 
 
 * A hound of a certain breed, with highly-sensitive olfactories, 
 will follow the direction of a fox over hill and dale, through for- 
 
 the desert air " all the same if there was not one olfactory 
 nerve on this earth to recognize it. 
 
 "We feel sure, judging by the candid spirit of Dr. Jones' letter 
 of inquiry, that he is honestly desirous of information concern- 
 ing the teaching of the new philosophy. And we believe there 
 are hundreds of others in the same state of mental suspense. 
 We have, therefore, taken particular pains to make the answer 
 clear. 
 
 It is impossible, however, to elucidate everything involved in 
 the great philosophy of Substantialism in a few paragraphs, or 
 even in a few numbers of the Arena, and which has taken us 
 more than a decade of years to elaborate. Had Dr. Jones, and 
 many others who make similar inquiries, read our five volumes 
 of the Microcosm, beginning with the " Problem of Human 
 Life," they would have found all such inquiries fully answered 
 in advance. We give due notice to all new readers of the 
 Arena that they can, at this late date, scarcely ask a question 
 relating to the elementary laws and principles involved in 
 Substantialism, that has not been discussed and answered in 
 some portion of our previous writings. Still, this is not to fore- 
 stall inquiries. We desire to receive candid questions on ail 
 proper subjects, and we will endeavor to answer all such as 
 have an important bearing on the current discussions in the 
 Arena. From the Scientific Arena, Vol. I., p. 73. 
 
160 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 animals, such as hares, will hear sounds from a distance 
 entirely too faint for human beings to recognize. It has 
 also been proved by the microphone, that even small in- 
 sects have conversational sounds by which they commu- 
 nicate one with another, but which are far too delicate 
 for our unaided ears; just as animalcules have the visual 
 power to see and pursue each other, even when they are 
 beyond the reach of our natural vision, and in fact of 
 the most powerful microscopes. 
 
 Q. 10. What is signified by the intensity of sound? 
 
 A. Inside of our sensations it signifies loudness, but 
 externally or objectively, intensity signifies the strength 
 or quantity of this force generated, and is that attribute 
 
 est and jungle, hours after it has passed, and even when it has 
 reached a score of miles ahead. Yet the hound does not depend 
 on touching the tracks of the fox with his nose, or even of fol- 
 lowing its exact path; but, as observed by the writer (having 
 seen a fox pass hours before, and noting the exact path taken 
 by its feet), will frequently vary rods from the true path, yet, 
 keeping on in the general direction, will pursue his game with 
 unerring certainty. 
 
 So defined and substantial are the odorous particles emanating 
 from the footfalls of the fox, that a dog, on striking a trail 
 hours old, will almost instantly decide, by the arrangement of 
 the atoms in the air, the direction it has taken; but, if moment- 
 arily mistaking the back-track, the difference, probably, in the 
 intensity of the surcharged air warns him of his error, and leads 
 him to reverse his course. 
 
 Before stopping to quibble about the impossibility of sound 
 being substantial emanations from its inconceivable tenuity, let 
 us try to grasp the marvelous lesson taught by this fox and 
 hound. Though the wind may blow across the trail, carrying 
 off for hours the odorous clouds which have risen from the in- 
 stantaneous impress of the feet upon the earth, filling thus, per- 
 haps, vast areas along the trail with those magical atoms of per- 
 fume, exceeding, possibly, in extent many times the four square 
 miles of air surcharged by the locust, yet sufficient odor re- 
 mains, extending for rods on both sides of the trail, to enable 
 the hound to pursue his distant game with infallible precision, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 161 
 
 of sound by which its range of observable distance is 
 caused and determined. 
 
 Q. 11. In what does the intensity of sound, external 
 to our senses, chiefly consist? 
 
 A. In the amount or quantity of this force generated 
 or liberated from the force-element of Nature, by the 
 various vibratory processes ordained to that end, just as 
 any other form of force, magnetism for example, may 
 exist with greater or less intensity. 
 
 Q. 12. On what law or principle does this sound-force 
 travel when thus generated or liberated from the force- 
 element of Nature? 
 
 A. By the same law or analogous principle on which 
 
 I now ask the puzzled reader, who fails to see how the locust 
 can fill an area two miles square with sonorous substance and 
 not appreciably reduce its weight, to tell me, approximately, 
 how much reynard has reduced his feet in size and weight by 
 the clouds of odor diffused along his track for a hundred miles? 
 Though the feet may have deteriorated by the roughness of the 
 journey and their two hundred thousand impacts upon the hard 
 earth, yet I venture the suggestion that the cubic miles of odor- 
 ous substance which encompassed the trail and guided the 
 hound, did not diminish the weight of either f oot an a] >preciable 
 fraction of a grain. Yet those miles of odor-surcharged atmos- 
 phere were filled with substantial emissions, as all science unites 
 in assuring us, though not so tenuous, probably, as sonorous sub- 
 stance, yet sufficiently near it to cause the imagination to retire 
 discomfited and confounded. 
 
 The reader thus has a rational answer to his question in this 
 somewhat analogous substance of odor, showing that it is not at 
 all among the impossibilities, nor is it even improbable, that the 
 locust should fill such an area with sonorous substance, from 
 this analogue in the fox's feet whilst not the shadow of an an- 
 swer can be offered by the advocates of the wave-theory of sound 
 for the reasonableness of corporeal results equal to the mechan- 
 ical energy of a million locomotives ascribed to the physical 
 strength of a single insect. Dr. Hall, in "Problem of Human 
 Life," p. 135. 
 
162 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 any other force of Nature travels, as, for example, elec- 
 tricity, magnetism, light, heat, gravity, etc. Sound 
 travels by a law of conduction or radiation suited to that 
 peculiar form of force, and which law (at present un- 
 known to man) is adapted by the all- wise Author of nat- 
 ure to the various bodies through which sound passes at 
 varying rates of velocity, according as their material par- 
 ticles are variously arranged and held together by the 
 force of cohesive attraction. This involves the law first 
 set forth in the Substantial Philosophy, and alluded to in 
 one of the foregoing chapters of this book, that no form 
 of physical force, aside from cohesion, acts directly upon 
 matter, but that all other forms of force affect matter 
 alone by their co-operation with, or opposition to cohes- 
 ive force. 
 
 Q. 13. What has the vibratory tremor of the con- 
 ducting body, as, for example, air, to do with sound as a 
 force ? 
 
 A. Any tremor or vibration observed in air or other 
 sound-conducting medium constitutes no part of sound- 
 force itself, but is either the effect of such force in 
 its action upon material objects, or is incidental to the 
 vibratory process or operation by which sound-force is 
 generated and liberated. 
 
 Q. 14. Are there any proofs from natural analogy that 
 this is the correct view? 
 
 A. Yes; especially as seen in the case of electricity 
 when generated by the whirling motion of the dynamo- 
 machine. Not only will this generating process produce 
 an incidental tremor of the air, of the conducting wire, 
 and even of the whole building in which the work is car- 
 ried on, but the electric force itself, thus conducted 
 along the wire, will cause additional motion in an electric 
 engine miles away from the dynamo-machine. As well 
 call this incidental tremor of the wire and of the build- 
 ing, or this running of the distant engine, the electricity 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OB SOUND. 163 
 
 itself, as to call the incidental vibration of the air, or the 
 sympathetic vibration of another instrument near a 
 tuning-fork, the sound-force itself. Both classes of 
 phenomena are equally incidental to, or effects of, these 
 different forms of force, and are no more the force 
 itself, than is the tremor of the flint and steel, when 
 struck, the spark or light -force thus generated and sent 
 forth.* Thus there is not only the incidental motion of 
 
 * But the Standard critic seems really to have struck a happy 
 thought, and supposes he has effectually caught the substantial 
 philosopher napping at last. He seems to think he has him as 
 safely secured in the meshes of his logical network as any octo- 
 pus ever had a helpless porgee with his formidable antennae 
 wound about it. He has discovered that if sound is an entity, 
 according to Substantialism, and if the locust generates these 
 substantial pulses by its stridulation, then the insect actually 
 creates something out of nothing, by scraping its legs across the 
 nervures of its wings! This is plain, he thinks, because no sound 
 was there till the scraping began. Or, if this substantial entity 
 is not created out of nothing, then it must be manufactured out 
 of the insect's organism, so that the poor little thing ought soon 
 to use itself up in its own substantial noise! And still worse, 
 what becomes of this sound-substance when it ceases to be audi- 
 ble ? Is it annihilated? etc., etc. I have made the case even 
 stronger than did the critic, to give the Substantial Philosophy 
 a rare opportunity to show its powers of solution and explana- 
 tion. And here its founder comes to the task, by the remark: 
 " How easy it is for even great men to be mistaken, especially 
 when attempting to criticise something they do not understand 
 or have not thoroughly investigated!" a very sensible remark, 
 by the way. He then proceeds substantially thus: According 
 to Substantialism, the incorporeal force-element in Nature, from 
 which sensuous sound is generated by whatever sound-producing 
 instruments, exists in all matter and space, not as audible sound, 
 of course, but as its elemental basis, and which only requires the 
 vibratory and atomic process ordained in the economy of Nature 
 for transforming this force element and thus calling it forth in 
 that definite form of force which we recognize as sound. This 
 same universal but indefinite force-principle, by the process of 
 the battery or dynamo-machine, leaps forth in the definite form 
 
164 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 adjacent bodies, as the effort of the vibrating instrument 
 which generates sound, but sound-force itself will also 
 produce vibrations in bodies against which it strikes, as 
 for example, the diaphragms of phonographs, telephones, 
 etc., in close proximity to sounding instruments. 
 
 Q. 15. As sound-force is not the incidental tremor of 
 the air or of other conducting medium, is the vibration 
 of the fork or of the string itself, by which the sound is 
 produced, any part of the sound-force thus generated? 
 
 A. No; this harmonic or pendulous motion, or in 
 other words this synchronous swing of the fork or other 
 sounding instrument, is no more identical with the 
 
 of electricity, with its own peculiar properties, and which has no 
 existence in that form in the air or battery until so transformed 
 and evolved from this force- reservoir of Nature. Clouds also act 
 as a battery and produce a similar transformation. The same 
 universal element of force, by the peculiar but mysterious rela- 
 tions of the atoms of the steel magnet, pour out transformed 
 into the shape of magnetic rays of real in corporeal substance that 
 will lift a bar of iron at a distance even through impervious 
 glass. So also with the substantial light-rays, which are but 
 another transformation from the same fountain or universal ele- 
 ment of force, evolved to the sensible form of light by various 
 processes ordained in Nature to that end. But it by no means 
 follows that electricity is created out of nothing or returns back 
 to nothing when its substantial manifestations cease; nor is it 
 created out of the substance of the electro -magnets in the dy- 
 namo-machine which ii'ill last indefinitely ii'ithout the slightest 
 wear or deterioration of their material substance. So a locust, 
 while thus generating substantial sound-pulses, not out of noth- 
 ing, but evolving them from this same universal, substantial 
 fountain or force-element, uses not a particle of its physical or- 
 ganism as a constituent of such sonorous form of force. The 
 fire-fly, as the editor shows in the March Microcosm in reply to 
 Prof. Goodenow, though but a hundredth part the size of the 
 locust, can be seen half a mile of a dark night, and, therefore, 
 must fill that much space in all directions with its substantial 
 but incorporeal light-corpuscles which it generates at each flash 
 from its thorax, not out of nothing, but out of that same force 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 165 
 
 sound-force thus liberated and sent off through the air 
 1120 feet a second, than is the rotary motion of the 
 dynamo-magnets identical with the electric force sent off 
 through the wire at a velocity of thousands of miles a 
 second. The force and the motions in both cases (both 
 causal and incidental) are entirely distinct from each 
 other. But as the incidental tremor of a building, 
 caused by the running of a dynamo-machine, may also 
 be made to generate other electricity, when properly 
 utilized, so the incidental and synchronous tremor of a 
 conducting medium may itself also cause additional 
 sound. This is illustrated * by the sound generated at 
 the distant end of a mechanical telephone wire. The 
 
 element which pervades all Nature and supplies each force, 
 when definitely evolved, with properties peculiar to itself. The 
 physical substance of this diminutive insect has nothing to do 
 with constituting that form of substantial force called light, 
 since, after thus filling hundreds of cubic miles night after night 
 with actual substance, it has not exhausted its corporeal struct- 
 ure in the least! But what becomes of the light, the sound, the 
 electricity, the magnetism, or any other peculiar form of force 
 thus generated, after serving the purpose thus designed in Nat- 
 ure, or after ceasing to manifest itself ? It falls back from its 
 definite form into the same indefinite force-element or reservoir 
 from which it was evolved by the process appointed in Nature; 
 and thus only can the law of the conservation of the forces be true. 
 Tims also, as the founder of this Substantial Philosophy teaches 
 in his " Problem of Human Life,'' the vital and mental force of 
 the lower animals at death falls back into the universal fountain 
 of life and mentality from which all substantial life and mind 
 must have originally come, and which reaches back to God him- 
 self. He insists that no scientist dares to deny him the right 
 thus to postulate such a universal force-element or fountain 
 from which all forms of manifested force with all their peculi- 
 arities come, since this Philosophy solves so many otherwise ab- 
 solutely inexplicable problems in science, while contradicting 
 nothing that we know surely in any branch of natural philos- 
 oph} 7 . It would be with an ill grace for scholasticism to deny 
 this right to assume a universal force-element which rationally 
 
166 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 sound- force of the voice, caused by the vibration of the 
 vocal organs, may shake the intervening air and set the 
 transmitting diaphragm of the telephone into motion; 
 this communicates the tremor to the conducting wire, 
 which continues it on to the receiving diaphragm, which 
 takes up and communicates these various links of inci- 
 dental tremors to the air, thus conducting the sound 
 pulses to the ear, all of which vibratory links conspire to 
 keep up reproducing as well as conducting the original 
 sound. Hence, let the vibration of such a mechanical 
 telephone wire be stopped off any where along the line 
 by a rigid vise, and no audible sound will be communi- 
 
 solves all the mysterious phenomena of science and which have 
 so long puzzled the schools, when the same scholasticism as- 
 sumes an all-pervading and material luminiferous ether for the 
 sole purpose of getting a substance out of which to manufacture 
 light- waves and thus to make light harmonize with an erroneous 
 theory of sound-waves, and all, too, without any rational neces- 
 sity either for such assumption or such a substance. 
 
 But in conclusion, take one more case which the author of the 
 new theory cites as an illustration of the importance of Substan- 
 tialism in giving a rational solution of Nature's mysterious prob- 
 lems. The flint and steel are perfectly dark, cold, and silent 
 bodies. Neither light, heat, nor sound addresses our senses as 
 we look at them, feel of them, or hold them to our ears. But 
 bring them together in suitable substantial contact and forth- 
 with there leap away from them a ray of substantial light, a 
 flash of substantial heat , and a hiss of substantial sound ! Where 
 were these three substances, or forces, concealed before this 
 contact? Had the} r 110 existence in any form, and were the', 
 therefore, created out of nothing? By no manner of means. 
 Plainly, as Substantialism answers, they were all previously 
 locked up, in essence at least, in the all- pervading force-foun- 
 tain of which we have been speaking, and they only required 
 this substantial contact of the two material bodies to enable them 
 to come forth in the three manifested forms of definite and sub- 
 stantial force as observed. Such are a few of the beauties of 
 the Substantial Philosophy now appealing to the people through 
 the columns of the Microcosm. Eld. Thos. Munnell, in the Mi- 
 crocosm, Vol. III., p. 307. 
 
OF 
 
 V 
 
 THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 167 
 
 cated to the receiving diaphragm, thus showing how es- 
 sential is vibration to the usual methods of generating 
 sonorous force. 
 
 Q. 16. But does not this view involve the doctrine of 
 sound as a mode of motion? 
 
 A. No; sound is one of the forms of physical /orce, 
 and as such, is an objective entity or an immaterial sub- 
 stance. As well call electricity a mode of motion be- 
 cause this form of force moves along a wire, and is usually 
 generated by a motion which shakes the wire as its con- 
 ducting medium, also shaking the air and the building 
 where the machinery runs. It requires close thinking, 
 but it is scientifically essential to keep up this distinction 
 between any form of force liberated and the mechanical 
 process or operation which liberates it. Both sound and 
 electricity are usually generated by modes or methods of 
 mechanical motion, but when generated they are anal- 
 ogous forms of force-energy, and are thus real substantial 
 entities. 
 
 Q. 17. Is all force necessarily substantial? 
 
 A. Yes. Nothing in Nature can directly cause a phe- 
 nomenon, or produce a positive effect upon our sensaous 
 observation, unless it is a substantial entity or objective 
 thing. Every force of Nature, therefore, must be a sub- 
 stantial entity, as it is the direct or immediate cause of 
 sensation, or of observed phenomena.* 
 
 * Having thus reached this field of research, what do we dis- 
 cover ? Is it possible in reason that in stepping over this bound- 
 ary-line of material existences, we have left all real substances 
 behind us when we have parted company with odor ? It surely 
 does not seem so to us, or that such a view can be rational to a 
 philosophical investigator. Substantialism teaches, on the con- 
 trary, that we have only entered the hitherto unexplored and 
 even almost unrecognized domain of the absolute physical, vital, 
 mental, and spiritual entities which, though immaterial, under- 
 lie, manipulate, and control all material bodies, and from which 
 
168 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 18. Does not this make out motion itself to be an 
 entity or substantial thing, since it generates or produces 
 force as, for example, in the case of sound and electric- 
 ity? 
 
 A. Not in any strict sense. The exact character or 
 true nature of what is meant by motion is somewhat dif- 
 ficult to grasp and define, unless by the most careful 
 mental effort. Strictly speaking, motion is nothing but 
 space, or position in space changing. As pure space is 
 nothing, mere position in space, whether stationary ex- 
 changing, is also nothing. The substance which occu- 
 pies space, and which is the subject of motion or change 
 of position, is, of course, an entity, as is also that which 
 
 domain, as their source, all material worlds have their origin, 
 and from whose delegated power all visible and sensible mani- 
 festations are now observed in sensuous phenomena. These 
 real entities, from the most refined spiritual and mental sub- 
 stance in Nature downward through the lower mental powers 
 and instincts and the coarser vital substances of the animal and 
 vegetable kingdoms, still downward through the physical but 
 substantial forces of gravitation, electricity, light, heat, sound, 
 magnetism, etc., are all around us in space as real entitative ex- 
 istences, in ten thousand forms and operations, as Substantialism 
 tells us, had we but the higher mental vision to behold them 
 And what is peculiar of incorporeal substances, unlike material 
 bodies, they do not interfere with each other in space, but a 
 thousand of such entitative existences can occupy exactly the 
 same corporeal place at the same time. If the physical forces be 
 really immaterial substances, as Substantialism insists, it is plain 
 that gravity not only occupies the minutest molecules of mate- 
 rial bodies, but that light, heat, sound, magnetism, and elec- 
 tricity can all occupy the same material atoms at the same in- 
 stant of time without displacing or in any way interfering with 
 gravity, or one with another. 
 
 Thus the mode-of-motion doctrine in the case of magnetism 
 falls to the ground, as it totally fails to account for the action of 
 a magnet on a distant body, leaving magnetic force, as an un- 
 deniable incorporeal substance, in peaceable possession of the 
 field. We challenge the scientific world to make any reply to 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 169 
 
 causes such motion or change of position, which is force 
 of some kind. But motion, per se, had no existence 
 before the body began to change position, and it lias no 
 existence after the body comes to rest, which cannot be 
 said either of the body itself or of the force or energy 
 which caused it to move, both of which, being real ob- 
 jective existences, cannot be annihilated or cease to 
 exist, but must persist in some form. Superficially, 
 therefore, we may say that sound is produced by the mo- 
 tion of the tuning-fork; but, scientifically speaking, 
 sound is produced by the substantial mechanical force or 
 energy which overcomes the inertia of the fork and puts 
 it into motion. As motion is a nonentity, it therefore, 
 
 this argument for the absolute existence of immaterial substance 
 an argument which alone annihilates the mode-of -motion doc- 
 trine as applied to other natural forces, leaving them all entities, 
 just as required by the Substantial Philosophy. For, plainly, if 
 magnetism is thus proved to be a real substance, by the utter in- 
 adequacy of any mere motion of material substance to explain 
 the facts, then gravity must follow as a real, immaterial sub- 
 stance, by applying the very same line of reasoning and illustra- 
 tion; and if these two forces of Nature are thus indubitably 
 shown to be substantial emanations, why not all the others? 
 The argument thus seems absolutely conclusive. 
 
 Indeed, may we not claim it to be a truism, so well settled in 
 the very texture of science as to entitle it to be received as axio- 
 matic by any mind capable of philosophical thought, that, as no 
 ponderable body can move of itself, so no body, such as the iron 
 armature referred to, can move unless acted upon by a real sub- 
 stance emanating from some source of power ? Can any logical 
 mind dispute such self-evident truth ? If not, then have we not, 
 in the most convincing manner, demonstrated in magnetic at- 
 traction and repulsion an active, powerful substance existing en- 
 tirely outside of the domain of materiality, which defies all ma- 
 terial conditions or material explanations, and which has not 
 one material property ? 
 
 True, this magnetic substance appears to cease to exist when 
 it ceases its manifestations. But it does not and cannot cease to 
 exist, in the very nature of things. As it is admitted to be a 
 real force, the theory of the "conservation of the forces," now 
 
170 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 in a strict scientific sense, can produce nothing nor cause 
 any effect. 
 
 Q. 19. If sound or electricity is generated alone by the 
 mechanical force which gives motion to the fork or mag- 
 nets, do not these resultant forms of force actually come 
 into existence by such process? 
 
 A. Yes, in the sense of such manifested or special 
 forms of force. But in the sense of the substantial force- 
 element of Nature, the essence of all force, from which 
 these forms of force were liberated or evolved by the 
 physical process named, they did not come into existence 
 by such process, but are the mere conversions from 
 
 accepted as science, precludes the possibility of such magnetic 
 substance being annihilated. Whatever becomes of it, and how- 
 ever it may be dispersed throughout space, or be diffused so that 
 its active effects cease to be recognized by us, it nevertheless 
 continues to exist in some essential and substantial form, or the 
 so-called "conservation of the forces" of Nature cannot be 
 true. 
 
 Here, then, is where Substantialism practically began. Here 
 is where it drove its first stake, pitched its tent, and from which 
 point it took its first philosophical bearings. If one of the ac- 
 knowledged physical forces, namely magnetism, is thus shown 
 to be not a mere technical vaguity or meaningless myth of 
 science, but a real immaterial substance, as we have here found 
 it to be, then reason would tell us, yea does tell us, as just in- 
 timated, that every other force is equally substantial, unless 
 some insuperable difficulty shall be found to interfere which 
 necessarily precludes such substantial hypothesis. But no such 
 interference in any of the forces, after the most critical and 
 searching investigation, occurs. On the contrary, rather, once 
 admit the existence of immaterial substance as a settled fact, as 
 magnetism compels us to do, and then admit four of the natural 
 forces magnetism, gravity, electricity and heat to be really 
 substantial, as the first one irresistibly forces us to do, and is it 
 reasonable or philosophical, after such data, not to include every 
 other natural force, or whatever produces sensuous manifesta- 
 tions, in the same category ? Thus logically were we I od step 
 by step into Substantialism. Dr. Hall, in Microcosm, Vol. III., 
 pp. 279-311. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 171 
 
 such force-element, into these forms of force for 
 special manifestations. As substance in the primordial 
 sense can neither absolutely come into existence, nor 
 cease to exist, and as this is an indisputable scientific 
 nxiom, hence everything in the universe, material and 
 immaterial, must in its finer essence or ultimate sub- 
 stance have always existed not as gross matter, nor 
 even as the crude force-element, for that matter, but as 
 the infinitely sublimed primordial and incorporeal ele- 
 ment or essence from which and out of which the infinite 
 and intelligent Ego created all the manifested forms of 
 substance in the universe. The law of the conservation 
 of force, so universally taught and believed, not only 
 proves force in every form to be an entity, but it pre- 
 cludes the possibility of its destruction, as much so as if 
 it were matter itself. If it would be impossible for mat- 
 ter to be annihilated, or converted into nothing, it would 
 be equally impossible for matter or any form of force to 
 be created out of nothing. Hence, it is the rational phi- 
 losophical view, that all substances in Nature, including 
 the forces as well as the force-element from which the 
 various forms of force emanate, were originally, or in 
 their last analysis, the exterior element or substantial 
 clothing, so to speak, of the infinite, substantial, un- 
 treated, and intelligent First Cause o all the entities in 
 the universe. It is therefore regarded as the more ra- 
 tional and philosophical view to take, that the universe 
 was created out of something rather than out of nothing, 
 since something in abundance may have existed from 
 eternity, as the things which are not seen the invisible 
 things of God out of which to create every thing, even 
 without involving the idea of the eternity of matter.* 
 
 NEW YORK, September 12, 1885. 
 * Dear Dr. Hall : 
 
 Your argument in reply to Dr. Stone in the September Micro- 
 cosm has thrown a flood of light on the subject of Creation. 
 
1?2 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 20. On what analogical ground should sound be 
 regarded as a substantial entity, and not as a mode of 
 motion, as present science teaches? 
 
 A. On the analogical ground of the consistent and 
 harmonious uniformity of Nature's laws and principles 
 of proceeding. As heat, electricity, magnetism, etc. 
 all phenomena-producing causes in Nature are among 
 the self-evident substantial or entitative forces of Nature, 
 it would be incongruous and out of all consistent har- 
 mony, for sound and light, equally phenomena-producing 
 causes, not likewise to be substantial forces or objective 
 entities. And as the senses of smell, taste, and tactility 
 
 Clearly, if Dr. Stone's view is correct, nothing must be the exact 
 equivalent of an entity, as you have logically insisted. If I 
 were able to " frame" a house out of nothing, as the worlds were 
 supposed by Dr. Stone to be "framed by the word of God," 
 even if I possessed infinite power, I should regard nothing as a 
 good enough entity for all practical purposes of material con- 
 struction. The very fact that God must be immanent or pres- 
 ent in Nature, in order to sustain it, according to the faith of 
 most Christians, and the very fact that without the immaterial 
 force of cohesion, as you have shown, all material bodies would 
 at once disappear, is sufficient proof that it is through and by 
 means of the physical forces that God's presence is made mani- 
 fest in Nature. And if God is actually present in Nature, and 
 controls it through the immaterial force-element in its various 
 manifested forms, there is nothing illogical or irreverent in sup- 
 posing that this same, immaterial element was the original por- 
 tion of God's exterior essence out of which the worlds were 
 made. How natural, then, is Paul's statement that the worlds 
 were " framed " of things that do not appear, or in other words, 
 of the " invisible things of Him." Heb xi. 3; Rom. i. 20. 
 
 The argument advanced by you in reply to the Rev. Dr. Barr. 
 of Philadelphia, as printed in the " Problem of Human Life," 
 at page 52, is one of the strongest scriptural arguments against 
 the nothing theory yet presented, and I cannot imagine how 
 any one would attempt to answer it, namely, that the " Word 
 was God," and the " Word was made flesh." As the flesh of 
 Christ was literally material, it is plain that God did, at least in 
 one instance, himself change into matter, and it is equally truo 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 173 
 
 can only be addressed, and their sensuous impressions 
 produced by substantial contact with these organs, it 
 would be entirely unwarranted to suppose an abrupt 
 change to nonentitative motion in the sensations of hear- 
 ing and sigh L 
 
 Q. 21. Are there any direct and positive proofs that 
 sound does not consist of air-waves, or of condensations 
 and rarefactions, as taught in the present theory of 
 acoustics? 
 
 A. Yes, many such proofs. One is, that if sound is 
 constituted of condensations and rarefactions of the air, 
 caused by the to and fro vibrations of the sounding 
 
 that the mere flesh of Christ, after its creation, was no more a 
 part of God than is the flesh of any other person. Then the ar- 
 gument is overwhelming, if God as the Word could be made 
 into material flesh, dare we assert that God as the Word could 
 not be made into a material World or a material universe? It 
 is also very plain that in the creation of Adam the soul or spir- 
 itual part came direct from God, as a part of his own spiritual 
 essence, and by which man was made in the image of God. la 
 it likely that God made one half of Adam out of his own essen- 
 tial being, and that the other half (or that out of which it was 
 made) came from nothing ? Is it not more probable that the 
 whole man, soul, body and spirit, came directly or indirectly 
 from the substantial being of God ? Would it not be well for 
 those who advocate the nothing hypothesis to stop raising triv- 
 ial objections long enough to answer a few of your strong argu- 
 ments ? 
 
 Query, If God was in the habit of making things out of noth- 
 ing, why did he change his plan and make Adam's body out of 
 the dust of the earth ? Why did he not consistently adhere to 
 his uniform process and make Adam's body out of nothing? 
 If it was actually necessary for God to use some previously ex- 
 isting substance out of which to make so small a thing as 
 Adam's body, is it at all likely that he could make larger things, 
 such as worlds, out of nothing 9 
 
 ROBERT ROGERS, Office Editor of the Scientific Arena. 
 Microcosm, Vol. V., page 45. See also Chapter I. of this 
 volume. 
 
174 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 body, it would follow that the vibrating body of a given 
 size, which makes the greatest condensation and rarefac- 
 tion of the air, or which swings furthest at a given rate 
 of vibrations per second, should necessarily cause the 
 most intense sound, and consequently should be heard 
 throughout the greatest range of distance. 
 
 Q. 22. Are there any exceptions to such a principle 
 in sounding bodies? That is to say, are there any sound- 
 ing instruments which produce little vibration or mechan- 
 ical effects on the air, and which, at the same time, pro- 
 duce more sound than other instruments of the same 
 pitch of vibrational number which produce vastly greater 
 atmospheric condensations and rarefactions? 
 
 A. Yes: there are many such conclusive illustrations 
 among sounding bodies. For example, let us strike a 
 tuning-fork heavily when held in the fingers, or thrum a 
 heavy string when stretched over iron supports, and 
 neither of them can be heard more than six or eight feet 
 away, notwithstanding its powerful action on the air in 
 generating so-called condensations and rarefactions. 
 Yet a species of locust, an insect not a thousandth part 
 as heavy, and with not a tenth part as much vibratory 
 motion as the tuning-fork or string, though of the same 
 rate and pitch of tone, when sitting on a green leaf, can 
 be heard a mile in all directions, or more than eight hun- 
 dred times further away, than can either the fork or the 
 string, while by the actual space filled with its tone, it 
 generates more than 80,000,000 times as much sound. 
 This is conclusive proof that sound does not in any man- 
 ner consist of air- waves, or of atmospheric condensations 
 or rarefactions, as claimed by former physicists.* 
 
 * Now it is a fact that a tuning-fork of the largest size, when 
 caused to vibrate at its best, cannot be heard, held in the open 
 air, half-a-dozen feet away, while one of these locusts, having 
 not a tenth part as much surface by which to act on the air, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 175 
 
 Q. 23. Is it possible to generate sound without the 
 vibrating instrument producing condensations of the air? 
 
 A. Yes; when the vibrating instrument moves through 
 the air at a velocity so low, that the mobility of the air 
 suffices to restore its equilibrium without its undergoing 
 compression. 
 
 Q. 24. Has any such exceedingly slow vibratory veloc- 
 ity ever been observed and measured? 
 
 A. Yes; it has been mathematically determined by 
 
 and not a tenth the vibratory action or distance of swing, can 
 be distinctly heard more than a mile away, and so loud is its 
 sound when within a few feet of it, that it is almost deafening! 
 If, then, both this insect and the tuning-fork produce their 
 sound by the air-pulses sent off, and by nothing else, will some 
 Prof. Mayer, Tyndall, Stokes, Rood, Helmholtz, Lord Raleigh, 
 or Sir Wm. Thomson rise and explain why it is that the vastly 
 larger and more powerful air-waves or condensations and rare- 
 factions sent off from the the tuning-fork make no sensible tone 
 six feet away from their source, while the vastly less agitation 
 of the air by the vastly less surface and less extent of swing of 
 the locust is distinctly audible a mile in all directions? Come, 
 gentlemen, this is a serious matter for your theory, and must be 
 explained unless you intend to abandon it. You dare not ignore 
 the difficulty, or pretend that it is of no consequence. It is of 
 the greatest consequence, because of its great simplicity in 
 reaching the popular mind. The smallest child in school and 
 the most unscientific old lady in the land can see its force 
 against the wave-theory, if they ever saw a tuning-fork or ever 
 heard a locust stridulate. Were the problem involved as deep 
 and abstruse as the density and elasticity formula with Laplace's 
 generation of sonorous heat, or as the mobility and compressi- 
 bility problem discussed this month, then you might hope that 
 its popular effect would be limited. But you have no such hope 
 in this case. Schoolgirls will soon begin to laugh at the wave- 
 theory of sound as an absurdity, unless you explain how the 
 diminutive locust, not one- thousandth part as heavy as the 
 tuninsr-fork, with not one-hundredth part as much air- wave- 
 prod ucing effect, can be heard a mile away, while the fork can- 
 noL be heard six feet, and still sound be nothing but air- waves! 
 Dr. Hall, in the Microcosm, Vol. Ill, page 218. 
 
176 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 absolute mechanical measurement, that a -tuning-fork 
 will sound audibly, held in the fingers, when its prongs, 
 though alternating rapidly, have so nearly come to rest, 
 and consequently when they are moving over such an in- 
 finitesimal space at each swing, that their actual velocity 
 of travel, at the swiftest portion of the oscillation, is less 
 than at the rate of one inch in two years, or about twenty- 
 five thousand times slower than the hour hand of a family 
 clock ! 
 
 Q. 25. By what mechanical process is it possible to 
 measure such slow motion? 
 
 A. It is done by a method discovered and first an- 
 nounced by A. Wilford Hall, founder of the Substantial 
 Philosophy, as set forth in the Microcosm, Vol. III., page 
 90, and carried out mathematically by Capt. E. Kelso 
 Carter, Professor of Higher Mathematics in Pennsylvania 
 Military Institute, as set forth in the same volume, page 
 154. This method, though very simple, requires too much 
 space for these answers; so the reader is referred to the 
 volume containing it.* 
 
 * We have demonstrated, in the mathematical sense of the 
 term (and we will not keep the modus operandi a secret), that a 
 tuning-fork will sound audibly, held in the fingers, when its 
 pro7igs are not traveling to and fro a distance of the one sixteen- 
 millionth of an inch! Doubling this distance, for the swing 
 both ways, and we have the one eight-millionth of an inch as the 
 entire travel of the prong through one complete vibration. Let 
 us then use a fork having 256 vibrations in a second and we have 
 the entire distance traveled by such prong but the one thirty- 
 thousandth of an inch in a second ! Counting the swiftest ve- 
 locity of the prong's travel at its centre of swing as three times 
 this aggregate distance passed over, which is more than the facts 
 require, and we have, as the unanswerable result, a fork sound- 
 ing audibly when its prongs are traveling only at a velocity of the 
 one ten-thousandth of an inch in a second at its swiftest motion, 
 or at the rate of about one-third of an inch in an hour! Is any 
 professor of physics in America or elsewhere prepared to assert 
 that such velocity of travel by a tuning-fork's prong will con- 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 177 
 
 Q. 26. By what law of physics is the necessary veloc- 
 ity of a body moving in a free fluid determined in order 
 to outstrip mobility and begin to produce compression? 
 
 A. By what Dr. Hall was first to announce as the 
 union-limit in every fluid between its mobility and its 
 compressibility, or the point at which velocity of motion 
 has so increased that mobility alone cannot restore dis- 
 placement quick enough, and compression must there- 
 fore begin. This union-limit is lo vest of course in the 
 lighter and more compressible gases, and becomes higher 
 and higher, requiring greater and greater velocity of the 
 moving body, as the compressibility of the fluid increases. 
 
 dense the air and send off air-waves at the velocity of sound, or 
 1120 feet in a second ? Yet it is a positive fact that Prof. Tyn- 
 dall describes this very motion of .the prong one third of an 
 inch in an hour as " swiftly advancing,'' while the greatest liv- 
 ing physicists-Prof. Helmholtz declares that such prong, in 
 order to produce sound, must travel " very much faster" than 
 the pendulum of a clock in lull swing! Is it possible that the 
 professors of our great colleges will not be able to see and feel 
 the annihilating force of this demonstration against the received 
 theory of acoustics ? 
 
 But the scientific student naturally asks, and has a right to 
 ask, how is it possible for you to" demonstrate" mathematically 
 and mechanically such an astonishing result, and thus actually 
 measure the travel of a prong when swinging to and fro a dis- 
 tance of only the one sixteen-millionth of an inch ? We answer, 
 easily enough. It only requires a little practical, original com- 
 mon sense, after first entirely ignoring the misleading text- books 
 on the subject, and any beginner in natural philosophy, having 
 a good tuning-fork, can make the same demonstration. Here 
 it is, and let wave-theorists take particular notice. 
 
 From Microcosm, Vol. Ill, page 9^ . The following is Capt. 
 Carter's confirmation and description of Dr. Hall's demonstra- 
 tion: 
 
 CAPT. CARTER'S REPORT. 
 
 DEAR DR. HALL, According to my promise, as printed in the 
 November Microcosm, I now proceed to give you my report of 
 experiments on the slow motion of a tuning-fork's prongs, in 
 confirmation of your "finishing demonstration" as given in 
 
178 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The union-limit for such compression-velocity is ration- 
 ally to be calculated from the two factors, namely, the 
 superficial area of the moving body, and the density of 
 the fluid. 
 
 Q. 27. What general proof is there that this law of 
 u niori -limit between mobility and compressibility must 
 hold good? 
 
 A. The fact that water is practically incompressible, 
 except when great mechanical force is employed, and the 
 ease with which mobility entirely suffices for restoring 
 equilibrium when the weakest fishes can make rapid 
 headway through it, thereby allowing of easy displace- 
 
 reply to Prof. Stahr, in the October Microcosm. The following 
 are the results of my experiments: 
 
 I used a large Koenig fork of 256 vibrations. Striking it heav- 
 ily and holding it upright in my fingers, I found that its sound 
 was clearly audible (either held to the ear or through a long rub- 
 ber tube,) at the end of four minutes. By means of a finely 
 graduated scale I easily measured the amplitude of the fork's 
 swing. I found it to be at first 4-60 (1-15) of an inch. At the 
 end of fifteen seconds it had reduced to 1-60 of an inch ampli- 
 tude. At the end of fifteen seconds more, its motion was barely 
 visible against the sky. Now I can easily see a line of 1-240 of 
 an inch in breadth, which proves that the amplitude had again 
 diminished to one-fourth. In the third fifteen seconds, the mo- 
 tion had become totally invisible, even through a good magni- 
 fier. Safe to assume another fourth, or a reduction of ampli- 
 tude to 1-960 of an inch for each swing. 
 
 Now there are sixteen times fifteen seconds in four minutes, 
 hence I have the 1-15 of an inch swing reduced by four as a 
 divisor, sixteen times, or in round numbers to 1-64,000,000,000 
 of an inch at each swing. As the prong swings through this 
 amplitude, counting both directions, 512 times in a second, we 
 have the entire distance the prong travels, while still sounding 
 audibly, but the 1-123,000,000 of an inch in a second. There are 
 in round numbers 31,500,000 seconds in a year. Hence the 
 prong moves at the rate of only about one inch in four years ! 
 Allowing one-half for the swifter travel of the prong at the cen- 
 ter as compared with its average travel throughout a swing, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 179 
 
 merits and restorations of this fluid by mobility alone. 
 Then the additional fact that water, even if this small 
 fraction of remaining compressibility were removed, 
 would still be practically as mobile as it is now, causing 
 fishes to experience no more inconvenience in making 
 headway through it than at present, is a clear proof that 
 mobility in air is all that is needed for the restoration of 
 equilibrium without compression, especially when a body 
 moves slowly through it, as is the case with all vibrating 
 instruments, their very swiftest travel being of less ve- 
 locity than a dozen feet in a second Should the remain- 
 ing small fraction of compressibility be removed from 
 
 and we have the astounding fact that the fork continues to pro- 
 duce audible sound while its prongs, at their swiftest motion, are 
 not foaveling at a velocity of more than one inch in two years I 
 As your demonstration only brought down the prong's swiftest 
 travel while still sounding to one inch in three hours, I have, 
 therefore, made the proof more than 5000 times stronger against 
 the wave-theory than you had it, instead of 400 times, as I 
 promised last month. Let physicists dispose of these figures if 
 they can, or forever after hold their peace. 
 
 Yours, for the truth, 
 
 R. KELSO CARTER. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING, BY DR. HALL. 
 
 We sincerely thank our excellent contributor, Captain Carter, 
 for his efficient aid in carrying out our demonstration against 
 the wave-theory to its legitimate result, by means of his supe- 
 rior fork and his mathematical skill. Think of the astonishing 
 vfact of a fork sounding audibly when the swiftest travel of its 
 prongs is only at a velocity of one inch in two years, and then 
 compare this with the well-known teaching of the text-books! 
 As proof that this demonstration leaves the wave-theory hope- 
 lessly broken down, we simply quote the following from Prof. 
 Tyndall's text-book, which is a standard authority on acoustics 
 in all colleges: 
 
 "Imagine one of the prongs of the vibrating fork swiftly 
 advancing. It compresses the air immediately in front of it, 
 and when it retreats it leaves a partial vacuum behind, the 
 process being repeated at every subsequent advance and retreat. 
 The irhole function of the tuning-fork is to carve the air into 
 
180 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 water, the union-limit in such case would rise to infinity, 
 mobility alone answering every purpose of restoring 
 equilibrium and adjusting displacements, whatever the 
 velocity or superficial area of the displacing body might 
 be. 
 
 \ Q. 28. What is the logical inference intended to be 
 drawn from the foregoing facts and laws? 
 
 A. If mobility alone could suffice for the restoration 
 of all displacements, even if a cannon ball should pass 
 under full velocity through such a fluid, and without 
 necessitating any compression whatever, is it not positive 
 proof that the velocity of a moving prong 25,000 times 
 less than that of the hour hand of a clock, does not con- 
 dense the air at all? This being so, is it not proof 
 equally positive, that the sound heard in the case of such 
 slow motion, is not the result of air-waves, but that it 
 
 these condensations and rarefactions." Lecture on Sound, 
 p. 62. 
 
 Professor Helmholtz, the highest living authority on acous- 
 tics, maintains the same view; and insists in various ways, that 
 the vibrating prong or string must pass swiftly through the air, 
 in order to condense it and send off air- waves. Here is a speci- 
 men of his teaching: 
 
 " The pendulum swings from the right to the left with a uni- 
 form motion. . . . Near to either end of its path it moves 
 slowly, and in the middle fast. Among sonorous bodies which 
 move in the same way, only very much faster, we may mention 
 tuning-forks." Sensations of Tone, p. 28. 
 
 How preposterous all this now appears after reading the start- 
 ling facts as arrayed in Capt. Carter's Report! 
 
 We now earnestly ask every candid student of science to ex- 
 amine this unavoidable teaching of the wave-theory in the light 
 of the absolute facts here developed that the prong instead of 
 " swiftly advancing," sounds audibly when moving more than 
 25,000 times slower than the hour-hand of a family clock, and 
 more than 300,000,000 times slower than any clock-pendulum 
 ever constructed, instead of "very much faster" as Helmholtz 
 teaches ! Microcosm, Vol. Ill, pages 154, 155, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 181 
 
 must bo a substantial force, evolved and sent off, analo- 
 gous to electricity?* 
 
 Q. 29. If air-waves, or atmospheric condensations 
 and rarefactions, do not constitute sound, how are we to 
 account for the- fact that no sound is heard from a ring- 
 ing bell in an exhausted receiver? 
 
 A. Substantial sound -force requires a conducting me- 
 dium as much as substantial electric force.' x The air 
 being the ordinary conductor of sound, it follows that 
 the sound of a perfectly insulated bell in an exhausted re- 
 ceiver has no medium of conduction to the outside air, 
 
 * Having thus premised, let us in all seriousness come directly 
 to the merits of the discussion, and see if this controversy can- 
 not be ended. Now I assert, as a scientific proposition, that the 
 motion of a body below a certain velocity in a mobile fluid can 
 produce no compression or condensation whatever, either at the 
 commencement of the motion or at any part of its continuance. 
 In other words, I undertake to show that mobility alone is 
 abundantly sufficient to provide the facilities for restoring 
 equilibrium in the disturbance of every mobile fluid, and thus 
 to prevent any possible condensation of its particles if the 
 velocity of motion causing the disturbance is below a certain 
 rate, which rate I will approximately assign as the discussion 
 advances. But as the reasoning and proofs leading to these 
 important conclusions necessarily involve laws and principles 
 of physics never before presented, and not of course to be found 
 in any scientific book, I will be compelled to be somewhat prolix 
 in their introduction, so that one addicted to the old grooves of 
 science like yourself may comprehend their force and bearing. 
 
 In the first place allow me to state that mobility and com- 
 pressibility in a given fluid, such as air or water, are two separate 
 and distinct properties of matter; but they necessarily co- 
 operate in the phenomena of condensations, rarefactions, pulses, 
 etc., such as we are here discussing. Now let me state a law 
 before attempting to go further. That law is this, that in a 
 given fluid the properties of mobility and compressibility have a 
 point of union-limit as to velocity for co operation; below this 
 limit no velocity of a moving body can produce compression 
 either at its start or any where else. That is to say, the mobility 
 
182 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 and hence cannot be heard. But let the bell rest on the 
 wooden bed of the receiver, and it can be heard about as 
 well in the vacuum as with the receiver full of air, since 
 the wood now becomes the sound-conductor to the out- 
 side air, and through it to the ear. 
 
 Q. 30. What part does resonance play in the produc- 
 tion of sound? 
 
 A. It augments or multiplies sound by more widely 
 distributing this substantial force through the air, some- 
 
 of the fluid has such effect as to restore equilibrium or equalize 
 the displacement of particles before and behind the displacing 
 body without any compression whatever taking place until the 
 velocity of motion has reached this point of union-limit between 
 the two properties, when compression first begins, and then 
 increases more and more in the exact ratio as the velocity of 
 motion is augmented. Thus we begin to see light, shining upon 
 a problem which your bare assertions about the commencement 
 or the " first instant " of a motion exceeding the limits of mo- 
 bility, would leave forever in the dark. 
 
 If the compressibility of a fluid be very low, that is, if it 
 requires very little force to compress it, as in the case of air, 
 then the union-limit of the two properties in that fluid is cor- 
 respondingly low, and the velocity of motion required to com- 
 press is low in the same ratio; that is to say, it requires but a 
 very moderate velocity to reach this compression-point or limit 
 and begin condensation. But if the compressibility of a fluid be 
 high, that is, if it require great force to compress it, as in the 
 case of water or quicksilver, then the union-limit in that fluid, 
 as well as the velocity of motion needed to begin compression, 
 must be correspondingly high. Hence a condensation in such a 
 fluid (nearly incompressible like water) requires manifold greater 
 velocity in the moving body than in air. 
 
 Now, I purpose to startle you by an assertion which, if cor- 
 rect, upsets all you have written or ever can write on this sub- 
 ject, but which assertion will be borne out by facts and reason, 
 namely, that there is absolutely no limit to the property of mo- 
 bility in a mobile fluid like air or water, and that no motion oj 
 a body, however high its velocity, could overcome the effect of 
 mobility to restore equilibrium without condensation even in air 
 if this property were alone involved. But compressibility comes 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 183 
 
 thing as heat-force of a given quantity would have a more 
 intensified radiation if spread out over the surface of suit- 
 able metal. 
 
 Q. 31. Is not the resonant increase or augmentation 
 of sound caused by the increased vibratory surface of the 
 sound-boards employed in musical instruments, such as 
 pianos, harps, violins, etc. 
 
 A. No, not in the slightest degree. A tuning-fork, 
 for example, will increase its sound a hundredfold in 
 
 in as a correlated property of fluids, and as soon as the restoring 
 effect of mobility has reached their union-limit of velocity, com- 
 pressibility joins in the effect, and then part of the effect which 
 mobility, if alone, would easily have accomplished in producing 
 restoration of equilibrium is converted into condensation and a 
 consequent pulse through this co-operating property of com- 
 pressibility. Let me now demonstrate this law and general 
 statement to be true in science. Air is known to be fully 
 10,000 times as compressible as water, yet the mobility of water 
 is the same exactly as that of air, so far as any difference can 
 be detected by science. Now, as water is almost wholly incom- 
 pressible, it is reasonable to believe if it were reduced to absolute 
 incompressibility that it would still be just as mobile as it is 
 now, since no lessening of mobility occurs in 10,000 reductions 
 of compressibility from that of air. The grand scientific result 
 and conclusion follow, and which annihilate your pivotal argu- 
 ment, and with it of course the wave-theory, that in such an 
 incompressible fluid the mobility of the particles alone would 
 allow any and all displacements to be restored, whatever the 
 velocity or size of the moving body, since, as a matter of course, 
 no condensation or pulse could occur, under whatever velocity, 
 in an incompressible fluid ! Hence mobility, per se, is absolutely 
 without limit in its capacity for allowing, when necessary, the 
 restoration of displaced particles in a mobile fluid. 
 
 Thus our new scientific law is sustained, and your supposed 
 overwhelming argument, to save the wave-theory, and upon 
 which you have fatally staked the whole controversy, has been 
 logically turned against you, since you must see how easy it is 
 for our position to be correct, that mobility is all-sufficienfrsto 
 permit the restoration of equilibrium among air-particles, under 
 very low velocity, without touching the union-limit of com- 
 
184 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 range and intensity if held against a block of suitable 
 resonant wood of no more surface area to act on the air 
 than the fork itself; while, if held against a piece of iron 
 of the same size, and causing an equal augmentation of 
 atmospheric disturbance as will the block of wood, this 
 added iron surface will not add perceptibly to the vol- 
 ume of tone caused by the naked fork, thus proving that 
 the increased tremulous action on the air is not the cause 
 of resonance. 
 
 pressibility, and without the slightest condensation or pulse re- 
 sulting either at the commencement of the motion or at any 
 other part of it, since this same mobility would defy the highest 
 possible volocity in air, and alone adjust all disturbances but 
 for the mere contingency of the presence of the correlated prop- 
 erty of compressibility! When mobility alone, in an incom- 
 pressible fluid, would be all-sufficient to restore any possible 
 displacement without a condensation, as you now find yourself 
 forced to admit, have you any logical right to deny our velocity- 
 limit in air, up to which mobility alone suffices for restoring 
 equilibrium without calling to its aid the other property of com- 
 pressibility ? 
 
 Let me, however, before leaving this revolutionary point, 
 tighten up the cords a little about the neck of the now already 
 strangled theory of " condensations and rarefactions" as consti- 
 tuting sound, by asking a few questions: Would you pretend to 
 believe that a fish now moves its fins any easier owing to the 
 present inappreciable fraction of compressibility remaining in 
 water ? Do you seriously believe that a tadpole swims by actu- 
 ally compressing the water and by sending off condensations 
 and rarefactions as it waggles its tail? Or do you take the 
 common-sense view, as I have just presented it, that the mo- 
 bility alone of this almost incompressible fluid is all-sufficient 
 for the needs of the tadpole in its displacing operations ? But 
 finally I put the question in all candor: Suppose the remainder 
 of the water's small fraction of compressibility were removed, 
 would not a fish displace the water with its fins just as easily as 
 it does now ? and would it not make its usual headway by using 
 the mobility of the water alone for displacement, just as at 
 present? Dr. Hall, in Microcosm, Vol. IV., p. 313; written at 
 request of Dr. Henry A. Mott, in reply to one of his scientific 
 correspondents. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 185 
 
 Q. 32. Is there any difference in the velocity of sounds 
 of different pitch or different intensity? 
 
 A. No; the velocity of sound is the same in a given 
 medium, whether the sounds be soft or loud, high or low, 
 simple or complex. The velocity.of all sounds in air is 
 about 1120 feet in a second, at the temperature of 60 deg. 
 F. If colder, a rearrangement of the air-particles takes 
 place under the action of cohesive force, causing sound 
 to travel slower. This fact of the uniform velocity of all 
 sounds in air at a given temperature is verified by listen- 
 ing to the playing of a band of music at a distance, all 
 che sounds, however varying in intensity and pitch, 
 reaching the observer in perfect time. 
 
 Q. 33. What causes all sounds to travel at a given ve- 
 locity in a given body? 
 
 A. This natural law of sound-conduction in different 
 bodies, like the law of resonance or sound-augmentation, 
 is not entirely known at present, any more than it is 
 known on just what ]aw or principle electricity travels 
 with greater facility through some substances than 
 through others, and will not even travel at all, perceptibly, 
 through some bodies as, for instance, glass. The most 
 rational solution of these differences is given in the cor- 
 relation of the physical forces. The substantial force of 
 cohesion, which originally arranged and now holds the 
 particles of all bodies together, co-operates with the other 
 physical forces such as sound, light, heat, electricity, etc., 
 in their passage through material bodies, thus permit- 
 ting their passage with greater or less freedom, or refus- 
 ing their passage altogether. 
 
 Q. 34. Has not the relation of density and elasticity 
 something to do with this rate of sound-velocity through 
 different bodies? 
 
 A. No; since this old formula of the ratio of sound- 
 travel is contradicted in almost every separate substance 
 tested. Lead, for example, one of the most inelastic, as 
 
186 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 well as one of the densest of bodies, conveys sound many 
 times faster than does air, one of the least dense, and one 
 of the most elastic of all known bodies. 
 
 Q. 35. But has not the relation of density to elasticity 
 in air been proved exactly to correspond to the observed 
 velocity of sound at different temperatures? 
 
 A. No, but right the reverse. Sir Isaac Newton, 
 who formulated this law of the relation of density to 
 elasticity in air and other bodies, a? the basis of the cur- 
 rent theory of sound-velocity, found that the observed 
 velocity of sound in air exceeded such formula by 174 
 feet a second, or nearly one-sixth of the velocity, thus 
 himself breaking down the wave-theory of sound by the 
 very law upon which it was based. But not supposing 
 any other theory of sound possible than that of wave- 
 motion, or of the condensations and rarefactions of the 
 air, Newton was at a total loss to explain this apparently 
 fatal discrepancy between the formulated theory and 
 actual observation. 
 
 Q. 36. Has there been no explanation of this dis- 
 crepancy since Newton's time by vvhich to make this 
 theory of sound- velocity in air conform to observation? 
 
 A. Yes; there has been a hypothesis suggested by 
 Laplace, and elaborately illustrated by Prof. Tyudall, 
 that the condensations and rarefactions of the air, sup- 
 posed to constitute sound, alternately generate heat and 
 cold by squeezing the particles of air together and by 
 which the elasticity of the air is augmented sufficiently 
 to increase the velocity of sound one-sixth or 174 feet a 
 second. In other words that the sound itself, in passing 
 through the air, so changes the relation of its density to 
 its elasticity, by the alternate condensations and rarefac- 
 tions of the sound-waves themselves, as to make up this 
 discrepancy found by Newton a hypothesis which no 
 scientiest since the time of Laplace lias questioned. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 187 
 
 Q. 37. Is it really possible that this explanation or 
 solution, as invented by Laplace, is now adopted by 
 the colleges and universities of the world as an essential 
 part of the wave-theory of sound? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly. Scientists could conceive no other 
 theory of sound, save that of air-waves, and although the 
 theory itself was fairly broken down by Newton, they 
 clung to it as better than no theory at all, and hence ac- 
 cepted the hypothesis of Laplace, weak as it was, which 
 is now set forth in our text- books, and is universally 
 taught in our colleges and universities as an essential 
 part of the wave-theory of sound, since to abandon this 
 solution of Laplace would be to abandon the theory itself. 
 
 Q. 38. What evidence is there that sound itself can- 
 not thus generate heat, and augment the elasticity of the 
 air as Laplace supposes, sufficiently to add 174 feet a 
 second to sound-velocity? 
 
 A. Such evidence exists in the .very nature of the 
 mechanical operation producing sound according to the 
 wave-theory. No compression of the air can be produced 
 at a distance from the sounding body, by which such 
 sensible heat can be generated as to add this large per 
 cent of velocity (one sixth) to the sound itself, unless 
 that compressing energy be actually exerted mechanically 
 by the vibrating instrument itself. This would seem to 
 be a mechanical truism, requiring no proof. Now to in- 
 crease the elasticity of the air one sixth throughout the 
 known range of sound, by the added heat thus caused by 
 mechanical pressure, must require an enormous squeezing 
 force to be exerted by these sound-waves as they travel, all 
 of which mechanical force must be originally exerted by 
 the vibratory motion of the sounding instrument itself at 
 the origin of this system of condensation and rarefac- 
 tion. But the worst feature of this supposed generation 
 of heat by atmospheric condensations, is the fact that it 
 was shown by the new law discovered by Dr. Hall, that 
 
188 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 no appreciable heat is generated by the compression of 
 air, the intensified heat observed in suddenly compressed 
 air, being almost solely the heat which was in the air be- 
 fore compression began, such observed heat being merely 
 the original heat concentrated to a smaller space.* 
 
 Q. 39. Can any special example be furnished in which 
 such mechanical result as supposed by Laplace would be 
 impossible, even if heat is generated by compression? 
 
 A. Yes; take the locust for example, which weighs 
 but a few grains and can exert but a correspondingly 
 minute mechanical force upon the air, yet whose sound 
 can be heard more than a mile in all directions, thus 
 filling four cubic miles of air with these supposed con- 
 densations and rarefactions. If the view of Laplace be 
 correct, this enormous mass of air must be so compressed 
 and rarefied by the physical energy exerted by this trifling 
 insect alone, as to add one sixth to the elasticity of the 
 air, and thus augment the velocity of the insect's sound, 
 174 feet a second'. 
 
 Q. 40. Has any high authority in this department of 
 physics ever calculated the real mechanical energy which 
 is exerted in the compression of a sound-wave by which 
 such a requisite amount of heat and electricity can be 
 added to the air as required by the solution of Laplace? 
 
 A. Yes; Prof. Alfred M. Mayer, of the Stevens 
 Institute, Hoboken, N. J,, the highest authority on the 
 subject in the United States, in his article on sound in 
 "Appleton's New American Encyclopedia," says: 
 
 " This compressson gives for the comprossed half of 
 the wave an increase of l-679th to the ordinary density 
 of the atmosphere! " 
 
 Now as each cubic inch of air in the four cubic miles 
 
 * See the new law of the cause of heat in compressed air, as 
 first announced by Dr. Hall, copied near the close of the 
 Eighth Chapter. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OP SOUND. 189 
 
 filled by the insect's sound is either compressed or ex- 
 panded 1-6 79th more than the ordinary air (and it re- 
 quires the same mechanical energy to rarefy as to con- 
 dense, at least up to fifteen pounds rarefaction), it follows 
 that this insect must exert a mechanical compressing and 
 expanding energy of more than 5,000,000,000 tons on 
 this mass of air, in order to change it 1-679 from its 
 normal density, and thus make the sound of the locust 
 fit the formula of Laplace. Any one can verify our fig- 
 ures by a little effort.* 
 
 * This want of scientific intelligence, however, is not a mere 
 mental lapse on the part of our eminent physicist, but is charge- 
 able chiefly to the inherent incongruity of a theory of science 
 false to the very core. Daniels, of Scotland, the author of the 
 ablest text-book on physics ever published, and which has re- 
 cently been issued, falls into the same prodigious error in trying 
 to account for the wonderful difference in loudness of various 
 sounding bodies, which, as observation assures us, is out of all 
 proportion to the mechanical effects they exert upon the air, 
 and which so clearly, conflicts with modern science. Being 
 wholly unaware of the aid which Substantialisni renders in 
 such cases, and without one ray of light from the wave-theory 
 to help him, he grasps wildly in the dark at the only straw 
 in reach, namely, that the observed loudness of certain insects, 
 for example, is due to their pitchthat is, to their great number 
 of vibrations in a second! (See Daniels on "Principles of 
 Physics, p. 368.) Had this high authority chanced to read the 
 "Problem of Human Life," or several recent articles in this 
 magazine on that question, he would have been informed to his 
 surprise that the famous locust, which can be heard a mile, 
 makes the loudest part of its stridulation at the pitch of A 
 (440 vibrations, in a second), at which pitch a naked tuning- 
 fork, with more than ten times as much mechanical effect 
 upon the air as that exerted by the insect, cannot be heard six 
 feet away, and consequently can produce but the 1-80,000,000 
 os much volume of sound as does the insect I See Microcosm, 
 Vol. IV., pp. 318, 381; Vol. V., p. 38. 
 
 Had Prof. Daniels stopped to reflect, he would have been 
 overwhelmed with confusion by the simple fact that a very 
 small tuning-fork held in the fingers, or a very fine, short wire 
 
190 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 41. Is not the great force of sound which is ex 
 hibited in the destructive effects of magazine explosions, 
 such as the destruction of buildings and the breaking of 
 windows miles away, favorable to the hypothesis of 
 Laplace? 
 
 A. These destructive effects observed as the results of 
 magazine explosions, are not caused by the sound at all, 
 as mistakenly supposed, but result from the instantaneous 
 
 stretched over rigid iron supports, when vibrating four thou- 
 sand times in a second, can be heard no farther away than 
 when vibrating one-fiftieth as often, or only eighty times a 
 second ! Indeed, the facts in the cas.e are directly the reverse 
 of what Prof. Daniels sets forth, since the tuning-fork of very 
 high pitch cannot be heard nearly as far as one of a vastly less 
 number of vibrations! How neatly would this simple little fact 
 have wiped out his i4 insect" illustration of the supposed cause 
 of the marvelous loudness of such sounds based on their sup- 
 posed pitch! Yet that famed authority was not capable of 
 evolving so simple an overturn to his fallacious explanation. 
 
 His oversight, however, was manifestly due to his theory, and 
 not to his intellect. He was prevented by the misleading nature 
 of that theory from grasping the essential LAW of physical sci- 
 ence: that sound, instead of being the mechanical effect pro- 
 duced upon the air by the vibrating instrument, and conveyed 
 through it in pulses or atmospheric waves, is a real substantial, 
 but immaterial force, and depends for its intensity or quantity 
 upon the sonorous character of the sounding instrument itself 
 vastly more than upon its mechanical motion, just as the amount 
 of substantial electricity issued from a dynamo machine depends 
 chiefly upon the electrical quality of the magnetic apparatus, 
 and secondarily upon the mechanical rotation given it. 
 
 This important law we have given in substance in the differ- 
 ent editorials to which we referred a moment ago, but we have 
 not before emphasized it as we now do, as an impregnable law 
 of science, upon which the substantial character of sound as 
 one of the forces of Nature may alone rely without the fear of 
 successful assault. It stands, as a new and overwhelming dis- 
 covery, in the same relation to sound that the law announced 
 last month (page 160) occupies in relation to the substantial nat- 
 ure of heat, and these two laws should be placed side by side 
 in the ultimate formula of the Substantial Philosophy. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 191 
 
 generation of an enormous quantity of powder-gas, which, 
 by its expansive force, drives the air away on all sides in 
 a condensed wave, and which produces all the destruction 
 witnessed. This addition of gas and this condensation of 
 the surrounding air thereby, occurring as they frequently 
 do to distant observers simultaneously with the sound- 
 report, have been mistaken by physioists for the sound 
 itself, and hence the most learned investigators, includ- 
 ing such men as Profs. Tyndall, Mayer and Helmholtz, 
 
 We thus begin to realize the revolutionary value of the fact so 
 frequently reiterated in these pages that the locust with one-tenth 
 as much vibratory action on the air as that produced by a tun- 
 ing-fork of the same pitch, can be heard 880 times farther away, 
 while it actually generates 80,000,000 times as much sound! 
 This beautiful revelation of science, which has been hidden 
 from the eyes of the world through ages past, remained for the 
 Substantial Philosophy to unfold. No better proof of the far- 
 reaching value of Substantialism can be required than the 
 marked contrast thus pointed out between the best outgivings 
 of modern science and the new departures in the realm of 
 physics here unfolded. 
 
 In the light of such discoveries (and this is but one in a score 
 equally important recently announced in the Microcosm), how 
 invincibly must the Substantial Philosophy appeal to the intelli- 
 gence of mankind in its mighty sweep through the wilder- 
 ing mazes and mysteries of physical science! Substantialism 
 sees no more difficulty in solving the seeming inexplicable prob- 
 lem of the vastly varying intensities of different sounds, with- 
 out any reference to atmospheric disturbance, against which 
 Daniels, Mayer, Tyndall, and Helmholtz stagger and turn pale, 
 than it originally saw in correctly explaining the blowing out 
 of a candle by the clapping of two books at one end of a long 
 tin tube, or in solving the mystery of the breaking of windows 
 by a "sound-pulse" miles away from a magazine explosion, 
 upon which Prof. Tyndall found himself and his theory totally 
 at sea. Had the great physicists we are noticing possessed the 
 magnanimity and fairness which should characterize all true 
 scientific investigators, they would long since have cheerfully 
 accepted the aid in their perplexing physical researches which 
 the Substantial Philosophy alone can give. Dr. Hall's reply to 
 Prof. Mayer, Microcosm, Vol. V., page 231. 
 
192 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 have taught that it was the noise or sound-wave which 
 caused the observed destructive effects near exploding 
 magazines. Whereas the sound-report of such explosion 
 per se would not stir the feather of a bird, except by 
 sympathetic vibration, which exerts no appreciable me- 
 chanical force. 
 
 Q. 42. Is thefe any direct proof that sound itself has 
 nothing to do with these destructive effects, and that all 
 scientific writers on acoustics have heretofore been mis- 
 taken? 
 
 A. Yes; there is the direct proof that the most in- 
 tense sound-report which ever addressed human ears as 
 in the case of a crash of thunder right in the building 
 where the bolt strikes, produces no destructive effect 
 whatever, not a pane of glass being cracked or disturbed, 
 except in the very path of the electric bolt in reaching 
 the earth. The reason for this is plain, namely, that this 
 thunder-peal is unaccompanied by any addition of gas by 
 which a condensed air-wave is generated and sent forth 
 on its destructive errand. 
 
 Q. 43. Why has not this apparently self-evident solu- 
 tion of the problem in question been given by former 
 physicists? 
 
 A. Because the wave-theory, which teaches that sound 
 consists of condensations and rarefactions of the air, had 
 a blinding and misleading effect on the minds of its ad- 
 herents, causing them, without due reflection, to jump 
 to the conclusion that the manifest condensation observed 
 at a magazine explosion, by which windows are crushed 
 miles away, must be that of the sound itself, which oc- 
 curs at the same time. Having accepted an impossible 
 theory of science, they were naturally led to distort irrel- 
 evant phenomena in its favor. 
 
 Q. 44. Is there any way of proving that the sound- 
 report and the condensed wave of air at an explosion of 
 powder, are two separate and distinct phenomena? 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 193 
 
 A. Yes, by a plan originally suggested in the "Prob- 
 lem of Human Life/' by its author, to arrange and cause 
 an explosion of powder to occur at a definite instant, and 
 then to time the separate arrivals of the sound-report and 
 of the compressed wave, at stations fixed at different dis- 
 tances away, tested and recorded by suitable instruments. 
 It was predicted, and will no doubt be verified by experi- 
 ment, that at or near the start, in case of a heavy ex- 
 plosion, the compressed wave, or the atmospheric concus- 
 sion, will vastly outstrip the sound, while at a greater dis- 
 tance they will arrive simultaneously, but at a still greater 
 distance, that the sound will pass and outstrip the lag- 
 ging concussive shock by some seconds. The reason 
 given for this probability is, that sound travels at a uni- 
 form rate of velocity, by its law of conduction, through- 
 out its entire range, while it is equally evident that the 
 condensed air-wave, caused by the instantaneous addition 
 of gas, must travel much faster at the start of its journey 
 than after it has progressed some distance, or after it has 
 become weakened in force by increasing the quantity of 
 air under compression, according to the well-known law 
 of the square of the distance from the explosion. 
 
 Q. 45. Will sound-force, per se, produce any sensible 
 effect in disturbing or displacing material bodies? 
 
 A. Yes, it will, as recently hinted, move a body 
 unisonantly into sympathetic vibration. Such body, 
 however, must be capable, firstly, of itself producing 
 sound, and secondly, must be tuned in unison with the 
 actuating instrument in order to be stirred sympathetic- 
 ally. The substantial sound-force, issuing from the 
 sounding instrument in sonorous pulses or jets of force 
 corresponding to its vibrational number, strikes the 
 unison instrument, which being tuned to the same pitch, 
 stands ready to act sympathetically and respond by ab- 
 sorbing the force, so to speak, thus reproducing the same 
 tone, though with much less intensity. There is nothing 
 
194 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 more surprising in this sympathetic action of a suitable 
 instrument by substantial sound-force, than in the action 
 of substantial magnetism, which draws a piece of metal 
 which happens to be in sympathy with it, such as iron, 
 for example, while producing no physical effect whatever 
 upon unsympathetic metals, such as gold, silver, cop- 
 per, etc. 
 
 Q. 46. Would not sound if constituted of air-waves, 
 also explain sympathetic vibration in a distant unison in- 
 strument, by the continuous dashing of such waves 
 against it synchronously with its own vibrational number, 
 until it finally gets into motion? 
 
 A. No; in the first place it would be physically and 
 mechanically impossible for a vibrating tuning-fork, for 
 example, to send' off air-waves or atmospheric pulses 180 
 feet, and thus put another fork into motion by their 
 material contact with the prongs. Yet one fork, heavily 
 bowed, has been known to start another that distance 
 apart, both being in sympathetic unison and mounted on 
 their resonant cases so as to have their sympathies aug- 
 mented by the sonorous or resonant quality of these 
 wooden cases. 
 
 Q. 47. What experiment, if any, will tend to confirm 
 this view, namely, that it is the substantial sound-force 
 which affects and starts the distant forks into sym- 
 pathetic action, and not the condensations and rarefac- 
 tions of the air, as the wave-theory teaches? 
 
 A. Remove the two forks from these resonant cases 
 of woody and place them on iron cases of the same size, 
 which will vibrate and disturb the air with even more 
 mechanical force than will the wooden cases, though 
 with but a small fraction of the volume of sound; and 
 however heavily the actuating fork may be bowed and 
 set into vibration, no sympathetic effect will be produced 
 on the other fork, even if only one-tenth that distance or 
 eighteen feet away, notwithstanding the same or even 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 1Q5 
 
 greater action is thereby transferred to the air. The 
 reason for this is plain, that the sympathetic effect is 
 only caused by, and proportional to, the sound-force 
 which reaches the distant unbowed fork, and has nothing 
 whatever to do with the supposed air-waves sent against 
 the distant fork or ita resonant case.* 
 
 Q. 48. How about the law of sound-interference, by 
 which two systems of sound-waves may travel in such 
 relation to each other, as to extinguish both sounds and 
 thus cause total silence? 
 
 A. There is no truth in that law, though it has al- 
 ways been taught as an essential part of the wave-theory, 
 and should be true if there is any truth in that theory. 
 It was naturally inferred, since sound consisted, as sup- 
 posed, of atmospheric undulations, that the same inter- 
 
 * As a proof that the sympathetic vibration of a unison body 
 is not caused by the periodic impulses imparted to it through 
 air- waves sent off from the actuating string or fork, I refer the 
 reader to the unanswerable fact that a body may vibrate or oscil- 
 late ever so nearly to another body tuned in perfect synchro- 
 nism with its own swing, and ever so rapidly, but so long as no 
 audible tone is produced by these vibrations no motion what- 
 ever will be communicated to the unison neighbor, though it 
 necessarily and continuously receives the synchronous air- waves 
 driven against it by the actuating body. I have carefully tested 
 this in the following manner: I arranged two pendulum-balls, 
 with very short rods of equal length, to cause rapid swings as 
 closely together as possible without touching, being careful that 
 their supports had no immediate connection (except the air) by 
 which any impulse might be communicated from the moving 
 ball to the one at rest. Though their swings were in perfect 
 synchronism, moving ivith twice the aggregate velocity of a tun- 
 ing-fork's prongs, and although they were so near together that 
 the air-disturbances caused by the moving pendulum must neces- 
 sarily strike the other periodically, or as nearly so as it is possi- 
 ble for air-waves to travel, yet no motion whatever was com- 
 municated to the one at rest, for the best of all possible reasons 
 there was no tone produced. 
 
 This is also illustrated in the case of a sonometer-string, if 
 
196 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ference should necessarily take place in sound-waves, as 
 in the case of water-waves where undulations do actually 
 exist. In water-waves it is well known, that if two 
 equal systems of waves so travel together that the crests 
 of one system shall fall into the troughs or sinuses of the 
 other system, the two will substantially neutralize each 
 other, and cause a quiescence of the water. Now if 
 sound in air consists of waves of condensations and rare- 
 factions, it is plain, if two sounds or systems of sonorous 
 air-waves, of equal wave-length (pitch), and of equal 
 degree of condensation and rarefaction (intensity), 
 should so travel together that the condensations of one 
 system shall fall into the rarefactions of the other system, 
 etc., that quiescence shotild result as truly in air-waves 
 
 taken from its sounding-board and stretched over isolated pieces 
 of rigid iron; though it will vibrate when plucked just the same, 
 and " carve " or "mold" the air into waves, as Prof. Tyndall 
 expresses it, just to the same extent exactly as when in connec- 
 tion with its sounding-tray, yet its sounds can scarcely be heard 
 by a person standing near it, for the want of a resonant body to 
 augment its tone by diffusion, as will be explained after a little. 
 A string in this condition will not start a unison body into sym- 
 pathetic vibration even if but a few inches distant, and then 
 only in exact proportion to the intensity of its sound, and not at 
 all in proportion to the amplitude of the air- waves " molded," 
 " carved," and sent off by its oscillations, which are exactly the 
 same whether such string is connected with the sounding-board 
 or not. If the air-waves are really molded and sent off by the 
 harp-string, with "condensations and rarefractions " traveling 
 1120 feet a second, as so explicitly taught by Prof. Tyndall (see 
 extracts 7 and 8, pp. 78, 79). and if these air- waves are really 
 the cause of sympathetic vibration in a distant unison string or 
 fork, then pray tell us why the sonometer-string can cause 
 no response to its unison neighbor a foot from it, though it 
 "carves," "molds," and sends off the same air-waves it does 
 when placed on its sounding-board ? The air-wave hypothesis 
 must therefore completely break down as the solution of sym- 
 pathetic vibration. Dr. Hall, in " Problem of Human Life," 
 p. 81. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. IDT' 
 
 .is in the case of water-waves, and that consequently the 
 sound, which consists only of such atmospheric disturb- 
 ances, should cease to be heard by such interference. 
 
 Q. 49. Is this the law of interference as taught in the 
 wave-theory of sound, or as at present taught in our 
 schools? 
 
 A. Yes; this is the law as laid down in all text-books 
 on acoustics, and it is taught, or at least was taught, as 
 settled scientific truth in e\ 7 ery college on earth, previous 
 to the publication of the " Problem of Human Life/' a 
 few schools and colleges since that time having abandoned 
 the wave-theory for the substantial theory as was an- 
 nounced and maintained by Dr. Hall, and as here, for 
 the first time, put into formulated shape. 
 
 Q. 50. Does any text- book plainly teach, in accord- 
 ance with this law, that if two unison instruments were 
 sounded half a wave-length apart, they would neutralize 
 or destroy each other's sound? 
 
 A. Yes, in the plainest language imaginable. Prof. 
 Tyndal's book on sound, for example, lays it down as an 
 experimental fact, that two unison forks so sounded, half 
 a wave-length apart, will totally destroy each other's 
 sound by causing quiescence in the air, on the same prin- 
 ciple as quiescence in the case of water-waves is super- 
 induced when in a state of interference; and, as it would 
 seem, lest the scientific student of his book, or the 
 teacher should fail to grasp the fact, Prof. Tyndall illus- 
 trates it by a diagram of two turning-forks thus placed, 
 first a wave-length apart (with dark and light shadings 
 of the air) so as to augment each other's sound, and then 
 a half wave-length apart, in which position, by an even 
 or uniform tint, he graphically represents quiescence of 
 the air or absolute silence. 
 
 Q. 51. Have any counter- experiments been actually 
 tried by which to disprove the alleged truth of this law 
 
19$ , THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 of interference as illustrated by the sounding of unison 
 instruments half a wave-length apart? 
 
 A. Yes, repeatedly, no effect whatever being observ- 
 able in the intensity of the sounds when the two instru- 
 ments are placed and sounded variously, first in support- 
 ing relation, or a whole wave-length apart, and then in a 
 supposed interfering relation, or half a wave-length 
 apart. The student of science can instantly prove (by 
 having two assistants sound unison instruments in all pos- 
 sible relations as to distance apart, and then listening in 
 all directions from them) that this fundamental law of 
 interference, on which the wave- theory is based, is with- 
 out a shadow of foundation in fact. 
 
 Q. 52. Are there no experiments or phenomena re- 
 ferred to by scientists by which to prove the truth of this 
 supposed law? 
 
 A. Yes, several; but each one of which is an entire 
 misapprehension of the phenomena observed and referred 
 to as proofs. Take the one instance most commonly re- 
 ferred to, namely, the fact that the two prongs of a tun- 
 ing-fork will so interfere that if held cornerwise close to 
 the ear, there will be no sound perceived. But so far 
 from this having anything to do with the supposed law 
 of interference in the two supposed systems of sound- 
 waves sent off from the two prongs of the fork, the essen- 
 tial theoretic half wave-length, absolutely necessary to 
 this law, has to be entirely ignored, since the two prongs 
 &re within an eighth or a quarter of an inch of each other; 
 whereas in an A-fork the half wave-length should be fif- 
 teen and one-quarter inches, or in other words these 
 prongs, in order that their unison- waves should interfere, 
 should be fifteen and one-quarter inches apart. Then 
 instead of only interfering cornerwise, they should pro- 
 duce silence in all directions, especially in the direction 
 of the swing of the two prongs. As this silence is thus 
 shown not to be interference of atmospheric undulations 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 199 
 
 at all, according to the wave-theory, it remains what it 
 manifestly is, a mere vacancy or absence of sound-force in 
 the direction of these prong-corners, caused by the pe- 
 culiar manner in which a tuning-fork liberates its sound 
 from the force-element of Nature. 
 
 Q. 53. Is not the interference of the double-siren, as 
 shown by the experiments of Profs. Tyndall and Helm- 
 holtz, a confirmation of the fauth of this law of half-wave- 
 length interference? 
 
 A. There is no interference at all produced in the 
 case of the double-siren, nor anything that can be con- 
 strued into it, according to the plain admissions of 
 both those eminent physicists. When the two perforated 
 disks of the siren (each having twelve apertures) were ar- 
 ranged in such relation to each other chat their respect- 
 ive series of puffs should alternate, or in other words, 
 when the twelve puffs of one disk were adjusted to occur 
 in the spaces or between the puffs of the other, it is plain 
 that this would make twenty-four puffs, instead of 
 twelve, at each turn of the spindle to which the disks 
 were secured; and as the two sirens of twelve puffs each, 
 when occurring simultaneously, produced a loud funda- 
 mental tone, it is manifest to any acoustician that when 
 placed alternately, and producing twenty-four separate 
 puffs to each rotation, they would produce an exact octave 
 of this fundamental tone, but greatly weakened in its in- 
 tensity. Now, strange as it may seem, this is exactly 
 what both Prof. Tyndall and Prof. Helmholtz heard, and 
 they confessed it to be the real result, even after claiming 
 the double-siren as a clear proof of the law of inter- 
 ference, and that the two disks when so adjusted as to 
 puff alternately would interfere and thus produce the ab- 
 solute extinction of both sirens. Thus is it shown in like 
 manner to turn out with every experiment which has 
 ever been claimed by advocates of the wave-theory to 
 favor this law. The facts when analyzed do not show in- 
 
200 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 terference at all; and yet the theory has been held and 
 taught and explained for centuries in this way, just he- 
 cause no other theory could be imagined as accounting 
 for the facts, phenomena, and appearances of sound. 
 
 Q. 54. Does not the decrease of sound -intensity or 
 loudness as the square of the distance from the center of 
 motion, go to favor the wave-theory? 
 
 A. Even if it were a fact that sound-intensity (in the 
 sense of loudness), does decrease as the square of the dis- 
 tance from its source, which is not the case, it does not 
 oppose the theory that sound is a substantial force, radia- 
 ting from a center like light and heat, and that it must 
 become less in quantity according to this same law. 
 Surely if the substantial atmosphere becomes less in 
 quantity as the square of the distance from the center, 
 substantial sound, light, and heat, ought to do the same 
 thing. 
 
 Q. 55. But if the quantity of substantial sound-force 
 actually does become less or decrease as the square of the 
 distance from the center, the same as the quantity of air, 
 how is it that the intensity or loudness of sound does not 
 decrease by the same law? 
 
 A. The actual quantity of sound and the actual loud- 
 ness of sound have no necessary relation to each other. 
 The quantity of sound relates to the external force itself, 
 whether it is heard or not, while the intensity of sound, 
 in the sense of loudness, relates to the sensation produced 
 in the animal consciousness. A sound may be just as 
 loud to our conscious sensation as another sound of many 
 times its absolute quantity of sonorous force, simply be- 
 cause our auditory capacity is not capable of receiving 
 and perceiving, as loudness, more than a certain limited 
 quantity of this force. It is plain, if sounds too low or 
 too high for our capacity cannot be perceived, that 
 sounds too little, or overplus sounds too much, for our 
 capacity would be of no effect on our sensation. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 201 
 
 Q. 56. What does this teach as to the decrease of 
 sound as the square of the distance? 
 
 A. It teaches, that while sound itself, as a substantial 
 physical force, must decrease as the square of the distance 
 from the center, like all other radiating forces, its loudness 
 or intensity in our sensations depends on the nature of the 
 sound itself, and its external intensity or absolute quan- 
 tity at the source. A very powerful sound might thus be 
 just as loud to a sensitive ear fifty feet away as ten feet 
 away from its source; whereas there are twenty-five times 
 as much sound in a cubic foot of air ten feet from such 
 source of sound as at fifty feet away. The reason why 
 the loudness might be the same in our sensations in the 
 one case as in the other is, that our auditory apparatus 
 can utilize no more than its full capacity, just as a pinch 
 of sugar scattered over the gustatory membrane will 
 taste as sweet as a whole mouthful. 
 
 Q. 57. Has there been any experiment to show that 
 the loudness of sound does not decrease according to this 
 law of squared distance inverse? 
 
 A. Yes; Capt. R. Kelso Carter, Professor of Mathe- 
 matics in the Pennsylvania Military Institute at Chester, 
 in the summer of 1881, at the suggestion of Dr. Hall, 
 instituted careful experiments with suitable apparatus 
 and competent observers, and after repeated trials in an 
 open field, the fact was abundantly demonstrated, that 
 with common pitch-pipes the supposed law completely 
 broke down, and as Capt. Carter reported: 
 
 " Of one thing I am certain, that a pitch-pipe blown 
 at one yard and at ten yards does not vary in loudness 
 more than one half." 
 
 According to the law of squared distance inverse, the 
 one blown at one yard should be a hundred times as loud 
 as the one blown at ten yards away. 
 
 Q. 58. Is the timbre, or quality of sound, consistent 
 
202 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 with the doctrine that sound is a substantial force and 
 not a mode of motion? 
 
 A. Entirely so. The notion that the overtones or 
 auxiliary tones of a loud fundamental sound (which are 
 known to constitute the timbre, or quality of sound), con- 
 sist of the superposition of different sizes and forms of 
 air-waves, is too irrational a view ever to have been ac- 
 cepted as science but for the fact that the wave-theory of 
 sound was looked upon as a foregone necessity, no other 
 theory being conceivable to the minds of past or even 
 present physicists up to the appearance of the " Problem 
 of Human Life." 
 
 Q. 59. By what experiment is the existence of these 
 over-tones, which constitute the quality or timbre of 
 sound, determined? 
 
 A. By what is called a resonator, an instrument which 
 can be tuned in unison with any particular supposed over- 
 tone in a given fundamental sound, and being in unison 
 with that particular tone, it will augment it while ob- 
 scuring all other sounds, thus enabling the listener to 
 hear it if it is present. By thus adjusting the resonator 
 to every supposed or probable overtone in a given funda- 
 mental, the presence of all such supplementary sounds 
 can be detected and noted. 
 
 Q. 60. How many such supplementary sounds or over- 
 tones have been detected mixed up in any one given 
 fundamental ? 
 
 A. As many as six or eight, or even more tones of 
 different intensities and rates of vibration or pitches, 
 have been plainly detected by a patient search with a 
 nicely adjusted resonator; and even several of these 
 more prominent overtones, such as the octave, the fifth, 
 the third and the sixteenth, have been plainly distin- 
 guished in some fundamental tones by a cultivated ear, 
 and by a powerful act of attention, even without the aid 
 of a resonator. But the supposition is inconceivable that 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 203 
 
 tliis number of air-waves, all of different forms, sizes, 
 and vibrational rates, can be superimposed and occupy 
 the same space at the same time, making the same num- 
 ber of movements in the ear membrane. The reason for 
 this is, that it is a self-evident and inflexible law of me- 
 chanics, that no particle of matter can occupy more than 
 one determinate position, have more than one determinate 
 motion, in one determinate direction, and with one de- 
 terminate velocity, at the same time. To suppose the 
 contrary is to make a draft on human credulity that 
 reason will not approve, since our experience furnishes 
 no analogous example in any other department of science. 
 Yet if these various sounds, contained in a single funda- 
 mental tone, are caused by air-waves, and if our distinct 
 recognition of a hundred different sounds at one instant, 
 produced by an orchestra of as many instruments, de- 
 pends on the superimposed motions of the air leading to 
 the tympanic membrane a column no larger than a 
 common lead pencil then it must follow that the above 
 self-evident and inflexible law of mechanics is false, and 
 that these air-particles, filling the passage to the ear, 
 must be capable of occupying scores of different positions, 
 taking scores of different directions, under scores of dif- 
 ferent velocities, all at one and the same time. This 
 stupendous error of science is actually taught and in- 
 sisted upon by every advocate of the current theory of 
 acoustics, though no doubt without realizing that he is in 
 open defiance of the physical laws. 
 
 Q. 61. Is there anything in Nature and science that 
 would go to support the substantial theory of sound-force 
 in the light of this problem of timbre, as caused by over- 
 tones? 
 
 A. Yes; this substantial view of mixed tones, by 
 which the quality of a fundamental sound is produced, is 
 plainly corroborated and easily shown by the innumerable 
 qualities of mixed odor, which the whole scientific world 
 
204 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 admits to be substantial, and in no possible sense super- 
 imposed waves. An experienced perfumer will instantly 
 detect by the nose alone, a number of different perfumes 
 promiscuously mixed together in the same bottle, nam- 
 ing each separate ingredient constituting the mass of 
 fragrance, both fundamental and supplementary, and of 
 course there is no such thing as superimposed air-waves, 
 or odor-waves of numerous vibrational directions or veloci- 
 ties to untangle, but simply an analysis, by means of a 
 sense-organ alone, of a combination of substantial entities, 
 which go to make up this quality of timbre of the odor in 
 question. And while a human being can thus analyze a 
 mixture of half a dozen of odorous ingredients, and point 
 out the presence of each, a certain species of fox-hound 
 can analyze and untangle a hundred mixed smells, select- 
 ing out one, and following it in spite of all the confusion 
 or odorous complications, which the ingenuity of man has 
 the power to invent.* 
 
 * Readers of this surprising story of facts (the tracing of negro 
 convicts by southern hounds), who have previously been inclined 
 to doubt the basic principles of Substantialism, can now open 
 their eyes and see for themselves. If a dog has the ability to 
 select and isolate one single form of odor from a hundred, other 
 almost exactly similar forms, with these various forms of smell 
 intermingled in the most confused and tangled manner possible, 
 as here shown, and, at the same time, with odor a real objective 
 substance, as the whole scientific world admits, is it not reason- 
 able to suppose that the well-known ability of a practiced ear to 
 select and isolate one single tone from an orchestra of a hun- 
 dred different instruments, must come in like manner from the 
 substantial nature of sound ? If not, then what sense or mean- 
 ing can there be in the so-called analogies of Nature? 
 
 The attempted reconciliation with the wave-theory of this 
 single orchestral fact has cost many ponderous volumes on 
 acoustics, involving the most abstruse mathematical calculation 
 and theorizing. Lord Rayleigh, the eminent English scientist, 
 has produced a book on sound of some four or five hundred 
 pages, devoted almost entirely to these singular mathematical 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 205 
 
 Q. 62. As it has been proved by experiment that 
 sound will reflect according to the angle of incidence in 
 a manner similar to light, does not this constitute a proof 
 that sound consists of air-waves? 
 
 A. No; it is right the opposite, since there is no such 
 thing as true reflection in any kind of wave-motion, ac- 
 cording to this law of the angle of incidence. Water- 
 waves, striking- a perpendicular wall at an angle, give no 
 trace of true reflection, according to this law, but fall 
 back and break up in confusion among succeeding waves, 
 thus instantly losing their identity. Nothing can reflect 
 which has not a substantial forward movement. A wave 
 
 wave-formulas, by which to vindicate the practical possibility of 
 the truth of the current theory, and to show how the almost in- 
 finite complexity of air-motions, necessary to the hearing of so 
 many sounds at one time, can result by the intermingling of 
 condensations and rarefactions, and the superposition of various 
 systems of air-waves upon each other. 
 
 He may have succeeded in representing all this on paper, by 
 which to prove that one little membrane called the tympanum 
 not a third of an inch in diameter shall take on all these super- 
 imposed forms of wave-motion at one time, and thus communi- 
 cate them intelligibly to the brain. But the fatal difficulty in 
 the way of all this complexity of mathematical theorizing by 
 Lord Rayleigh can surely apply only to the air, or, rather, to his 
 printed formulas, as it can never be reproduced as motions in 
 the ear-drum of any living creature. This is proved from the 
 fact that the tympanic membrane is not a stretched or tensioned 
 diaphragm at all, but is a loose or flaccid mass of sensitive tissue 
 incapable of any sound-vibrations whatever. 
 
 For centuries the scientific world has labored under the mis- 
 apprehension that the tympanum is a " drumskin " stretched 
 across the passage leading to the inner ear, ready to respond by 
 sympathy and reproduce all the supposed complex motions of 
 the air as formulated by Lord Rayleigh's mathematical ingenu- 
 ity. But this notion concerning the ear-drum, so long in vogue 
 is totally false, as now proved by anatomy, and hence all this 
 laborious effort, to show mathematically what is possible as to 
 complex motion in the air. turns out to be a pitiable scientific 
 
206 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 is only the forward movement of the form of the water's 
 disturbance, and .not of the water itself, the particles 
 constituting the wave having only an oscillatory motion 
 to and fro in a direction at right angles with the direc- 
 tion of the wave or swell itself. This is even seen in a 
 field of gram, and especially of flax in blossom, in which 
 true waves are produced by wind, but in which it is evi- 
 dent no reflection at the angle of incidence is possible. 
 This law of angular reflection is only conceivable in bodily 
 forward movement, under velocity, of the very substance 
 which is reflected. A discharge of rubber balls from a 
 gun against a plain surface, at an angle, gives a correct 
 
 abortion, since no vibrations are possible in such a flabby piece 
 of tendinous tissue as this ear-drum. 
 
 In contrast with this incomprehensible mathematical mystifi- 
 cation by Lord Rayleigh, how easy and simple is it to conceive 
 of the possible hearing and analyzing of any number of the most 
 complex sounds at one time, on the basis of the contact of sub- 
 stantial sound-force against this delicate and sensitive auditory 
 membrane, especially in view of the demonstrable illustration 
 just given of a hound snuffing a hundred complex but substan- 
 tial odors at the same breath, and by means of his nasal mem- 
 brane alone, without any vibratory motion whatever, isolating 
 one of these smells out of the hundred and retaining it in spite 
 of all the complications that could be invented by man! Of 
 what use, then, in the name of all that is reasonable in science, 
 is this complex superposition of air-waves in accounting for 
 sound-sensations, when in the adjoining sense next to it, namely, 
 that of smell, every purpose of nature is served by the substan- 
 tial contact of odor, and that, too, amid a confusion of conflicting 
 smells which would make a volume of Lord Rayleigh's worst 
 mathematical superpositions appear like simple reading? 
 
 But suppose odor to consist of vibratory motion, which cer- 
 tainly should be the case if it is true of sound, and then imagine 
 that poor dog, before selecting the special form of odor he was 
 to follow, being obliged to figure out with his nose over a little 
 patch of dirt one of the easiest of Lord Rayleigh's superpositions 
 as applied to odoriferous condensations and rarefactions in order 
 to determine which angle of the parallelogram to select before 
 he could start on the track of the right convict! Then imagine 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 207 
 
 illustration of this angle of incidence at which light and 
 sound reflect, each ball rebounding at the same angle of 
 direction it had in striking the plane surface, thus show- 
 ing the true law of all reflection, especially of both sound 
 and light as substantial entities having an analogous for- 
 ward and bodily motion. 
 
 Q. 03. Is this law of substantial forward motion also 
 in harmony with the well known method of concentrat- 
 ing sounds to a focal point, as in an ear-trumpet, and 
 other funnel-shaped tubes? 
 
 A. Yes; the concentration of sound by an ear-trum- 
 pet, is only a succession of reflections of forward-moving 
 
 these odorous vibrations caused by the impacts of the convict's 
 shoes to have been made an hour in advance of the dog's start- 
 ing pray how could his olfactory membrane be made to respond 
 sympathetically to such vibrations an hour after their motions 
 had ceased to exist ? 
 
 Jesting aside, why cannot Lord Rayleigh be induced to give 
 us a book on the mathematical superposition of odor-waves, 
 with suitable geometrical diagrams for showing the blending 
 curves and cross-angles of three or more fundamental smells, 
 including their harmonics, by which to explain in his usual lucid 
 style how this hound succeeded in -tracking the convict, as the 
 effect of the combination chord of odorous vibrations as they 
 tickled his olfactory nerve ? Then let the distinguished savant 
 write an appendix to the same work, formulating the scientific 
 law of the conservation of nothing, or the persistence of motion, 
 by which to prove that the vibratory effluvium from the con- 
 vict's clothes could easily keep up their fragrant tremors against 
 the twigs of the bushes during the two hours the " red dog " was 
 swinging around the circle. Such a book would, no doubt, sell 
 as a fitting companion-piece to his corresponding work on sound, 
 and would be equall} 7 as scientific in every respect. 
 
 The truth is, this simple and serious fact that odor is a sub- 
 stantial force, impressing the nasal membrane of this dog and 
 thus producing its complex sensations by substantial contact 
 alone, and with which vibratory motion has nothing to d*"\ is 
 conclusive analogical evidence that sound sensations are pro- 
 duced in a similar manner. This beautiful and consistent view 
 
208 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 substantial sound-force, following this angle of incidence, 
 rebounding from side to side of that funnel, like infinites- 
 imal india-rubber balls, thus collecting the larger quan- 
 tity of sound-force ad mitted into the big end of the tube 
 into a condensed form at the smaller end, just as sub- 
 stantial light rays, by the same law of reflection, would 
 rebound from side to side of a similar trumpet-shaped 
 tube, having its inner surface polished, and thus causing 
 an intense focus of light and heat at the smaller end. 
 
 Q. 64. Does not the fact, that the sound of two books, 
 when clapped together, will blow out a candle at the 
 small end of a long tube, as illustrated in Prof. Tyndall's 
 
 of Nature would have been reasoned out long ago from the 
 necessary analogies of physical science based on substantial 
 odor alone, had the rational classification of all substances into 
 material and immaterial entities suggested itself to any of our 
 distinguished physical philosophers. But regarding nothing as 
 substantial but matter, and stopping there, has hitherto barred 
 the path of progressive advancement until Substantialism, with 
 one fortunate stroke of its leveling ax, broke down thii\ chief 
 barricade of materialism. 
 
 Now we can see and understand, with but a modicum of 
 rational reflection, that if the nose of that Georgia hound is 
 capable of analyzing a hundred mixed smells on the basis of 
 substantial odor, it. would be the height of physical inconsist- 
 ency to charge Nature with upsetting this substantial order of 
 things by abruptly introducing for the next higher sensation a 
 nonentitative mode of motion. We repeat our original state- 
 ment, as given in the " Problem of Human Life," that a man 
 who can suppose such an unnecessary incongruity in Nature's 
 harmonious plans as a leap from actual substantial contact in 
 one sensation to mere motion for the sensation next adjoining, 
 when the latter sensation only requires a more refined form of 
 substance to answer every purpose, has too trifling a conception 
 of Nature to be reasoned with or to reason logically on any mat- 
 ter of science. 
 
 Dr. Hall's remarks on the exciting narrative of the tracing of 
 convicts at the Georgia Penitentiary, by blood hounds. Scientific 
 Arena, Vol. I., p. 51, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 209 
 
 lectures, prove that sound consists of air-waves instead 
 of immaterial substance?* 
 
 A. Prof. Tyndall was mistaken, and so are all pro- 
 fessors and teachers who repeat his experiments. It was 
 not the sound from the clapped books which blew out 
 the candle, but a puff of air driven through the tube, 
 since a thin paper bag tied over the small end of the 
 tube, with the atmosphere all pressed out, will be ex- 
 panded and filled with the same puff of air which blew 
 out the candle; and. this will occur as often as the books 
 are clapped in such a manner as to drive the air- wave 
 into the large end of the tube. Surely we cannot bag 
 up immaterial sound-force! 
 
 Q. 65. How has Prof. Tyndall, and how have all 
 other physicists been so deceived by this experiment, if 
 sound itself has nothing to do with the effect of extin- 
 guishing the candle? 
 
 A. They have all taken for granted that the wave- 
 theory of sound must be true, since to them no other 
 theory has seemed possible. Hence, it was easy to fall 
 into this error, and to suppose that it must be the sound- 
 
 * "At the distant end of the tube I place a lighted candle, c, 
 fig. 4. When I clap my hands at this end, the flame instantly 
 ducks down. It is not quite extinguished, but it is forcibly de- 
 pressed. When I clap two books, B B, together, / blow the can- 
 dle out. You may here observe, in a rough way, the speed with 
 which the sound-wave is propagated. The instant I clap, the 
 flame is extinguished; there is no sensible interval between the 
 clap and the extinction of the flame. I do not say that the time 
 required by the sound to travel through this tube is immeasura- 
 bly short, but simply that the interval is too short for your 
 senses to appreciate it. To show you that it is a pulse and not a 
 puff of air, I fill one end of the tube with smoke of brown paper. 
 On clapping the books together, no trace of this smoke is ejected 
 from the other end. The pulse has passed through both smoke 
 and air without carrying either of them along with it." " Lect- 
 ures on Sound," p. 12, copied " Problem of Human Life," p. 271, 
 
210 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 pulse which blew out the candle,, when the books were 
 clapped, instead of the puff of air which was driven 
 away from the books into the open tube at the same* in- 
 stant. This superficial error is almost precisely similar 
 to that which led physicists to suppose that it was the 
 sound-pulse or noise which broke windows at a distance 
 from a magazine explosion, instead of the wave of air 
 caused by the added gas, as examined in answers 41, 42, 
 and 43.* 
 
 Q. 66. Are there any other direct proofs besides the 
 paper-bag test to show this tin -tube experiment to be er- 
 roneous? 
 
 A. Yes, many. Let the books be clapped in a direc- 
 tion away from the open mouth of the tube, so as not to 
 force any air into it, and whatever the intensity of the 
 sound thus generated and passed through the tube, no 
 effect will be produced on the candle flame at the small 
 end. But a better test is to strike a bell or gong right at 
 
 * "The most striking example of this inflection of a sono- 
 rous wave that I have ever seen, was exhibited at Erith after 
 the tremendous explosion of a powder magazine which oc- 
 curred there in 1864. The village of Erith was some miles dis- 
 tant from the magazine, but in nearly all cases the windows 
 were shattered; and it was noticeable that the windows turned 
 away from the origin of the explosion suffered almost as much 
 as those which faced it. [This effect is simply explained by the 
 tremendous shove given to the air, causing it to compress around 
 the buildings equally on all sides. Professor Tyndall thinks it 
 was the " sonorous wave " which inflected, and doubled its two 
 ends around the building, thus crushing the windows!] Lead 
 sashes were employed in Erith church, and these being in some 
 degree flexible, enabled the windows to yield to the pressure 
 without much fracture of the glass. Every window in the 
 church, front and back, was bent inward. In fact, as the sound- 
 wave reached the church it separated right and left, and for a 
 moment the edifice was clasped by a girdle of intensely com- 
 pressed air," Lectures on Sound, p. 23. Quoted and criticised 
 in " Problem of Human Life," at page 105. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 211 
 
 the large mouth of the tube, and although the sound 
 may be almost defening, no effect is produced on the can- 
 dle flame, notwithstanding this sound is concentrated 
 upon it in great intensity at the small end of the tube. 
 Then to reverse the original experiment, let the two 
 books be clapped as was done by Prof. Tyndall, but, let 
 them be prevented from coming entirely together by a 
 piece of soft rubber secured between them, and though 
 no sound will be produced, yet the candle will be blown 
 out all the same and alone by the puff of air sent off in 
 both instances. 
 
 Q. 67. As puffs of air do not thus appear to constitute 
 sound, does the movement of air impede or aid the travel 
 of sound? 
 
 A. Not perceptibly to our sensuous observation. Yet 
 it is evident in strict science, that so much must be added 
 to or deducted from sound-velocity, as will correspond 
 with the bodily movement of the conducting medium, 
 either with the sound or in the opposite direction. To 
 illustrate: As sound travels in still air at sixty deg., at a 
 velocity of 1120 feet a second, it is manifest if the air 
 itself were traveling in the same direction, in a breeze of 
 thirty feet a second (or about twenty miles an hour), 
 that we would have to add these thirty feet to the real 
 velocity of sound as measured from one fixed station to 
 another, making it 1150 feet a second instead of 1120. 
 But, if -we change stations, and send the sound against 
 the breeze, we must necessarily deduct the thirty feet a 
 second from the actual velocity of the sound, making it 
 only 1090 feet instead of 1120. So it would be with 
 electricity traveling thrtfiigh a wire by an analogous law 
 of conduction at, say, 1000 miles a second. If by any 
 means we could cause the wire to move one mile a sec- 
 ond at the same time, this mile of travel would have to 
 be either added to or deducted from the velocity 'of the 
 
212 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 electricity, according as the wire moved either with or 
 against the electric current. 
 
 Q. 68. Are there any experimental proofs that sound 
 is not perceptibly impeded when traveling against a 
 wind? 
 
 A. Many such proofs are on record, as observed from 
 coast signaling stations, in which fog-horns and steam- 
 sirens have been heard for miles against a heavy gale, 
 when they could not be heard half as far with the wind. 
 Also there are many proofs that steam-sirens and signal- 
 guns which have not been heard by observers stationed a 
 few miles out at sea, were plainly audible to other observ- 
 ers far beyond the first. 
 
 Q. 69. How are such erratic phenomena of a sound to 
 be explained according to any possible theory of acous- 
 tics? 
 
 A. They are rationally explicable according to the 
 Substantial Philosophy which makes all the forces or 
 forms of energy real, substantial entities, instead of mere 
 modes of motion. If sound is such a substantial form of 
 force, analogous to electricity, it must travel through any 
 material body by its laws of conduction in correlation or 
 co-operation with the governing force of cohesion which 
 arranges and holds the particles of all conducting 
 mediums together, as explained in answers to 33 and 34. 
 Now, it is readily supposable that the arrangement of air- 
 particles is constantly undergoing change by the action 
 of heat and cohesion, aided by the presence or absence of 
 aqueous vapor, barometric changes, electricity, etc. 
 Hence, there might be much more favorable conditions 
 and arrangement of air-particles for the travel of sound 
 against a given wind than in the opposite direction; and 
 even t\\e grain of the atmosphere, so to speak (as known 
 to be the case with the different cohesive arrangements of 
 particles in the grain or fibrous structure of wood), might 
 thus prevent the travel of sound through certain masses 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 213 
 
 of air, causing it to bound back, thus producing an echo, 
 or to glance over the heads of observers therein stationed, 
 and thus reach others more favorably surrounded many 
 miles beyond. 
 
 Q. 70. Are not such atmospheric conditions equally 
 favorable to the wave-theory? 
 
 A. They are directly opposed to it, because air-waves 
 are merely mechanical displacements or material dis- 
 turbances, and no difference what the cohesive arrange- 
 ment or conductive grain of the air may be, or what 
 vapors might be present, mere mechanical undulations 
 would not be affected one way or the other by which to 
 cause such conductive phenomena as echoes, or the glanc- 
 ing of sounds over the heads of near observers, while 
 reaching those still further distant. 
 
 Q. 71. Are there any analogies which go to favor this 
 substantial view? 
 
 A. Yes. Let a rod have two branches close together, 
 one of copper and the other of iron. Now, as copper is 
 a better conductor of heat than iron, owing to the cohe- 
 sive arrangements of its substance, let us place the end of 
 the rod in fire, and it will be found that the heat, in trav- 
 eling along the rod, by its law of conduction, in co-opera- 
 tion with the force of cohesion, will glance around the 
 iron branch, following the copper texture as better suited 
 to it under the correlation of the forces. Try a powerful 
 current of electricity through the same rod, and it, too, 
 by sufficiently fine tests, will be found to glance around 
 the iron, and to follow the copper with much greater te- 
 nacity. Then try sound, and by the same correlation of 
 force, it will be found to prefer the iron to the copper, 
 glancing around the latter, and accepting the iron as bet- 
 ter adapted to its co-operation with the ruling xorce of 
 cohesion, which holds the seat of honor in all material 
 bodies. 
 
214 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 72. Is not the greater elasticity of the iron, and 
 its less density over the copper, the true reason why 
 sound selects it and travels through it with greater fa- 
 cility? 
 
 A. Not at all. This is abundantly proved by an iron 
 pipe, open at both ends, and extending for a few miles. 
 Let a sound be made at one end by striking the pipe, and 
 it will be found that this sound will travel seventeen 
 times faster through the metal than through the air of 
 the tube, though the air is one of the most elastic as well 
 as one of the least dense of known bodies. By the for- 
 mula of Sir Isaac Newton (which assures us that the ve- 
 locity of sound should increase in proportion as the elas- 
 ticity of a conducting body is great and its density is 
 small, and vice versa) it is manifest that sound should 
 travel many hundred times faster through air than 
 through soft iron; and as this is the formula on which the 
 current theory of sound is based the law of necessity 
 breaks down the theory in iron, as its founder also proved 
 it to break down the theory in air. See, also, answers to 
 Questions 33 and 34. 
 
 Q. 73. As the generation of sound-force was attrib- 
 uted, near the commencement of this chapter, to the vi- 
 bration of some sound -producing body, are there any 
 other means known to science than vibratory action for 
 sound-generation ? 
 
 A. Yes, by the conversion of one force into another. 
 It has been proved that an intermittent ray of light di- 
 rected against certain substances, such as lampblack, 
 cotton fiber, etc., inclosed in a glass tube, will cause an 
 audible sound to issue from the tube of a pitch corre- 
 sponding to the intermittent beam of light. As light 
 has been proved to exert no perceptible mechanical effect 
 in displacing a material body, however powerfully con- 
 centrated upon it, it is fair to infer that sensible vibra- 
 tions of the glass tube or of its contents could not have 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 215 
 
 been produced by the impact of such ray; and as no 
 changes from heat to cold, causing vibrational expansion 
 and contraction, could possibly take place with sufficient 
 rapidity to produce a high pitch of tone, it follows una- 
 voidably that the light-force thus intermittently projected 
 against the tube must have been directly converted into 
 sound. 
 
 Q. 74. Is there any proof that other forms of force 
 have ever been directly converted into sound, or that one 
 form of force can be certainly converted into another? 
 
 A. Yes; we have many proofs of such conversion of 
 the forces. It is well known that an electric telephone 
 will convey sounds without any vibration having been 
 produced, first, by converting. such sounds into electric- 
 ity, thus augmenting the intensity of the current, and 
 then at the receiving diaphragm reconverting the elec- 
 tricity into sound, making the words audible, and that, 
 too, without any mechanical vibration occurring at either 
 diaphragm. 
 
 Q. 75. By what experimental proof, if any, is it 
 known that no vibration occurred at the transmitting 
 diaphragm of the telephone referred to when the message 
 was spoken against it? 
 
 A. It has been repeatedly shown that the vibration of 
 a disk at the transmitting end is not at all essential to 
 the conveyance of speech over the electric wire. This 
 has been done by substituting a solid and rigid disk of 
 iron, an inch thick, for the flexible disk commonly em- 
 ployed, and it has been found that words have been dis- 
 tinctly conveyed thereby over the wire. Indeed, mes- 
 sages have been spoken against the naked ends of the 
 transmitting magnet, without any disk at all, and the 
 words have still been sent, and heard at the receiving 
 end all right. And as no vibration at the receiving disk 
 could be detected by the finest tests that could be ap- 
 plied, and the message heard, even when no receiving 
 
216 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 diaphragm was used, it was but reasonable to infer that 
 the spoken sounds striking the magnet were converted 
 directly into electricity, conveyed in this form to the far 
 end of the wire, and there reconverted into sounds.* 
 
 Q. 76. Is there any direct proof that electricity is 
 ever converted into other forms of force besides sound? 
 
 A. Yes; many such proofs. Electricity passed 
 through a wire, will, by sufficiently increasing its inten- 
 sity, be converted into lieat till it will melt platinum. 
 In doing this it is also converted into the most intense 
 light by incandescence, and it caa also be converted into 
 another form of light, evolving no heat, as seen in the 
 aurora borealis. But the most indubitable proof of 
 force-conversion, /s in the passage of a current of elec- 
 tricity several times around a piece of soft iron, thus con- 
 
 * But the phenomena of the Telephone are entirely different. 
 It is true its diaphragm may vibrate when spoken to with force, 
 as does that of the phonograph; but such vibratory motion is 
 not necessary to the conveyance of a message through the elec- 
 tric wire. It has been proved by Dr. R. M. Ferguson, Ph. D., 
 F. R. S., the eminent Scotch physicist, as published in the Scien- 
 tific American Supplement, No. 120, and also by Count Du Mon- 
 cel, the renowned French electrician, as published in his work 
 on the telephone, that the action which is conveyed from the 
 telephone through the electric conductor, and which is heard at 
 the receiving instrument, must be regarded as " molecular," 
 since the most refined observation shows no vibratory motion 
 whatever in the receiving diaphragm. In fact, both these high 
 authorities have shown that no diaphragm is necessary either at 
 the receiving or transmitting end of the line, since messages have 
 been sent by speaking against the naked poles of the magnet. 
 and heard at the receiver without any diaphragm or other body 
 capable of vibration. Hence, they have recently announced to 
 the scientific world that the theory of sound will have to be re- 
 constructed, since molecular action of some kind is forced to take 
 the place of the supposed vibratory motion in the telephone, 
 This is no doubt correct, as far as it goes, but we may reasona- 
 bly expect that these eminent scientists will go still further, and 
 in due time make another announcement, that the entire wavs 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 217 
 
 verting the electric force into magnetism, a form of 
 force entirely different from that of electricity, since the 
 magnetic form of force requires no conductor, but will 
 pass through all bodies alike, and as freely as if nothing 
 intervened, while electricity not only needs a conductor, 
 but is almost completely stopped by certain substances such 
 glass. Heat, also, as in a thermal pile, is not only con- 
 verted into a powerful current of electricity, but can be 
 converted into the most brilliant incandescent light if suf- 
 ficiently intensified. Now, if all these conversions of one 
 form of physical force into another is rationally evident, 
 is it not reasonably manifest that both light-force and 
 electric force, as substantial entities, may be converted 
 into sound-force, in accordance with the illustrations 
 here given? 
 
 Q. 77. If sound is a substantial force, analogous to 
 
 theory will have to give way to the molecular and corpuscular 
 hypothesis. 
 
 As sound-pulses are thus shown, by the highest authorities on 
 the subject in Europe, to pass through the electric conductor 
 without wave or vibratory motion, I may safely claim one-half 
 of my new departure as accepted, and for the remaining half it 
 will only be necessary to arrive at a better understanding of the 
 correlation and interconvertibility of these incorporeal sub- 
 stances, such as sound, electricity, light, heat, etc., and we will 
 readily comprehend how substantial sound-pulses, spoken against 
 the magnetized transmitter, may combine with the substantial 
 electric fluid, and thus bo conveyed in its embrace, so to speak, 
 to the distant receiver without the assistance of any corporeal 
 movement whatever of the wire, magnet, or diaphragm. This 
 view, of course, involves molecular motion, not of the material 
 substance of the magnet or wire, as these physicists have hastily 
 supposed, but rather the molecular and corpuscular motion of 
 the two blending and correlated substances sound and electric- 
 ity the only active substances involved in this operation. The 
 explanation thus given is not only consistent with the phenom- 
 ena in question, but it fully corroborates the view of sound taken 
 in this monograph, as any one can see who will take the trouble 
 to read it. Dr. Hall, in " Problem of Human Life," p. 334. 
 
218 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 electricity or heat, as these answers show, and if the air- 
 pulse theory is a mistake, why is it that the velocity of 
 sound through air, inclosed in a long tube, is the same 
 exactly as that of a condensed atmospheric pulse caused 
 by suddenly forcing a piston into one end of such tube? 
 
 A. This concluding premise is not correct. The 
 highest authorities in physical science have assumed such 
 to be a fact, but without ever having tried the experi- 
 ment. The reason for such confident assumption is 
 manifest and unavoidable in the very necessities of the 
 wave-theory of sound. As all sounds, loud and soft, were 
 universally believed to consist of air-pulses, or atmospheric 
 condensations and rarefactions, and as all sounds were 
 known to travel through air at the same uniform velocity, 
 hence the doctrine stood unquestioned that a pulse, caused 
 to pass through a tube by forcing a piston into one end 
 of it, would necessarily obey this law of sound-velocity, 
 no matter what force should be applied to the piston, 
 what degree of condensation the piston shonld produce, or 
 what distance it should be instantaneously driven into the 
 tube. Dr. Hall was the first writer to call this law in ques- 
 tion, as he was the first to announce the numerous abrupt 
 departures from physical science set forth in this chapter.* 
 
 * The foregoing being the unperverted and undeniable logic of 
 physicists, let us for a few minutes turn to the record. By ref- 
 erence to " Appleton's American Encyclopedia " and its ele- 
 gantly written article on " Sound," fortunately within the reach 
 of all students desiring to investigate the matter, Prof. Mayer, 
 the highest authority on sound in this country and called by 
 many the Helmholtz of America, makes use of this very illus- 
 tration of the tube with a movable piston at one end, and actu- 
 ally assumes and teaches that the velocity of the atmospheric 
 condensation caused by a sudden shove of the piston must neces- 
 sarily be the same as that of sound, or must of necessity travel 
 1090 feet in a second at a temperature of thirty-two degrees 
 Fahrenheit, since that is the admitted velocity of sound. As 
 surprising as it may seem to the unscientific reader, and in ex- 
 act conformity to the foregoing argument, this physicist makes 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 219 
 
 Q. 78. On what ground is it assumed that this old 
 law of pulse-travel and velocity through a long tube, 
 must be incorrect? 
 
 A. The assumption is based on the self-evident prin- 
 ciple of mechanics that the greater the force with which a 
 body is projected, other things being equal, the swifter 
 will it go; and that, by the same necessary law, the 
 greater the condensation produced instantaneously in the 
 air of one end of the tube by a movement of the piston, 
 the swifter must such condensed pulse travel toward the 
 other end. Hence, if sound consists of air-pulses, as the 
 old theory teaches, it must as certainly follow that loud 
 sounds, constituted of heavy condensations of air, will 
 travel faster than faint sounds. As this is known not to 
 be the case (see answer 32), it follows that the wave- 
 theory cannot be true, and therefore that sound must con- 
 sist of something besides atmospheric pulses. What 
 else is there for sound to be, unless it be a substantial 
 force? 
 
 no distinction whatever in the velocity of the condensed wave 
 thus generated, whether the piston is moved one inch or ten 
 feet so the movement is instantaneous; and, consequently, he 
 points out no difference in the speed of such a pulse, whether 
 the spring-force of the condensation generated by the piston's 
 movement b equal to a pressure of one ounce or one thousand 
 pounds! He assumes this velocity of the condensed wave along 
 the tube to be the same as that of sound nothing more and 
 nothing less and hence it must be the same necessarily, what- 
 ever the spring- force employed to drive it, since the velocity of 
 sound through this tube at any definite temperature, as already 
 shown, is always the same. 
 
 As this writer fails to note this distinction, but rather ignores 
 it, the same as did Prof. Tyndall in reference to the magazine 
 explosion and the destruction of the windows at Erith by a 
 " sound-wave," I am therefore compelled, as I did in the other 
 case, to definitely point out the law governing the transmission 
 both of the sound and of the atmospheric condensation through 
 this tube, and thus to indicate the manifest difference between 
 them, which science and its exponents so far have failed to do. 
 
220 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 79. Has this new and opposing theory of pulse- 
 velocity ever been tested by which to show that the 
 wave-theory of sound cannot be true? 
 
 A. No. The originator of this substantial theory 
 simply makes the prediction, based on his general dis- 
 coveries, that whenever any college shall go to the ex- 
 pense and trouble of making the test with suitable tub- 
 ing, the result will be found to conform to the law lie 
 has announced, namely, that the pulse thus generated by 
 moving a piston into one end of a tube, will necessarily 
 travel with varying velocity, just in proportion to the 
 distance the piston is instantly moved and the strength 
 of the spring -power of the pulse thus generated. The 
 founder of the Substantial Philosophy willingly risks the 
 fate of Substantial ism upon the absolute truth of this 
 revolutionary position. 
 
 Q. 80. Does the same law of sound-conduction, ac- 
 cording to the substantial theory, prevail in solids, 
 liquids, and gases? 
 
 Let us suppose the piston to be moved instantaneously into 
 the tube a certain distance by the blow of a hammer, which 
 also makes a sharp report at the same time. This simultaneous 
 sound of the blow and atmospheric wave produced by the move- 
 ment of the piston might or might not travel with the same ve- 
 locity toward the far end of the tube. It would, of course, de- 
 pend entirely upon the distance the piston was driven by the 
 blow of the hammer, or, in other words, upon the quantity of 
 air (in effect) thereby added to the atmosphere of the tube. It 
 is evident that a true distance for the piston suddenly to move 
 by this blow might be arrived at by experiment which would 
 furnish just enough spring-force to carry the condensed wave 
 through the tube with a velocity equal to but not exceeding that 
 of the sound- pulse caused by the same blow of the hammer. 
 But it is likewise evident that a distance might be selected for 
 the piston to move (say one-sixteenth of an inch) which would 
 produce so little compression of the air in front as to cause the 
 condensed wave to lag behind, and possibly not travel one-tenth 
 as fast as the sound of the hammer. In this case, however, the 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 221 
 
 A. Precisely the same, namely, the cohesive arrange- 
 ment of the particles of the various material substances 
 serving as sound- conducting mediums; and the correla- 
 tion of cohesive force and sound-force in relation to 
 these various arrangements of such material parti- 
 cles. Just as electric-force or light-force will travel 
 better through some bodies than through others by 
 the co-operation or opposition of the regnant force of co- 
 hesion, and without any reference whatever to the elas- 
 ticity, density, mobility, or compressibility of such 
 material bodies, so will sound-force travel through air, 
 the various gases, water, wood, iron, glass, etc., by the 
 same correlation or co-operation with cohesive force, and 
 the various different ways in which that force has ar- 
 ranged and now maintains the material particles of 
 various bodies to facilitate or impede such sound conduc- 
 tion. 
 
 Q. 81. At the twenty-ninth answer it is taught that 
 the sounding bell in vacuois not heard outside of the re- 
 condensation, as before remarked, would probably travel through 
 the tube at a uniform velocity from end to end, though the sound 
 would vastly outstrip it. The speed of so slight a condensation 
 would resemble that of a condensed wave from a magazine 
 explosion when it had nearly spent itself by expansion and rare- 
 fraction, as already explained. And, finally, it is evident that a 
 distance could be determined for the piston to move (say ten, 
 twenty, or forty feet) simultaneously "with the blow of the 
 hammer, provided it could be instantaneous, which would add 
 sufficient spring-force to carry the condensed wave with a ve- 
 locity twice or even three times that of sound. Is not this sim- 
 ple and clear. 
 
 Yet these palpable and manifest distinctions, lying at the very 
 basis of pneumatics and acoustics, as any analytical mind must 
 perceive, have never entered the thoughts of these great physi- 
 cists. Why? The answer is plain. Simply because the univer- 
 sally accepted wave-theory of sound is obliged to lay down as 
 its fundamental principle that a sound-pulse of any kind con- 
 sists in and is propagated by means of a condensation of the 
 
222 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ceiver for want of a conducting medium for its sound- 
 pulses. Does the bell in racuo thus struck by clock- 
 work generate sound-force the same as if it were in air? 
 A. Yes, just as a dynamo-machine in vacuo, and per- 
 fectly insulated from outside objects, would generate 
 electricity. But in both cases the force thus generated, 
 not having a conducting medium by which to manifest 
 itself outside, returns to the force-element or force- 
 reservoir of nature whence it came, thus losing its form 
 or identity as fast as liberated by the appropriate proc- 
 esses for its generation. 
 
 Q. 82. "Would not a bell thus rung continuously in 
 
 air, and can only travel as such compressed atmospheric pulse. 
 Hence, after starting out with this fallacy, it became necessary, 
 in order to harmonize natural phenomena, to compel all kinds 
 of atmospheric condensations to conform to this law, and thus 
 to travel at the observed velocity of sound! As physicists were 
 unable to separate the concussive shock of a magazine explosion 
 from its sound-report, but must suppose the two necessarily to 
 be one and the same thing, according to this wave-hypothesis, it 
 is asking altogether too much of them now to distinguish be- 
 tween the velocity of a condensed wave in a tube and its accom- 
 panying sound derived simultaneously from the blow of a ham- 
 mer! It is owing entirely to the blinding effect of this all-per- 
 vading fallacy of atmospheric sound-waves having " condensa- 
 tions and rarefractions," generating thereby " heat," and thus 
 adding "one-sixth" to the elasticity of the air and the velocity 
 of sound, that we see Prof. Tyndall deliberately and almost piti- 
 ably jumbling a " sound-wave" or a " sonorous pulse " with the 
 " girdle of intensely compressed air" which crushed in the win- 
 dows at Erith ! And it is owing to the same reason that we see 
 Prof. Mayer, one of the most brilliant intellects of America, 
 laying down his law that the velocity of a condensed wave in a 
 tube, caused by the sudden shove of a piston, must necessarily 
 ,be 1090 feet a second, or. in other words, must conform to the 
 observed velocity of sound, without the least regard to the 
 amount of condensation the piston produced, or the force thus 
 brought to bear in propelling the wave. Dr, Hall, in the 
 Problem of Human Life," p. 109, 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 223 
 
 vacuo be reduced in its material substance, and finally be 
 entirely dissipated in the form of sound-force? 
 
 A. No. Herein lies the superficial mistake of those 
 who oppose the Substantial Philosophy. They do not 
 grasp the broad distinction between material and im- 
 material substances. A ringing bell gives off none of its 
 material substance in the production of sound, and is 
 only the material instrument by which the force-element 
 of nature is reached and this peculiar form of force de- 
 veloped and manifested to our senses through proper con- 
 ducting media. Lucretius vaguely caught the same idea 
 of sound that Newton taught for light in his emission 
 theory, namely, that by exercising our vocal organs, ma- 
 terial sound-particles were emitted, thus'in time wearing 
 out the voice, causing hoarseness, consumption, etc. It 
 was impossible for any investigator to grasp the true 
 nature of light and sound, as in no way constituted of 
 the material particles of the luminous and sonorous 
 bodies, until the Substantial Philosophy had classified 
 the substances of nature into material and immaterial 
 entities. 
 
 Q. 83. But would not a bell continuously rung, 
 finally be worn out? 
 
 A. Yes. Any body which requires its own vibratory 
 action or tremor in order to generate or liberate a given 
 form of natural force, must, in the nature of things, dis- 
 integrate or reduce itself by continuous wear in such 
 process of liberating force. But surely, a student of 
 science should be able to see that such wear and de- 
 terioration of the instrument is no more a part of the im- 
 material force thus liberated, than are the particles of 
 the mill-stones worn off and dissipated in the process of 
 grinding wheat a part of the flour thus produced. A 
 bell may be worn and partly dissipated to dust in the 
 process of vibrating and sounding, but every part of that 
 dust still remains in existence as metallic matter, and if 
 
224 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 collected would again produce the same bell intact by re- 
 casting. 
 
 Q. 84. Is this reasoning applicable to the generation 
 and liberation of light-force by a consuming taper or other 
 luminous body? 
 
 A. Yes. The process of consumption in a burning 
 candle, or the substance thus undergoing disintegration 
 or dissipation, constitutes no part of the luminous rays 
 which pass off into space by the unknown law of luminous 
 radiation at a velocity of nearly 200,000 miles a second. 
 This process of disintegration in the luminous body does 
 not change one particle of the material body into light- 
 force, just as the disintegrating process of the liquid bat- 
 tery does not change one particle of the zinc or acid into 
 electricity, since such a battery, operated for days and 
 so inclosed as to avoid loss by evaporation, will weigh the 
 same, notwithstanding the thousands of volts of dynamic 
 electricity which have passed away from this battery to 
 do mechanical work at a distance. The true solution of 
 these various material processes, for liberating different 
 forms of physical force, rests on the same general law, 
 namely, the wear or disintegration of some form of mat- 
 ter by which, through certain disturbances of cohesive 
 force, to tap the force-element of Nature, and thus de- 
 velop and liberate that form of force desired, without 
 such form of force consisting in the slightest degree of 
 the matter thus disintegrated. 
 
 Q. 85. As luminosity in the consuming taper is both 
 caused and accompanied by heat, is heat also evolved 
 from this universal force-fountain of Nature? 
 
 A. Not always directly, but more often by the con- 
 version of other forms of force into heat. The property 
 of combustibility in matter, which is owing to the pe- 
 culiar cohesive arrangement of its particles, is a powerful 
 condition for the conversion of cohesive force into heat, 
 a spark may start a conflagration which, after the 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 225 
 
 initial conversion, expands by what it feeds on. No par- 
 ticle of the combustive material is consumed or destroyed 
 in the absolute sense, but it exists as completly as before, 
 though in different forms, such as ashes, vapors, gases, 
 etc. The great manifestation of light and heat-energy 
 witnessed in a conflagration, is but the substantial force 
 of cohesion, which held the combustible matter Jbogether, 
 changing its form to that of heat and light. The light 
 and heat, thus resulting from the breaking up and con- 
 version of coehsive force, after their energy is expended, 
 fijid their way into the force-element of Nature, where, 
 by correlation with other forms of expended force, they 
 become one, and whence they are again ready to emerge 
 by the demands of natural law in the same or other forms 
 of force, but sepecially that of cohesion in its process 
 of rebuilding forests of combustible material out of the 
 ashes, vapors, and gases into which heat had separated 
 those existing before. 
 
 Q. 86. But is disintegration necessary to the develop- 
 ment of every form of force known to science? 
 
 A. No; some forms of force, after having been sep- 
 arated from the force-fountain of Nature, become per- 
 manently fixed or located in material bodies for definite 
 manifestation. Cohesive force, for example, as also grav- 
 ital force, has, by the economy of nature, been definitely 
 located in all matter to its infinitesimal constituents, and 
 there resides always ready to act. So with magnetic 
 force, as seen in the loadstone or permanent magnet. 
 Such magnet, by the peculiar relation of cohesive force 
 with its constituent particles, is enabled to draw continu- 
 ously from the force-element of Nature this form of 
 force called magnetism, and thus pour it off in cycling 
 currents, by which other material bodies, whose cohesive 
 arrangement of particles puts them in sympathetic re- 
 lation with these magnetic streams, are dynamically 
 drawn or repelled, as the case may be. Thus harmoni- 
 
220 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ously are all the forces or forms of energy in Nature 
 brought into consistent relationship one to another under 
 the magical solving power of Substantialism, without 
 forcing us to resort to so-called modes of motion in phys- 
 ics which neither accomplish nor explain anything. 
 
 Q. 87. What is meant by the wave-lengths of sound, 
 and what relation, if any, do they sustain to the Substan- 
 tial Theory of Acoustics? 
 
 A. As the Substantial Theory does not recognize air- 
 waves as constituting any part of sound-force, it has no 
 use for wave-lengths in sound. Besides, the idea of 
 wave-length where there is no wave-amplitude, or no to- 
 and-fro motion of the wave-substance (since no such am- 
 plitude as constituting sound, aside from incidental tre- 
 mor, has ever been seen even under a microscope), is an 
 incongruity so repugnant to reason as to be at once dis- 
 carded by an unbiased student of science. 
 
 Q. 88. What are some of the wave-lengths of sound 
 according to the current theory, and in what way do they 
 conflict with our reason? 
 
 A. This theoretic idea of wave-lengths depends upon 
 the velocity of sound in different mediums, and the num- 
 ber, of vibrations of the sounding instrument required to 
 make any given pitch of tone. The higher the pitch of 
 sound, and the slower its velocity, the shorter the wave- 
 lengths become; and vice versa. To obtain the wave- 
 length of any given sound through any given substance, 
 according to the theory, divide the velocity per second 
 by the number of vibrations per second. Thus, as the 
 velocity of sound in air is 1120 feet per second, it fol- 
 lows that the note A, or the sound made by the second 
 string of the violin, having 440 vibrations per second, 
 must have wavelengths of thirty and one-half inches. 
 The highest note in the common orchestra (D of the 
 piccolo flute) gives a wave-length of about three inches, 
 which is determined by dividing the velocity of sound 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 227 
 
 (1120 feet), by about 4,700 vibrations per second. The 
 lowest note of the church organ (sixteen vibrations per sec- 
 ond) gives a wave-length in air of seventy feet. Were this 
 note to be sounded in water, in which sound travels with 
 four times its velocity in air, its wave-length would be 
 280 feet from condensation to condensation, or from the 
 center of one wave to the center of the next. But if 
 this organ pipe should be sounded in connection with an 
 extended mass of iron (in which sound travels seventeen 
 times faster than in air), its system of waves from center 
 to center of two adjoining ones, would have the prodigious 
 wave-length of 1190 feet, or several times the wave- 
 lengths of the largest ocean billows. But notwithstand- 
 ing these actual wave-lengths of nearly a quarter of a 
 mile from the center of one iron undulation to that of 
 another, there is no amplitude or to-and-fro motion of 
 the iron particles discoverable under the microscope.* 
 
 * But I have not yet reached the culmination of these logical 
 and common-sense reasons for rejecting air-waves as the prin- 
 ciple of sonorous propagation, nor have I touched upon the 
 greatest absurdities which such an assumption necessarily in- 
 volves. I have already stated the logical fact, that, if sound- 
 waves in air constitute air-waves, as Prof. Brockett teaches, 
 and as admitted by all writers on the subject, then sound-waves 
 in iron constitute iron-waves. It is impossible to evade this. 
 Further, as atmospheric sound- waves are formed by "a small 
 excursion to and fro " of the air particles, thus constituting 
 their " amplitude," without which air- waves could not exist 
 (see many quotations to this effect, Evolution of Sound, p. 7c), 
 it follows that iron sound-waves must also be formed by "a 
 small excursion to and fro " of the iron particles, thus consti- 
 tuting the necessary "amplitude" of iron-waves, and without 
 which a " wave " is a nonentity! But as no such " excursion to 
 and fro " of the iron particles occurs in a solid mass of iron 
 when conducting sound, even when examined under the most 
 powerful lenses, and consequently no "amplitude" exists in 
 such supposed iron undulations, it demonstrates that there is no 
 wave-motion in iron as the result of sound, and hence that sound 
 
228 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 All correct ideas of undulatory or wave-motion should 
 make water billows, having a wave-length of 1190 feet, 
 at least 100 feet high from crest to sinus, according to 
 the proportion which prevails in all systems of water- 
 waves. Another insurmountable difficulty connected 
 with this theory of enormous wave-lengths in sound is 
 this: As sound can only travel in waves through any 
 substance, it follows that the sound of this organ-pipe 
 could not be heard passing through iron, say ten feet 
 thick, since it would only furnish room for less than the 
 one-hundredth part of one wave at a time! How could 
 such waves be appropriated as sound, with 1180 feet of 
 each wave missing for want of a piece of iron big enough? 
 Thus does reason revolt at the very foundation of the 
 wave-theory as an undulatory movement based upon 
 
 must pass through iron by some other law; and if through iron 
 then through air, as there evidently can be no two different 
 modes or principles of sound-propagation through different 
 substances one wave-motion, and another something else! 
 Henee, the undulatory theory of sound, even in air, breaks 
 down of its own inherent weakness. 
 
 Should it be said, here, that in the propagation of sound 
 through iron the particles may move " to and fro," producing 
 the necessary "amplitude" as required in all wave-motion, 
 but not sufficiently to be visible under a microscope, then I 
 answer that such invisible and infinitesimal motion, even if it 
 occurs, would not constitute sound capable of addressing the 
 human ear, because the eye is admittedly one of the most re- 
 fined and sensitive of the avenues to perception; and this being 
 so, these supposed motions of the iron particles, which can be 
 so easily heard by the unassisted ear, should, if they take place 
 at all, be plainly visible to the naked eye! But as this assumed 
 " amplitude" or motion of the particles cunnot be seen when 
 the sight is magnified a million-fold, it is conclusive evidence, 
 on its face, that such motion, if it takes place at all, is a million 
 times too trifling to be heard! Thus, again, does wave-motion 
 in iron break down; and with it, as a necessary corollary, wave- 
 motion in air. Dr. Hall, in the " Problem of Human Life," 
 p. 339. 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 229 
 
 CMiormous wave-lengths, Laving an infinitesimal ampli- 
 tude that is purely imaginary, and which exists only in 
 theory. 
 
 Q. 89. What is the general conclusion to be drawn 
 from this catechetical investigation of the nature and 
 phenomena of sound ? 
 
 A. From the various incongruities of the current 
 theory and necessarily attaching to it, as developed in 
 these questions and answers, notwithstanding the wis- 
 dom of ages and the ripest scholarship in science the 
 world has ever known have been applied to its formula- 
 tion and defense, it follows rationally that such a theory 
 cannot be true. While the harmonious consistency and 
 the internal evidence of correctness which attach to the 
 substantial theory, as here set forth at its very first form- 
 ulation into a text-book, would seem to indicate to a 
 logical, scientific, and unbiased mind that such a system 
 of acoustical science cannot be false. 
 
 [We add the following, referred to in one of the previ- 
 ous chapters, as a specimen of Dr. Hall's method of 
 solving physical problems:] 
 
 HYDROSTATIC PKESSURE A MECHANICAL 
 PARADOX. 
 
 NEW YORK, Oct. 11, 1886. 
 A. WilfordHall, Ph. D., LL. D.: 
 
 DEAR SIR, Will you kindly give the readers of the 
 Scientific Arena a rational explanation of hydrostatic 
 pressure? The problem maybe stated substantially thus: 
 Suppose a frictioriless piston of one square inch super- 
 ficial area entering a tank full of water. Now, if I press 
 my finger against this piston to the extent of one pound, 
 I produce a pressure of one pound upon every superficial 
 inch of the inner surface of the tank, as well as upon the 
 surface of every object immersed in the contained water, 
 
230 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 even should such objects amount to tens of thousands of 
 square feet of tinfoil, so separated that the water may 
 circulate freely between the sheets. 
 
 This problem is appropriately styled the "hydrostatic 
 paradox/' and, no doubt, involves the most profound 
 mystery of any problem known to physical science. 
 Having failed to find an explanation of this enigma in 
 any work on physics, I appeal to you as the one most 
 likely, in my opinion, to solve it. By giving it your 
 early and careful consideration you will greatly oblige 
 me as well as render a most valuable service to the sci- 
 entific world, Yours very cordially, 
 
 DR. HENRY A. MOTT. 
 
 REPLY BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 THE problem of hydrostatic pressure is truly the prob- 
 lem of problems in physics, and its rational solution is 
 unquestionably of the greatest importance to the scien- 
 tific world. It is every way fitting, therefore, that this 
 solution should appear first in the columns of the Scien- 
 tific Arena, and we are glad that Dr. Mott, led by his 
 very careful investigations square up against this prob- 
 lem, should so judiciously have thought of this journal. 
 We shall, therefore, try as briefly as may be to give him 
 and our readers what we believe to be the first detailed 
 scientific explanation of this supposed mechanical para- 
 dox ever published. 
 
 Before commencing our solution let us prepare the way 
 by a gradual introduction and consideration of minor me- 
 chanical problems involving precisely similar results, but 
 so much more simple or less complex than the main 
 problem here propounded that they are observed and 
 passed over by physical investigators without at all con- 
 sidering their paradoxical character. Take, for exam- 
 ple, the simplest of all facts in mechanics if we press 
 down a pound weight on tv\;o sheets of paper lying one on 
 the other, we manifestly press two pounds on the two 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 231 
 
 sheets of paper, since the actual pressure is substantially 
 the same on each, the transfer of the pound pressure 
 being direct from the one to the other. If instead of two 
 sheets of paper we press one pound upon Webster's Una- 
 bridged Dictionary, consisting of 1000 sheets of paper 
 closely piled one upon another, it is evident that we press 
 one pound on each separate sheet of paper constituting 
 the book, thus making the pressure on all the sheets 1000 
 pounds. Nay, this is not all; each sheet of paper not 
 only receives the pound pressure transferred from the one 
 above it, but each sheet below retransfers back upon the 
 sheet above it, by reaction, the same pound pressure it 
 had received, making one pound of actual pressure on 
 each side of each leaf of the book, or 2000 pounds press- 
 ure in all. This is no less apparently paradoxical than 
 the more complex problem involved in hydrostatic press- 
 ure acting in all directions upon the inner surface of an 
 inclosed tank of water by the movement of a piston as 
 described. Indeed, there is no more real mystery in- 
 volved in such a complex mechanical effect, when fully 
 understood, than in the fact of the simplest mechanical 
 action and reaction, such, for example, as if we press one 
 pound with our finger against a table, the table must 
 press one pound against our finger, thus making two 
 pounds of actual pressure. 
 
 The whole problem, as presented by Dr. Mott, will be 
 found involved in this simple law of mechanics: that ac- 
 tion and reaction are always and of necessity equal, and 
 therefore that reaction is a simple duplication of action 
 and a necessary repetition of the original force of such 
 action, however many times transferred from body to 
 body by means of the various mechanical powers such as 
 lever, wedge, screw, incline plane, pulley, etc., all of 
 which are but mechanical modifications of the lever and 
 its effects. The man who can solve the simple paradox 
 of the one pound pressure of his finger against the table 
 
232 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 producing one pound pressure of the table against his 
 finger, can master this mighty hydrostatic paradox or 
 any other complexity in mechanics, as will soon appear. 
 
 But before coming to the details of hydrostatic or fluid 
 pressure infinitely repeated, let us try further to prepare 
 the reader's mind for the more mysterious phase of the 
 problem by simpler stages of this fundamental law of ac- 
 tion and reaction, and thus show how its duplication and 
 repetition may be extended on ad infinitum, and still be 
 as simple as if but transferred a single time from our 
 finger to the table, and by reaction from the table to our 
 finger, thus duplicating the pressure once. 
 
 Take, for example, a number of common spring-bal- 
 ances hooked one to another, as a step toward these 
 minor illustrations. Now it is evident if we pull one 
 pound on the end balance, supposing the series to lie at 
 zero on a frictionless table, we will pull one pound on 
 each and every balance in the string, and the dial or 
 graduated scale of each balance will record one pound 
 even should the chain of instruments be a mile long. 
 This is a beautiful illustration of the endless effect of ac- 
 tion and reaction without the slightest loss of force, if 
 the mechanical conditions are favorable. One of these 
 mechanical conditions for the registering of one pound 
 by each balance, is the fact that the mechanical motion 
 of the pound pull must be duplicated for each balance 
 added, since such motion or distance traveled by the 
 pound pressure, represents the work done upon each 
 spring in causing its duplicate registry of this same 
 pound. 
 
 The problem thus illustrated involves the same prin- 
 ciple in mechanics as the raising of a hundred-inch 
 piston, entering a tank of water and loaded with ono 
 hundred pounds, by pressing down one pound on a one- 
 inch piston entering the same tank. The large piston 
 will be raised only one-hundredth as far as the small piston 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 23$ 
 
 is pressed into the tank, on the universal law of leverage, 
 that what is gained in power must be lost in motion. 
 But this forms no part of the explanation of the great 
 problem of hydrostatic pressure, as some have mistak- 
 enly supposed. Such pressure involves no appreciable 
 mechanical work, since it involves only an infinitesimal 
 motion among the particles of the fluid employed. Let 
 us illustrate the real parodox in the case by the imper- 
 fect action of a system of levers whose ends simply press, 
 but which do not move so as to perform mechanical 
 work. 
 
 Take a series of rigid, straight levers with fulcrums in 
 the center, and with their connected ends hinged to each 
 other, the end of the last lever in the system being pre- 
 vented from moving by a stop, as shown in the accom- 
 panying cut. By a careful examination of this diagram 
 
 I . ! 
 
 a 
 
 e 
 
 i 
 
 . \ 
 
 S 
 
 e 
 
 * 1 
 
 . I 
 
 |T .10) os 
 
 (Q) 
 
 ~5v 
 
 jp 
 
 I 
 
 Co) 
 
 I 
 
 Co" 
 
 (<* 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 the student of physics will see the law of action and re- 
 action exemplified-in its simplest as well as in its most 
 intricate relations to mechanics, and thus better than in 
 any other way have his mind prepared for the true solu- 
 tion of the hydrostatic paradox in hand, and for a com- 
 prehension of the real form of mechanical power which 
 applies directly to that problem. 
 
 Referring to our diagram, let us for the moment con- 
 fine our experiment to the first lever, extending from a 
 to b, and let us suppose it to be frictionless as it hinges 
 on the fulcrum at 1, with its end at b fixed. Now if we 
 press down with our finger one pound at , we just as 
 certainly press up one pound against the fixed support at 
 b, while with equal certainty we press down two pounds 
 at the fulcrum afc 1, thus making four pounds of pressure 
 on that lever. But this is not all: by reaction the end of 
 
234 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the lever at a presses upward against our finger precisely 
 with the same force that our finger presses downward 
 upon it, thus making two pounds of pressure at that 
 point. The same, of course, must occur between the 
 other end of the lever and its stop, the two surfaces of 
 contact mutually pressing a pound apiece against each; 
 other; while the pin in the fulcrum, at 1, returns by re-- 
 action against the lever the same two pounds of pressure 
 there borne down upon said fulcrum, thus fairly and me- 
 chanically producing eight pounds of actual pressure 
 through that lever by the communication of a single 
 pound downward pressure at a. How can there be im- 
 agined a more startling paradox than this? 
 
 But the enigma becomes more complex and mysterious 
 when we discover that if the first lever is connected with 
 a series of similar frictionless levers, the same eight 
 pounds of 'mechanical pressure will be transferred and 
 produced in each lever added to the series, first down at 
 a, then up at l>, down at c, up at d; first action, then re- 
 action, and so on to the end of the series, even should 
 the system of levers extend for miles, and should they be 
 so connected as to operate in all conceivable directions 
 up, down, laterally, diagonally, criss-cross, etc. We have 
 -thus not the slightest difficulty in seeing how a tank 
 could be ingeniously filled with minute levers and ful- 
 crums, and even by connected systems of levers piled on 
 systems by which an approximate paradoxical pressure 
 in all directions could be produced similar to the one in 
 hand. 
 
 But this is by no means the solution of this great prob- 
 lem, nor does it begin to grapple with the mystery in- 
 volved, although by such a conclusive illustration of the 
 unlimited duplication of pressure by action and reaction, 
 the reader's mind is no doubt by this time thoroughly 
 prepared for the real solution when it comes. Plainly 
 nothing similar to rigid levers could be imagined 
 
THE NATURE AND PHENOMENA OF SOUND. 235 
 
 as existing among the infinitesimal particles of any fluid 
 substance in order to cause an infinite duplication of the 
 pressure between them, and by which they are forced 
 apart and separated in all directions. 
 
 Since leverage, proper, will not solve the problem, 
 what other form of the mechanical powers will meet the 
 case, since it is manifest that it can only be accomplished 
 by mechanical power in some form? We answer that 
 the mystery is completely and satisfactorily solved by the 
 action of the wedge, and that it can be solved by no other 
 form of mechanical power. 
 
 Let us first show the application of this form of mech- 
 anism to the separation of two objects only, before ex- 
 tending the princrple. We have first to suppose a per- 
 fectly frictionless wedge of infinite taper, entered between 
 two frictionless bodies. Now it is plain that if a pound 
 force be applied to this wedge, it will act with a pound 
 pressure against each of the two bodies in the tendency 
 to separate them. If this frictionless wedge should have 
 an infinite taper in all directions, approximately like the 
 point of a needle, it is plain, should it be pressed between 
 a nest of frictionless bodies, all touching it, that each of 
 these bodies would be forced outwardly with the pound 
 of pressure the same as if the wedge acted upon but two 
 bodies. Then let us suppose that all of the bodies thus 
 pressed outwardly are themselves also frictionless wedges 
 of infinite taper, each entering between similar nests of 
 bodies, which again are of the same wedge construction; 
 and, finally, let us suppose that every particle of matter, 
 to its infinitesimal size, which fills the tank, is itself a 
 frictionless wedge of infinite taper, and at once we see 
 how the initial pound pressure against the first entering 
 wedge-particle is duplicated and repeated by action and 
 reaction against every similar wedge-shaped particle in 
 the tank, and consequently against every part of the inner 
 surface of the tank itself, as well as every object within 
 
236 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the tank against which such frictionless wedges can come 
 into contact. 
 
 Now it is a fact that a tank of water, constituted of a 
 substantially infinite number of frictionless particles, 
 each of infinitesimal size, is practically made up of just 
 such a system of frictionless wedges as we have described, 
 since being infinitesimal in size they are equivalent to an 
 infinitely tapering wedge. Then we have only to begin 
 our experiments with an imaginary piston entering this 
 tank, of the diameter of a single one of these frictionless 
 wedges, and we can see at a glance how the particular 
 wedge against which the piston is pressed with a given 
 power must be forced between other similar particles, 
 these between others, and so on throughout the en- 
 tire mass of water, thus giving the full pressure of 
 the piston against every infinitesimal particle or wedge 
 the tank contains, as well as against every similar par- 
 ticle of the tank's surface. If this be true, and if it 
 gives a rational view of the question with reference to 
 the action of such a piston, it is unquestionably true and 
 rational with reference to a larger piston, such friction- 
 less wedge-pressure in all directions corresponding exactly 
 to the force applied to the piston and the number of in- 
 finitesimal wedge-particles against ivhich the piston presses. 
 This is the solution and this is the law of hydrostatic 
 pressure; and thus only can the apparent pavadox be ex- 
 plained. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 LIFE. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is Life?* 
 
 ANSWER. This question is one of the most difficult 
 ever propounded to the wisdom of the world a question 
 to which no satisfactory answer can be given without a 
 recognition of the existence of immaterial substance in 
 being. It stands next to the question: What is God? 
 Man's encouragement to find it out by searching lies in 
 the fact that life is not necessarily infinite. An at- 
 tempted investigation into its nature is therefore not 
 necessarily a piece of presumption on the part of finite 
 man. Such searching after the nature of life and the 
 origin of its existence becomes presumptuous folly only 
 when man attempts it without acknowledging the eternal 
 existence of a Personal One the Fountain and Giver 
 of all life. 
 
 Q. 2. Have all philosophers who have believed in the 
 absolute existence of a personal God held correct views of 
 life? 
 
 * In the author's college- days he listened to an elaborate lec- 
 ture upon this subject by a very learned educator. The pro- 
 found speaker introduced his theme with the above question: 
 " What is life?" Continuing, he remarked: "We know noth- 
 ing of life except by its phenomena." In the course of his ad- 
 dress he reached the climax . of his. circular syllogism in the 
 expression: "Life is action." He failed to see; at least, he 
 failed to tell us that " action " is " phenomena." 
 
238 < THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. They have not. 
 
 Q. 3. What has been their most fundamental er- 
 ror? 
 
 A. They have virtually denied the proper substantial- 
 ity of God's being. 
 
 Q. 4. What further? 
 
 A. They have failed to conceive of finite life as a 
 form of entitative being and a substantial force-element 
 ill the animated portion of creation. 
 
 Q. 5. What are the present conflicting theories of the 
 origin and nature of life? 
 
 A. As to the origin of life these theories separate 
 themselves into two classes, viz: The Spontaneous De- 
 velopment theory and that of Biogenesis. 
 
 Q. 6. What is the spontaneous development theory? 
 A. That life is the product of matter. 
 
 Q. 7. Who have been its leading advocates? 
 
 A. Thales in his water cosmogony taught that water 
 is the mother of all living. 
 
 Dr. Bastian of England is probably the fairest modern 
 representative of this spontaneous theory. He belongs 
 to what is known as the school of heterogenists who 
 teach that life is generated in the womb of matter. 
 
 Prof. Haeckel of Berlin is another very able advocate 
 of this doctrine, although he employs different termi- 
 nology in the expression of his views, and the advocacy 
 of his position. He defines life as " material atoms 
 placed together in a most varied manner." 
 
 Herbert Spencer defines his concept of life as "the 
 continuous adjustment of internal arrangements to ex- 
 ternal relations," or "perfect correspondence." 
 
 Q. 8. What modern philosophers are upon record as 
 over against this general theory of spontaneous genera- 
 tion? 
 
LIFE.< 239 
 
 A. Tyndall and Huxley of England, Ulrici and 
 Lotze of Germany, Dr. McCosh of Princeton, and Joseph 
 Cook of all around the world have opposed it without the 
 ability to do it very much harm or to give the world any- 
 thing very much better. While these great men, as well 
 as the respective schools of philosophy which they repre- 
 sent, are antagonistic to each other, they all agree that 
 " life can come only from previous life." Omne vivum 
 ex vivo. 
 
 Harvey's proverb Omne animal ex ovo although sat- 
 isfactory for awhile, soon lost its superficial plausibility 
 after men became thoughtful enough to inquire as to 
 who produced the seed or laid the egg, 
 
 Dr. Beale has satisfied himself and some others that 
 life starts in the bioplasts* or little specks of protapolsm 
 
 * Such bioplasts are always busy at work in building up new 
 tissue or repairing old, and can be seen under a powerful glass, 
 moving hither and thither as things of life, picking up and dis- 
 tributing atoms of nutrition to strengthen muscle, tendon, vein, 
 nerve, etc., and then these great authorities apparently conclude 
 that they have struck the keynote to the solution, and have 
 reached the lowest or basic stratum of life-substance in the 
 human organism, thus framing an impregnable breastwork 
 and barrier, as they suppose, to the onslaughts of materialism. 
 How vain is this hope! Not a bioplast leaves the body at death. 
 These atoms of so-called life-substance are but a part of the 
 physical structure, and cease to move at dissolution, the same 
 as do the larger organs of the body, and consequently have 
 nothing more to do w r ith the true solution of our problem than 
 have the veins and arteries, with their myriad blood-corpuscles, 
 which also cease to act at death. Bioplasts, with all the useful 
 knowledge they have furnished us, as to the formation of or- 
 ganic tissue, do not touch the question of life itself what it is, 
 how it exists, or what becomes of it and no more meet the ob- 
 jections urged by the materialist than would the anylysis of the 
 outer cuticle of our flesh. Hence every argument employed in 
 illustrating the work of the bioplasts, as a refutation of materi- 
 alism, is so much labor lost. " Problem of Human Life," p. 46. 
 
* 
 
 240 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 seen to be at work constructing new cells and tissue in 
 all organic forms of being. 
 
 Q. 9. What is radically wrong with all these theories? 
 
 A. They are defective in that they have no starting 
 point no genesis.* The life of the creature can^come 
 only from previous life. There is no primordial previous 
 life except the life of the Creator. He who adopts the 
 proper theory or truth of biogenesis will find himself 
 carried back by its inexorable logic to the unavoidable 
 conclusion that all life, whatever it may be as to its 
 
 *" No change of substance, no modification of environment, 
 no chemistry, no electricity, nor any form of energy, nor any 
 evolution can endow any single atom of the mineral world with 
 the attribute of Life." Drumrnond's " Nat. Law," p. 68. 
 
 That the life principle of living organic bodies is not simply 
 phenomenal, but that it is a distinctive entity, is a proposition 
 that has so many proofs in nature, and goes so far in explanation 
 of other facts, that it seems remarkable that a contrary assump- 
 tion could be held by scientists. But still it is set forth by 
 biologists as simply a resultant of organization and the play of 
 chemical foice, like as growth is the result of assimilation, and 
 combination that of affinity. 
 
 This latter assumption is incidental to efforts in other direc- 
 tions, and comes not from any intelligent conclusion, when the 
 subject of life is made that of primary or specific investigation. 
 It is wonderful what vagaries men will fall into when they are 
 fanatically disposed, or intent in theorizing. 
 
 The preservation of species cannot be satisfactorily accounted 
 for other than by reference to the distinctiveness of the life 
 force, which controls and conditions assimilation and develop- 
 ment. Nor is the growth of the plant, or body of the animal 
 alone thus conditioned; the seed and ovum are so as well. 
 
 When all allowance is made for modifying circumstances, 
 which occasion varieties in species, there is yet found a bound- 
 ary, up to which alone any encroachment can come; and, as 
 soon as the modifying causes are removed, a relapse takes place 
 and the sharp characteristics of the species are again estab- 
 lished. This tendency to relapse has been the subject of bat- 
 tling effort with hybridizers. 
 
LIFE. 241 
 
 essence, must have come originally from a Life that 
 never had beginning back of itself it must have come 
 from a Self-existent God, and as a vital spark of His un- 
 diminishable Self. Men who fail to see this truth, or 
 seeing, hesitate to apply it in all its logical bearings, find 
 themselves floundering upon a shoreless sea with nothing 
 to grasp but the floating forms of false philosophy. Even 
 Prof. Drummond of Edinburgh, after a very able dis- 
 cussion of the question of life and its origin through two 
 extended chapters of his good book, simmers his philos- 
 ophy down to a definition of life not entirely satisfactory 
 to n?en who are thirsting after a more entitative and en- 
 during substance. " To live is to correspond, and to cor- 
 respond is to live," says the rising young philosopher of 
 old Caledonia. 
 
 Dr. Frederick A. Eouch gets much nearer to the truth 
 in his Anthropology. He says (on p. 22) that life is a 
 plastic power placed in matter by the Divine will, and 
 can no more be seen with the eye than any other power. 
 
 Q. 10. What is still better? 
 
 A. The teachings of the Substantial Philosophy. 
 
 Q. 11. What are its teachings upon this point? 
 
 While, on the other hand, we observe the various life proc- 
 esses to be very similar, the results are very dissimilar. The 
 food of animals and their life habits may be identical; yet their 
 specific characteristics are absolute in distinctness. The man, the 
 dog, and the cat, may eat, and live on precisely the same food; 
 and be subject to the same life habits; but yet how distinct are 
 their specific characteristics! Hybridizing efforts superadded 
 will avail nothing in breaking down the distinction. Away 
 back of the forms in the development is to be found the cause 
 of this distinction. It is in the life principle which is resident in 
 the seed or ovum. When a cell is nucleated, as a condition of 
 new being, this nucleation is not accidental, nor yet the result 
 simply of favorably disposed surroundings, or force of habit. 
 As a condition precedent there must be a life principle. 
 Chancellor John Kost, M. D., LL. D., in Arena, Vol. I., p. 68, 
 
242 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. It affirms that life is the highest form of force; 
 that all finite life is an efflux from the Divine, Self-ex- 
 istent One.* 
 
 Q. 12. Is each living individual a distinct and sepa- 
 rate creation? 
 
 A. God is the creator of each and every individual in 
 the domain of finite life, but after creating the first parents 
 of each distinctive species, by a creative act of bis sov- 
 ereign will through the creative word of his omnipotent 
 power, in the creative transmission directly of his own 
 substantial life, he now carries forward his creative work 
 through the agency of progenitors. Hence, livirg beings 
 are now created mediately. This process of propagating 
 
 * It is a universal axiom of science that " from nothing, noth- 
 ing comes." As this incorporeal organism has been demon- 
 strated to be an entity a real counterpart of the physical 
 structure, since it is only through it that inheritance can take 
 place and transmissions can occur it must, therefore, be a part 
 of some actual substance which had a previous existence; and 
 as the existence of a God has been scientifically demonstrated, 
 who was capable of producing living organisms out of inorganic 
 matter, such a God, therefore, must be a substantial and intelli- 
 gent entity. Just as certain as that our material organism 
 necessarily had to come from a source or fountain of pre-exist- 
 ing matter, just so sure must this mental and vital organism 
 pervading every living creature have come from a source or 
 fountain of pre-existing mind and life. 
 
 "I lay down the position, without the fear of its ever being 
 successfully met, that no substantial effect can -be produced on 
 any object without an absolute substance of some kind connect- 
 ing the cause with the effect I conceive it a principle of 
 
 philosophy that life and mind are substantial entities as really 
 and truly as are the most ponderable physical objects." " Prob- 
 lem of Human Life," p. 494. " I believe that until this great 
 underlying iruth shall be duly comprehended and recognized, 
 physiologists, with all their laborious and histologic researches, 
 even with the most powerful microscopes to aid them, n-ill 
 never penetrate even the cuticle of science as regards the true 
 cause of physiological phenomena," p. 466. " As organic life is 
 
LIFE. 4o 
 
 the species results from the fact that the life first im- 
 parted to the parental head of the species involved the 
 possibility of and tendency toward organic multiplication 
 into numerous individuals. 
 
 Q. 13. But is not Substantialism, according to the 
 above, a mere revival of the old doctrine of realism, as it 
 appeared in the arena of philosophical war during the Mid- 
 dle Ages? 
 
 A. After the Substantial Philosophy becomes a fully 
 formulated system, it will be found to involve much 
 truth previously taught in other systems of philosophy, 
 even as Christianity incorporated doctrines previously 
 held in Judaism, and as Protestantism conserved and 
 carried forward much that was true and valuable in the 
 Church of Kome; but, like Christianity and Protestant- 
 ism, Substantialism brings forward and announces a dis- 
 tinct and revolutionary principle never previously an- 
 
 a substantial entity and could only come from a pre-existing 
 fountain of life, hence the solution is clear that the life and 
 mental powers of every organic creature originated primordially 
 as infinitesimal atoms of God's own self-existent, vital and 
 mental being; and thus it becomes as naturally and consistently 
 a scientific solution of the origin of life as that the existence of 
 God [as the author claims to have shown on p. 444] is an un- 
 avoidable scientific truth," p. 472. 
 
 Thus the way is logically made clear for the assumption that 
 the vital and mental organism of each living creature consists 
 of a mere drop from out the fountain of God's own infinite 
 vital and mental substance. To the primal and miraculously 
 created parents of each species the Creative Will must then 
 have transferred an infinitesimal drop of His own being, con- 
 stituting not only the real entities of these primal parents, but 
 the perpetual specific germ for transmitting the same entity to 
 offspring, and the only part of an organic being not liable to 
 displacement and substitution, as so clearly shown in the pre- 
 ceding chapter, while the primordial stock of knowledge given 
 to the parents of each species, necessary to their primitive con- 
 ditions of life, was also but a drop out of His own infinite 
 intelligence. " Problem of Human Life," p. 469, 
 
244 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 noimced to the world in any form. It is, therefore, the 
 revival of no defunct hypothesis, theory or system of 
 philosophy. While it is not Kealism, as taught in the 
 days of Abalard, as over against Nominalism, Substan- 
 tialism involves realism in its moderate, positive, and 
 proper sense. It accepts of the formula, universalia in 
 re the concrete general in the particular and insists 
 that reality is predicable of potentiality; yet it looks with 
 grave suspicion upon conceptualism, fearing that that 
 term is designed to convey the false idea that concrete 
 universals are not real until a subjective concept gives 
 them reality. While the Substantial Philosophy involves 
 proper realism, its realism is in such intimate relation 
 with all truth that it is equally antithetic and antago- 
 nistic to the Nominalism of Rascelin, the Pantheism of 
 Spinoza, the Idealism of Berkeley, the Sensationalism of 
 Locke, and the whole general school of Materialism 
 across the continent and throughout the world. 
 
 Q. 14. In how many spheres or kingdoms does this 
 God-given life manifest itself in Nature? 
 
 A. Three. As the different rays of light are produc- 
 tive of different colors, so the 
 
 " Bright effluence of bright essence increate," 
 according to the subtsance of the Divine Nature and the 
 pleasure of the Divine Will, passes into different orders 
 of animate beings vegetable, animal and human.* 
 
 Q. 15. What are the general lines of distinction be- 
 tween these three? 
 
 A. The vegetable has the least possibilities and the 
 most limited environments; the- animal has a higher 
 plane of existence, it has both life and a low order of 
 mentality, and consequently a larger circle of correspond- 
 
 * The author is not now treating of angelic being, neither of 
 Christianity, whicli is a higher form of humanity, as shown in 
 the last three chapters of this volume. 
 
LIFE. ' 245 
 
 encies; the human has life involving all the grand pos- 
 sibilities of the finite, culminating in that form of 
 being which stands by the threshold of the infinite and 
 next to the throne of the Divine. 
 
 Q. 16. But did not God also create the rocks of the 
 earth and the stars of heaven, and if so, are they not 
 also an effluence of Himself? 
 
 A. By Him all things were made, and as nothing 
 could have been created out of nothing, all created 
 things must have come as to their primordial substance 
 from His substantial Self.* 
 
 * In maintaining my position that the universe was made of 
 God's all-pervading substance, it does not seem to me unscien- 
 tific or irrational to assert that even a substance so highly at- 
 tenuated might be condensed into a solid body, like this earth, 
 since the great scientific investigator, Dr. Lockyer, has given 
 reasons for believing that all tangible substances, from platinum 
 up to the most tenuous gases, are resolvable into one single ele- 
 mental substance, vastly more attenuated than that of hydrogen 
 gas. Would it not, therefore, beautifully complete the scien- 
 tific chain of continuity to assume this sub-element of which all 
 worlds are constituted, as the first condensation of a fraction 
 of the substance of God's exterior nature, and as His initial act 
 in the process of framing the corporeal universe ? If all mate- 
 rial substances are absolutely traceable to a single element, far 
 beyond the reach of our senses, may we not assume that all sub- 
 stances, whether material or immaterial, might be rationally 
 traced one step further and resolved into the one primordial sub- 
 stance of the Deity Himself, from an atom of which, in the first 
 place, this sub-element w^as condensed, and then out of which all 
 other substances and forms were made. 
 
 Though I verbally distinguish between material and immate- 
 rial, between corporeal and incorporeal substances, one being 
 generally applied to tangible, and the other to intangible things, 
 yet that does not preclude the idea that the corporeal may have 
 been condensed from the incorporeal substances of Nature. The 
 marvelous discoveries of modern science, under the investiga- 
 tions of such physicists as Lockyer, Crookes, Fairfield, and 
 others, are clearly pointing to results as wonderful as this, 
 while they all tend to confirm the broad position first announced 
 
246 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 17. What then is the difference between the living 
 and the non-living creature? 
 
 A. To the living creature God has given to have life 
 in itself; the non-living is moved and manipulated by life 
 or some other substantial force not vitally connected 
 with itself. 
 
 Q. 18. In what other particular does the living creat- 
 ure differ from the non-living? 
 
 A. The living creature has organic being, while the 
 non-living holds its existence as either a mechanism or in 
 mere element. 
 
 Q. 19. What does Substantialism teach concerning 
 mechanisms? 
 
 in my treatise on Sound, that even sonorous pulses may consist 
 of absolute substance, in opposition to the universally accepted 
 theory of the undulating motion of air-waves. In view of the 
 discovery of this single sub-element announced by Lockyer, out 
 of which all the grosser physical elements and substances have 
 been evolved, does not such a grasp of the almost intangible ren- 
 der the hypothesis probable, aside from proof, that electricity, 
 magnetism, light, heat, gravitation, and even sound are but 
 other forms of the same primordial substance out of which this 
 sub-element was probably condensed? * * * While it may, 
 therefore, be rationally assumed that an incorporeal substance 
 might be condensed into a material form, by the application of 
 Almighty power, yet to assert that something can be made out 
 of nothing, even by God Himself, is irrational and unscientific, 
 not to use a stronger adjective. 
 
 Since air has been condensed by the skill and power of puny 
 man, into a permanent liquid of the gravity of water, and 
 through the limited appliances within his reach, does it seem 
 " irrational " to believe that an infinite God might also condense 
 an incorporeal substance, such as electricity, for instance, into 
 granite rock, or something equally dense ? And if this be not 
 irrational nor insupposable, does it exceed the bounds of reason 
 and probability that the same infinite Artificer might condense 
 a mere atom of His own omnipresent but exterior substance into 
 a world like this, and if into one world, might He not thus have 
 created the universe ? " Problem of Human Life," p. 64. 
 
LIFE. 247 
 
 A. That the outward form of the mechanism is the 
 externalization of an ideal which originated elsewhere 
 and had its existence previous to its being clothed upon 
 in such outer form.* 
 
 Q. x!0. In whom do such ideals originate? 
 
 A. They are potentially involved in the substance of 
 the human mind which came with all its powers and 
 possibilities from God.f 
 
 Q. 21. Then God is the primordial fountain of all 
 ideals which are given form in mechanisms? 
 
 A. He is. 
 
 Q. 22. Is God then the originator of the ideal of an 
 infernal machine? 
 
 A. When God communicates of his own substance in 
 the creation of rational beings he delegates in and with 
 such substance the possibility and the power of perver- 
 
 * Such a conception would be as impossible, in the very nat- 
 ure of thtngs, as when looking upon a complicated time-piece 
 to conceive of it as having originally come into existence by the 
 accidental falling together of cogwheels, journals and journal- 
 boxes, without an intelligent designer or mechanical constructor. 
 It is true, that individual time-pieces now examined, may have 
 been turned out by ingenious machinery, and may not have cost 
 a single minute's serious thought on the part of the mechanic or 
 artisan who put them together and set them to keeping time. 
 But leaving this individual machine-made clock or watch, let 
 us go back to its earliest progenitor the first clock or watch 
 that was ever made and conceive of it, if we can, coming into 
 existence by the unconscious mingling of journals, cogwheels, 
 etc. 4 ' Problem," p. 362. 
 
 f No watch, engine or other device was ever conceived by 
 man that was not already perfected in the mind of God, and 
 which did not already exist as a reality a fact of creation in 
 the spirit- realm. In this way we can truly believe that "there 
 is nothing new under the sun." The inventor in conceiving of 
 a new machine, only grasps with his soul- eyes, in his imagina- 
 tion or his dreams, the real wheels, and levers, and springs that 
 already exist incorporeally Microcosm Vol II. , p, 36. 
 
248 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 tion to the extent that such rational creatures may be- 
 come either devils or their angels. Thus man's power 
 and possibility of working out the invention of a good 
 thing for a good purpose may be perverted in the con- 
 ception of an ideal, and clothe it with an infernal ma- 
 chine to execute an infernal purpose. 
 
 Q. 23. Then God is not responsible for the results? 
 
 A. God glorifies himself in withholding no good thing 
 from man, and man is responsible for any perverse use 
 he makes of the divine gifts, and will be held morally ac- 
 countable. 
 
 Q. 24. What becomes of the ideal when the mechan- 
 ism is destroyed? 
 
 A. As no outward power can compel the ideal to 
 clothe itself in a mechanical form, so the destruction of 
 the latter does not involve the destruction of the ^former 
 the ideal remains intact. 
 
 Q. 25. Has such an ideal substantial existence? 
 
 A. It is an mdellible impress self-stamped upon the 
 subsrantial mind in the exercise of the God-given power 
 which the mind involves. 
 
 Q. 26. But what becomes of the ideal when the 
 mental powers or faculties of the person are deranged? 
 
 A. The ideal or impress is not erased or absolutely 
 obliterated, yet it cannot be actualized or clothed upon 
 during any such season of entire mental derangement. 
 
 Q. 27. What if the mental faculties be all restored 
 again to their normal working condition? 
 
 A. The ideal will also be fully restored with a full 
 re-invigoration of its youth the impress will stand out 
 again in its former bold and beautiful relief upon the 
 real tablet of the possessor's substantial mentality. 
 
 Q. 28. But what becomes of the ideal or the impress 
 when the person dies? 
 
 A. If the Substantial Philosophy be true, the person 
 
LIFE!. 249 
 
 does not really die, but retains the essential integrity of 
 his organized substantial being, despite the throes and 
 threats of physical dissolution. The ideal o/ the power 
 to renew it, under a renewal of favorable environments, 
 will accompany the person into the state of the dead and 
 exteruialize itself again as soon as the person emerges from 
 such death-state into a broader, brighter realm of more 
 favorable environments beyond.* 
 
 Q. 29. What does the Substantial Philosophy teach 
 with reference to organisms?! 
 
 * No poet or musician ever grasped a rhyme, conceived a 
 rhythm, or dreamt a harmony in music, that did not exist in 
 the mind of God as a reality before the world was, and yet there 
 are ten thousand million new combinations of rhyme, music 
 and rhythm in the mind of that same great fountain of all in- 
 tellectuality that poets and musicians will never work out till 
 they are clothed upon with their psychical robes, and are in free 
 access to their psychical environment unencumbered by mortal 
 surroundings Dr. Hall, in Microcoxm. 
 
 This question receives more special consideration in Chapters 
 XIII and XIV. 
 
 f What forms the invisible pattern (for pattern there must be) 
 around which and through which the bioplasts are guided in 
 their work of constructing nerves, muscles, bones, ligaments, 
 etc., and by which they are thus prevented from -making mis- 
 takes, substituting a nerve for an artery, a ligament for a 
 muscle, etc. ? I answer again, it is life, which, could we see it 
 after the body dies, would stand out a transparent manikin 
 with every outline of the human body intact a perfect repre- 
 sentation of our organic form in all its parts, as would a mani- 
 kin of the arteries, veins and nerves, could they alone be lifted 
 from the body without disturbing their relative positions. 
 Without the aid of this substantial but invisible organism, the 
 working bioplasts of Dr. Beale can no more touch the problem 
 of life, than can Prof. Haeckel's material atoms "placed to- 
 gether in a most varied manner." Without this view, every ef- 
 fort of modern science and philosophy will fail to satisfy the 
 longing, craving wants of honest but doubting souls, as to a 
 rational solution of what life is, and how it is related to an or- 
 ganic structure, so as to be viewed scientifically, philosophically, 
 
250 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. That all organisms have a dnal nature, and that 
 the two are inter-related and vitally united when both 
 are in their normal condition. 
 
 Q. 30. What is the highest form of such dual organ- 
 ism? 
 
 and religiously, as a substantial basis for immortality and per- 
 sonal identity in another life. I have tried in this chapter to 
 furnish such a solution of man's dual organism, with such ana- 
 logical proofs drawn from Nature and illustrations so framed 
 upon the principles of science, philosophy, and art, as may give 
 a reasonable ground of hope to the candid inquirer that death 
 does not end all, but that though we die yet shall we live that 
 though the " outer man" perish, the " inner man " shall surely 
 survive; and that though our earthly house of this tabernacle 
 shall be dissolved, we may still hope for a^building of God, a 
 house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. " Problem 
 of Human Life, " p. 46. 
 
 I will here repeat that it is only by such an inter-related and 
 co-ordinated organism, existing within and vitalizing the cor- 
 poreal structure, that any of the phenomena of inheritance, 
 propagation, variation, development, growth, reproduction of 
 parts, and healing of wounds, can take place in a living creat- 
 ure, whether such creature be high or low in the scale of 
 being. 
 
 A singA? phenomenon may here be named in addition to those 
 to which I have already referred, completely corroborating this 
 hypothesis of a vital and mental organism residing within each 
 physical structure as its counterpart and visible expression, 
 while the wonderful fact of sensation will be thus seen to de- 
 pend wholly on this essential entity, which constitutes the real 
 identity of every living creature. 
 
 I refer to the remarkable fact that amputated limbs of ani- 
 mals have been frequently known to reproduce themselves from 
 the stump by a process of mysterious vital action hitherto re- 
 garded by physiologists as wholly inexplicable. It is simply 
 impossible, on the physical or purely monistic view of organic 
 beings, to tell why the segments of a polyp will each reproduce 
 a perfect being, or why the leg of a salamander when cut off 
 will be reproduced with the foot and toes in every respect per- 
 fect. Cases are recorded in which a supernumerary finger has 
 been amputated from a child's hand, which, in time, would be 
 
LIFE. 251 
 
 A. Man. 
 
 Q. 31. Then a human individual is a twofold being 
 an inner man and an outer man? 
 
 A. Revelation teaches this doctrine, and Substantial- 
 ism brings out its scientific beauty. 
 
 reproduced, with the nail and joints complete. Who can give 
 an explanation of these astonishing phenomena based on the 
 purely physical hypothesis of organic being? Why should not a 
 toe have been developed in the place of the child's finger, or an- 
 other tail in place of the salamander's amputated leg ? No phy- 
 sical view of organism can give the least information on this 
 problem, while I undertake to say that the view here maintained 
 of a vital substantial organism, co-existing within the corporeal 
 as its exact counterpart, is a solution at once conclusive, and as 
 simple as it is satisfactory. 
 
 According to this hypothesis, there is a vital, intangible, but 
 substantial salamander, in perfect form and outline, embraced 
 within the physical structure of that reptile. This invisible or- 
 ganism, so far as its vital characteristics are concerned, consists 
 of the pure substance of life itself, and by means of its correla- 
 tion in all its parts with the corresponding parts of the cor- 
 poreal body, thus constituting an exact organic homologue, all 
 the phenomena of growth, sensation, reproduction of parts, and 
 healing of wounds, must, as stated, necessarily result. To the 
 mental eye, the reproduction of the salamander's corporeal leg, 
 under the control and direction of the vital leg, is plainly visi- 
 ble. 
 
 Could we with our physical eyes see what really exists, 
 namely, the essential leg of that animal still connected with its 
 body, perfect in all its parts cuticle, joints, muscles, bones, 
 ligaments, nerves, veins and arteries after the physical leg is 
 amputated and destroyed, we would see at once how the cor- 
 poreal atoms from the body of the salamander through its cir- 
 culation are built out from the stump into a new leg, by fol- 
 lowing the exact but substantial outline of the vital structure; 
 and how they are thus deposited one by one, each atom in due 
 order, within the exact part to which it belongs, till the whole 
 leg, to the ends of its very toes, is perfected just as a honey- 
 bee builds up its wonderful cell by depositing atom by atom the 
 wax in its exact place to form the ideal geometrical outline. 
 
 Without such a vital and substantial leg really remaining 
 
252 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 32. Have animals also this dual organism? 
 
 A. Yes, animals and plants. Man possesses a higher 
 order of mentality as well as an outward organism supe- 
 rior to that of the animals. Kevelation teaches that 
 man, both as to his outer and inner self, is fearfully and 
 
 connected with this complete vital organism, there would be no 
 guide or outline for the atoms to follow; and it is utterly in- 
 conceivable as to how the form of the new leg is preserved by 
 unconscious laws of Nature, except by the direct intervention 
 of a creative mind. Physiologists are obliged, therefore, either to 
 accept my hypothesis as a scientific explanation of the phenomena 
 attending the reproduction of a limb or to have recourse to 
 miraculous intervention, since there is no other conceivable 
 solution. 
 
 The same is true of the healing of an ordinary wound. How- 
 ever deep may be a cut in the flesh, the vital or intangible flesh, 
 so to speak, remains uncut, and the work of healing is but the 
 deposition of organic molecules within this vital substance till 
 the wound is filled up. 
 
 There is not the least difference between the reproduction of 
 a part, the healing of a wound, and the development of the 
 embryonic being from the ovule. The vital and substantial 
 germ of the embryo must be present before any development 
 can commence. Professor Paget corroborates this when he 
 says: 
 
 ' ' The powers of development from the embryo are identical 
 with those exercised for the restoration from injuries." " Lec- 
 tures on Pathology," 1853, p. 152. 
 
 Yet, should you ask this great scientist by what means the or- 
 ganic atoms are guided to each particular part, even to the main- 
 tenance of their exact shades of color, in the restoration of a sala- 
 mander's leg, he would be utterly lost, and unable to enlighten 
 you since, in common with the entire profession, he has no 
 conception of this dual organic structure of each living creat- 
 ure, so absolutely essential to the solution of the problem. 
 
 The reproduction of a part when amputated must depend 
 upon the nature and density of the life-substance constituting 
 the vital organism of the part. But few animals, as observa- 
 tion proves, are able thus to reproduce a lost limb; and but few 
 children would possess 'that density of vital substance in the 
 hand which would be sufficiently compact to conduct the or- 
 
LIFE. f 253 
 
 wonderfully made. The human form, if not prostituted, 
 is in some sense the image of Deity. There is nothing 
 in creation that compares with the human face for God- 
 likeness and significance of expression. There is also a 
 beautiful and significant prophecy in man's upright post- 
 
 ganic atoms with that force necessary to restore an amputated 
 finger. Yet certain worms have such an intensified life-essence 
 the nais, for example that they can be cut into many pieces, 
 and each part retain sufficient life-substance to lead to the re- 
 production of the whole being. 
 
 This is explained on the same principle as that a given mass 
 of normal atmosphere may be subdivided into a dozen equal 
 parts and passed into as many different vacuums, each the size 
 of the original mass. It is plain that each vacuum would be 
 filled with air, though of but one-twelfth its normal density. 
 So a nais, if subdivided into a dozen sections, instead of its 
 dense vital organism being cut up into corresponding sections, 
 it would be subdivided by dilution or reduction of density, each 
 segment retaining the complete vital form and outline ot the 
 worm, though in a rarefied condition. Still, although thus 
 diluted, the vital form of this creature connected with each 
 section of its physical structure is sufficiently dense to form 
 the conducting medium of the corporeal atoms which are thus 
 guided along the line of the organism, each one taking its 
 place till the corporeal being is perfectly reproduced. No 
 physiologist, anatomist, or naturalist, I again insist, can pro- 
 pose even the shadow of an explanation of this overwhelming 
 problem based on the monistic view of organic forms of being 
 holding, as they all do, that there is nothing substantial but 
 the tangible in a living creature. 
 
 It is well known that no two persons are exactly alike as to 
 the facility with which a wound will heal. With some a scarless 
 cicatrice will form almost immediately, while with others a cut 
 with difficulty heals at all. This is generally attributed to the 
 purity or impurity of the blood. Though this may be a partial 
 cause of the difference, it is but a scintilla of the true reason. 
 When physiologists and pathologists shall come to fully com- 
 prehend the grand idea involved in the duality of man's or- 
 ganic nature, the science of medicine will have made a long 
 stride in advance of the present standard of scientific knowl- 
 edge. 
 
254 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 lire, by virtue of which he may ever have his eyes turned 
 upward toward the great Original. 
 
 Q. 33. Does man image his Maker merely by way of 
 reflection, as the shadow of an object is mirrored back 
 from a looking-glass? 
 
 I add but one other corroborative class of phenomena to con- 
 firm the truth of my hypothesis, on which so much depends, 
 that every living creature possesses a dual organism a sub- 
 stantial vital and physical structure. This class of phenomena 
 consists in the well-known fact that when a human arm or leg 
 is amputated the sufferer distinctly and for a long time after- 
 ward feels pains and itching sensations in the fingers or toes of 
 the lost limb. I had an abundant, though unpleasant, opportu- 
 nity to witness a demonstration of this fact in the case of my 
 own brother, who lost his leg by accident. For months after the 
 amputation he would complain of the terrible itching sensation 
 in his toes, and would even at times involuntarily attempt to place 
 his hand on the lost foot. Little did I think then (over forty 
 years ago)' that his actual foot was there to all intents and 
 purposes as much as before the corporeal flesh had disap- 
 peared ! 
 
 This experience is not confined to human sufferers. A dog 
 which had lost its leg has been frequently seen to attempt to 
 lick its absent foot, showing that the true source of all sensa- 
 tion is the vital and mental organism, and that upon this 
 foundation alone are based all the issues of life and all bio- 
 logical phenomena. The destruction of the flesh does not there- 
 fore necessarily put an end to the actual identity of the being, 
 the difference between the human and the lower forms of life 
 alone remaining to complete the solution of this beautiful and 
 interesting problem, which I will attempt to give prior to the 
 close of this chapter." The Problem of Human Life," p. 460. 
 
 A single case will beautifully illustrate the view of leading 
 physiologists on these questions of abnormal variations in chil- 
 dren, and the utter confusion resulting from a want of recogni- 
 tion of this inner organism, which I maintain constitutes the 
 essential nature of every living creature. Mr. Carpenter, per- 
 haps one of the greatest of physiological writers, makes the fol- 
 lowing statement: 
 
 " Numerous cases were recorded a few years since, in which 
 malformations in the infant appeared distinctly traceable to 
 
LIFE. 255 
 
 A. The image of God in man signifies more. It im- 
 plies that man,, though finite, has something in common 
 with Deity, and something of Deity in his personal con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Q. 34. But the animal also has something in common 
 with God it has life. 
 
 strong impressions made on the mind of the mother some months 
 previously to parturition.'' 1 " Human Physiology," p. 991. 
 
 While this author records the facts, he nevertheless expresses 
 himself as entirely unable to comprehend how it is possible for 
 such an impression to reach and deform the embryo, since there 
 is no system of nerves connecting the mother and the child, but 
 supposes it must be possible for it to be accomplished through 
 the circulation of the blood, though of even this he is in doubt! 
 
 Here, then, after recording these cases of monstrosity as hav- 
 ing taken place through the mental impression of the mother, 
 this great author at once ignores the mind itself as the connect- 
 ing cause takes not the slightest notice of the living, thinking 
 part of the mother, as a substantial entity, and the vastly more 
 important portion of her dual organism, which might link the 
 mother and child, but goes at once in search of some physical 
 system of umbilic nerves connecting them; and because he can- 
 not find such a system, he is thrown into bewildering con- 
 fusion, for which the circulation of the blood of the mother 
 affords but a poor relief, since how did this mental impression 
 fasten itself upon the blood ? Now, all this goes to show us the 
 inexplicable mystery in which physiological phenomena are 
 involved, in the minds of the greatest authors, by a non-recogni- 
 tion of the sublime fundamental truth I have been trying to 
 impress upon the reader. It demostrates the fact that the mind 
 itself and the vital incorporeal essence of the mother, which 
 pervade her entire struct ure as a super-material substance, the 
 same as incorporeal electricity might be supposed to pervade 
 her, are the true and only means by which the impression of 
 the monstrous, frightful object, though even seen at a distance, 
 was conveyed to the plastic form of the embryonic being. I 
 verily believe that until this great underlying truth shall be duly 
 comprehended and recognized, physiologists, with all their 
 laborious and histologic researches, even with the most power- 
 ful microscopes to aid them, will never penetrate even the 
 
256 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. So has the plant life. It is not the possession of 
 life but of that order of life involving progress, which 
 can rise to a consciousness of itself, and which is en- 
 dowed with immortality that raises man so high in the 
 scale of being. By virtue of these superior possessions 
 
 cuticle of science as regards the true causes of physiological 
 phenomena. 
 
 By this hitherto unrecognized principle and, as I believe, by 
 it alone that each living creature is formed of a dual substance 
 and organism, half corporeal and half incorporeal will all the 
 biological and physiological mysteries involved in the animal 
 economy be ultimately solved.- In the light of this elementary 
 truth we can see at once why no two children appear or can 
 appear alike, because it is utterly impossible for any mother to 
 pass during gestation through the same number, kind, and 
 intensity of mental shocks and vital perturbations. The law of 
 chances mathematically forbids it. Applying this principle to 
 the' lower animals (and I will prove positively after a little that 
 they are controlled by the same law), it becomes at once plain 
 why no two sheep, out of the almost countless millions now on 
 earth, are alike, and why in a thousand million births no two 
 lambs could look alike, even if the ewes were fed on exactly 
 the same kind of food and subjected as nearly as possible to the 
 same environments, since the same vital and mental impressions 
 could not be experienced by any two mothers in all respects 
 alike; though the nearer the mental and vital shocks or per- 
 turbations could come to nil the nearer any particular lamb 
 would be an exact cross, partaking equally the resemblance of 
 father and mother, while lambs so produced from the same 
 parents from year to year, with the least possible mental and 
 vital perturbations, would no doubt in time come the nearest to 
 perfect resemblance of each other possible to attain in Nature. 
 
 How clearly this is illustrated by the well-known fact that 
 human twins look so much more alike than children of separate 
 births, even by the same parents. They have, as a matter of 
 course, during gestation, received alike the good as \vell as the 
 ill effects of the same mental perturbations and vital shocks of 
 the motherland precisely at the same times, which have tended 
 in some cases to produce such perfect resemblance between them 
 as almost to make them indistinguishable. It is, perhaps, safe 
 to venture the belief, that, but for the differently transmitted 
 
LIFE. 257 
 
 man is constitutionally further from the brute than he is 
 from God. 
 
 Q. 35. But are not the brutes immortal? If not, why 
 not? 
 
 A. Though they received their life from the primor- 
 dial source of all life, it \vas given to them for a differ- 
 ent purpose. They were not formed for immortality. 
 They could make no use of it. It would be no bless- 
 
 impressions from the father upon, the two life-germs, which, as 
 I have before assumed, must control the developing embryo, 
 twins would be absolutely and in all cases so much alike as to 
 be indistinguishable. 
 
 That the mental impression of the mother does actually fasten 
 upon the child throilgh her incorporeal vital organism, whether 
 such impression be in the form of a sudden shock or of a lasting 
 memory, is proved by the well- authenticated fact that many 
 times children by a second husband resemble the first much 
 more nearly than they do their real father, alone through the 
 vivid memory of the mother and her appreciation of the long 
 dead but cherished first love. Mr. Darwin admits this, but act- 
 ually insists, from his purely corporeal ideas of organic beings, 
 that this fact results from the physical impression left upon the 
 mother's organization by the first husband, which will be ut- 
 terly exploded when I come to apply these facts directly to the 
 hypothesis for which I am now preparing, though the fact is 
 equally well authenticated that many a mother, through the 
 cherished memory of an early love, and who died before mar- 
 riage, has given to her future children the likeness of the lost 
 one, with whom she sustained only mental relationship. 
 
 No one who has given attention to this subject doubts but 
 that children are frequently marked and even deformed by the 
 longing desire of the mother for some particular object which 
 deeply impressed her thoughts. I could give a list, of more than 
 a score of such marks, which have fallen under my own obser- 
 vation, where well defined pictures of fruits, fishes, and other 
 objects, have been imprinted upon various parts of the bodies of 
 children, recognized by the mothers, and the very times and cir- 
 cumstances recollected which produced them. "Problem of 
 Human Life," pp. 466-8. 
 
258 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ing to them. They are not wronged in being deprived 
 of it.* 
 
 Q. 36. Does the highest conception of man's being 
 consist and culminate in immortality? 
 
 A. It does not. Man's true dignity is in his person- 
 ality bis true destiny involves immortality. Man is 
 immortal because he is a person, and he can have a 
 blessed immortality only as he is in a blessed normal re- 
 lation to God, who is the ground and giver of his person- 
 ality. 
 
 Q. 37. What then is the difference between an in- 
 dividual and a person 9 
 
 A. An individual is an organic being whose continued 
 
 * And here, accidentally, we again come back to the starting 
 point the real, intrinsic, and essential difference between man 
 and the lower animals. Here it is, in a condensed form. While 
 the lower animals receive at birth their speciiic stores of knowl- 
 edge suited to their environment (without the capacity of teach- 
 ing or being taught, except to a very limited specific extent), 
 thus adapting them exclusively to this single state of existence, 
 the human being receives no knowledge at birth not a single 
 idea of inherited intelligence but, as before observed, an un- 
 limited blank capacity for being taught, having an interior or- 
 ganism capable of being cultivated and expanded to eternity. 
 This alone constitutes a wall as broad as the earth and as high 
 as the heavens between the man and the brute. 
 
 But, as a necessary psychological corollary and scientific out- 
 growth of this sublime demarkation, lower animals cannot have 
 the slightest conception of a future life, since their vital and 
 mental organisms, as well as their specific stores of inherited 
 knowledge, are only suited to and limited within a temporary 
 existence. Hence, a future life of conscious activity, being un- 
 anticipated, undesired, and wholly unconceived of, by lower 
 species, would be of not the least advantage even to the most 
 cultivated orang-outang, and would be unappreciated by such 
 creatures even if they had it, since it would be but an eternal 
 sameness without the eternal advances in culture necessary to 
 make it otherwise, of which their very organic natures are 
 wholly insusceptible. 
 
LIFE. 259 
 
 existence as such depends upon the continued union of 
 all its parts by virtue of a common and all-pervading 
 life-force. The individual cannot be totally divided or 
 separated into many parts without the destruction of its 
 organic integrity it is an un-di-vide-u-al: 
 
 A person is also an undivideual with a common life- 
 pervading bond of union, but " one that is awake in itself, 
 that has found and laid hold of itself. That which is 
 wanting in individuality to make it personality, is a soul 
 capable of thinking and willing."* 
 
 Q. 38. The young infant has no soul capable of think- 
 ing and willing: is it therefore not a person? 
 
 * " Rauch's Psychology, p. 175. 
 
 The greatest and most important difference between man and 
 the lower animal, even including the higher apes that differ- 
 ence which may be properly called the distinguishing character- 
 istic consists in the fact that no animal below man has or can 
 have a conception of life ater death, from the very nature of 
 their instinctive knowledge and the manner of its reception. 
 Whatever other differences may exist, and they are numberless 
 and startling, this is incomparably the most intrinsic and uni- 
 versal. 
 
 All this limitation to earthly objects, however, is exactly the 
 reverse with man. With his unlimited blank capacity at birth 
 for receiving instruction, he immediately acquires with his or- 
 dinary and rudimental intelligence, even if not specially taught 
 it, a conception of living on forever; and not only such a con- 
 ception of a future existence, but a desire for and appreciation 
 of such an endless opportunity of acquiring knowledge. There 
 is no reasonable or scientific ground for supposing that a long- 
 ing anticipation of and a universal aspiration for a life beyond 
 death could have been thus made an indestructible part of man's 
 mental organism were there no such a possibility as a future life 
 in the divine economy of the universe. This blank capacity for 
 unlimited cultivation and eternal advancement in knowledge 
 becomes the guarantee of man's immortality while the lower 
 animal, having no such a capacity as a title-deed to a future life, 
 gives back at death the mental and vital drop of its essential 
 
260 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. The above interrogative proposition is too broad 
 for unqualified truth. An infant has a soul capable of 
 development to tht thinking and willing stage of its ex- 
 istence. It is therefore a person in passivity a man in 
 search of himself. 
 
 Q. 39. Is an insane individual, or a maniac, a person 
 after he has lost his ability to think clealy and will de- 
 liberately? 
 
 A. He is still a person. The Substantial Philosophy 
 holds and teaches that the mind is a substance. To de- 
 range the faculties or activities of an organized substance 
 does not destroy sucli substance; neither does such de- 
 rangement of faculties destroy the integrity of the organ- 
 entity, which, instead of being annihilated or in any sense lost 
 or blotted out, exists forever not as an identity of being, but 
 falls back and is reabsorbed into the great and infinite fountain 
 of life and intelligence from which it originally came as a spark 
 of being the same as a drop of water which rises from the sea 
 in the form of vapory mist, and after being carried by clouds to 
 distant lands and caused to descend in rain to water the soil, 
 serving thereby its temporary use, percolates to the river, 
 through whose channel it at last finds its way back to the orig- 
 inal fountain whence it came, where, by liquidation, it forever 
 loses its identity in the bosom of the mother ocean, without an 
 atom of its substance being annihilated. 
 
 Even the infant, at birth, or before it has a conscious thought, 
 is thus the heir by title-deed to immortal life, though its actual 
 knowledge is not the millionth part that of the pig or puppy of 
 the same age. It starts, thus, a blank as to intelligence; but, 
 having the infinite endorsement of its father and mother, which 
 involves the undeveloped capability of analyzing the stars and 
 weighing the planets, it holds wrapped up in its vital and men- 
 tal organism the ego of an indestructible personal identity; and 
 should it thus die untaught, and even unconscious of its own 
 being, its magnet charta of selfhood will be its passport to the 
 primary college of the angels, and thence to. the university over 
 whose entrance is written in letters of life The Garden of Eter- 
 nal Progress. " Problem," p. 471. 
 
LIFE. 26J 
 
 ism in which they hold their being, and of which they 
 are faculties. If the mind were but the motion -or 
 phenomena of something else, mental disease would be 
 impossible, because as a mere motion the mind could not 
 got sick, r, if sick, it would not be curable, since mere 
 phenomena cannot be medicated. It follows, therefore, 
 that the insane person is a person still. The maniac is a 
 person with a deranged will. An imbecile is a person 
 with all faculties out of harmony or in a state of suspen- 
 sion, just as an infant is a person with its faculties not 
 yet developed. A crazy man is a person who lias lost 
 himself. An infant is a person who has not yet found it- 
 self. These views can be consistently held and logically 
 developed only in the light of the Substantial Philoso- 
 phy. According to any other system of psychology there 
 is nothing to lose nor find but motion, and motion has 
 no more existence than space. Any psychology which 
 denies the substantiality and proper entity of the soul is 
 the most sublimated idiocy in the sphere of mental 
 science. Its only good fortune lies in the fact that 
 idiots never get crazy. 
 
 Q. 40. Have individuality and personality the same 
 source? 
 
 A. In common with all other finite forms of being, 
 individuals and persons have the same origin; yet per- 
 sonality is derived from God in such a way and for such 
 a purpose as to bring with it the inherent impress of its 
 great personal original. 
 
 Q. 41. Are faculties predicable of the soul or mind? 
 
 A. Faculties, like immorality, belong to the person, 
 rather than to any one side of his being; and yet there is 
 no impropriety in speaking of mental faculties. 
 
 Q. 42. What are these faculties? 
 
 A. Among them maybe named memory that faculty 
 or activity of the person by which he looks to past ex- 
 
262 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 pericnce or observation; imagination that faculty by 
 which the person turns to the future or to the mystic 
 realm of fancy; and as the substantial person unfolds his 
 character, he exercises himself in the higher activities of 
 his being, such as reason and will. 
 
 Q. 43. Are these faculties so many substantial enti- 
 ties? 
 
 A. They are not. - There is but one entitative life- 
 principle in each person. This remains the same and in- 
 divisible whether the person remembers, imagines, thinks 
 or wills. 
 
 Q. 44. Then loving, thinking and willing are not sub- 
 stantial entities? 
 
 A. They are modes of personal motion or activity, and 
 differ according to the peculiarity of the impulse prompt- 
 ing it, the degree in which the personal life-force is 
 exerted and the object toward which the movement is 
 made. 
 
 Q. 45. What is the highest faculty predicable of man's 
 personality? 
 
 A. Will. Choice is the highest exercise or activity 
 of which a rational being is capable. It is in virtue of 
 this capability that man may rise high in the ethical 
 sphere of being, choose the good, and thus determine his 
 own happiness and glory forever. 
 
 Q. 46. Does not such will-power imply and include 
 the possibility of choosing the evil, and also of suffering 
 the consequences of an unwise choice? 
 
 A. It does indeed; and the philosopher, as well as the 
 philanthropist, regrets the fact that such possibility has 
 been actualized in the form of sin and death, as sho ^n in 
 the next chapter. 
 
CHAPTEK XII. 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is death? 
 
 ANSWER. This undefinable negation flits constantly 
 across the path of life, all robed in sombrous garments of 
 impenetrable mystery. 
 
 Q. 2. May not science approximate an exhaustive defi- 
 nition of the term? 
 
 A. Some definitions may be given by fragments, and 
 yet when all the fragments are put together they do not 
 constitute a satisfactory whole. 
 
 Q. 3. What is the latest definition of death as given 
 by science? 
 
 A. " A falling out of correspondence with environ- 
 ments." 
 
 Q. 4. Is this definition of Herbert Spencer satisfactory 
 to those who seek and see the truth in the light of the 
 Substantial Philosophy? 
 
 A. It is not reasonable to suppose that it can be, 
 since it proceeds from a materialistic conception of life.* 
 
 Q. 5. What definition does Substantialism give of 
 death? 
 
 A. If, as already seen, life is the highest form of 
 force in the universe, death must be defined in such 
 terms as to represent it in some way antithetic thereto. 
 
 * See different definition of life, Chap. XI. 
 
264 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The withdrawal of life force for want of favorable condi- 
 tions, or for want of ability to remain in any given sub- 
 stance, leaves such substance under the negative power 
 of death. The withdrawal of life results in death. 
 
 Q. 6. Is death an entity? 
 
 A. A death agent may have positive contents of being, 
 but death itself is a nonentity a weakness an empty 
 negation a solemn silence. 
 
 Q. 7. Is death a process? 
 
 A. In the present order of things it is the indispensa- 
 ble accompaniment and negative counterpart of a posi- 
 tive life-process. Decomposition and recomposition com- 
 plement each other in filling up the measure of the 
 world's history. 
 
 Q. 8. In death, what dies? 
 
 A. Nothing really entitative and substantive can die. 
 Combinations cease; relations change; heterogeneous sub- 
 stances dissolve. That which did not come from noth- 
 ing can never go to nothing. In the sense of annihila- 
 tion it cannot die. 
 
 Q. 9. Then death is mere dissolution or separation. 
 
 A. We may go far and fare worse in search of a better 
 definition. 
 
 Q. 10. Does this definition apply to all the depart- 
 ments of finite being? 
 
 A. Under certain modifications it does. In the chem- 
 ical domain dissolution is decomposition; in physical 
 forces it is dissipation; in the realm of biology it is disor- 
 ganization. 
 
 Q. 11. If, then, nothing is destroyed by death, how 
 are the substantive elements affected? 
 
 A. They are relegated to the immediate source of 
 their respective beings matter to matter, force to force, 
 spirit to God. 
 
 Q. 12. Is death always the simple result of the ex- 
 
DEATH. 265 
 
 pending of the force at work in any given individual or 
 order of being? 
 
 A. This is the ordinary or usual occasion of what we 
 denominate death. 
 
 Q. 13. Then death is the mere absence of life? 
 
 A. When an accomplished fact, it is usually the result 
 of life's mission having been finished, and its consequent 
 departure from that particular field of its operations. 
 
 Q. 14. But may not foreign, adventitious forces invade 
 any one of the several departments of being, and hurry 
 forward the process of dissolution? 
 
 A. The history of the world is a boundless volume of 
 testimony establishing the affirmative of the foregoing 
 question. 
 
 Q. 15. Then such foreign power of dissolution is not 
 confined to the chemical domain, and its work to the de- 
 composition of compound matter? 
 
 A. It is not. Death not only ' ( reigned from Adam, 
 to Moses," but with limited sway it still continues to in- 
 vade and reign in ail orders of being from atoms of mat- 
 ter to some of the angels which once excelled in finite 
 force. It enters as a dissolvent and puts asunder all 
 heterogeneous masses of material substance. It invades 
 the realm of physics and takes advantage of the resolv- 
 ability of forces to disperse them abroad, or to transform 
 them into their correlatives. It enters all finite orders of 
 organic being, and, when not met and driven out by 
 some superior indwelling force, refuses to leave until, in 
 its exit, it hangs its crape upon the door. Salt waters 
 from the ocean overflow the living productions of the 
 land; and forces from the continents destroy all that is 
 destructible in the denizens of the seas. Minerals may 
 poison plants and shorten the lives of animals. The 
 vegetable may send agents of death to the animal, and 
 the animal kingdom may delegate a worm to gnaw the 
 vitals out of many a Jonah's gourd. 
 
266 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 16. Is the rational order of being also subject to 
 such foreign invasion? 
 
 A. It is no exception to the general rule under which 
 the whole creation groweth and traveleth together in 
 pains and possibilities of premature dissolution. 
 
 Q. 17. Has the human kingdom been subject to such 
 foreign assault and violence? 
 
 A. Like all the orders of being beneath it, the king- 
 dom of humanity was and is exposed to invasion from 
 abroad. 
 
 Q. 18. Did such foreign invasion occur? 
 
 A. It did. 
 
 Q. 19. What foreign force has invaded the kingdom 
 of humanity? 
 
 A. Sin." 
 
 Q. 20. Is sin entirely foreign to humanity? 
 
 A. The instigation to sin was foreign. The possibility 
 was inherent. 
 
 Q. 21. Did not the possibility of sinning imply an im- 
 perfection in the primeval state of man, and reflect a 
 shadow of doubt as to the perfection of the Creator? 
 
 A. Not at all. Without such possibility man would 
 have been imperfect. 
 
 Q. 22. Was sin, then, a necessity in order to rational 
 or human perfection? 
 
 A. The possibility of sin was a necessity. 
 
 Q. 23. Could such inward possibility have been actu- 
 alized without the outward instigation? 
 
 A.' No more than the static force-elements of nature 
 could be developed without the presence of required con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Q. 24. Was sin, then, statically present in the prime- 
 val man? 
 
 A. The possibility of sinning was really present. 
 
DEATH. 26? 
 
 Q. 25. Then human ability to sin was essential to 
 human dignity and happiness? 
 
 A. Yes; man's ability to sin was essential to perfec- 
 tion in his primitive state; and his power to use that 
 ability absolutely necessary to the attainment of his 
 ultimate state of sinlessness in glory. 
 
 Q. 26. Is sin, then, the cause of death? 
 
 A. It is not the cause of human transition to a 
 higher state, but of all the sorrows and miseries which 
 now accompany the transition, from the present section 
 of human existence. It is not because this world is a 
 bad and dangerous place, but because it was designed to 
 be preparatory of a better state of existence that no good 
 people get out of it alive. 
 
 Q. 27. Is sin the cause of death to the lower orders 
 of being? 
 
 A. A great deal of dogmatic theology has advocated 
 the affirmative side of the foregoing question, but the 
 very rocks cry out in rebuke of such an unscientific as- 
 sumption, while the geological records of numerous ages 
 give unimpeachable testimony to the contrary.* 
 
 * The animal, while it lives, conserves to itself and appro- 
 priates continuously the forces of Nature with which it is in 
 contact. Its life principal has an endowment making it thus 
 capable. It appropriates the forces of light, heat, electricity 
 the nutriment of food, drink, air the affinities of the elements 
 the laws of mechanics. All these appropriations go on and 
 result in growth, strength, activity and the perfection of a liv- 
 ing being. In all this time the life-forces have been building 
 up; just like the growing tree that made fuel for the engine. 
 But now the animal has reached its perfection it has enjoyed 
 buoyant life and has secured a succession of its species, and 
 thence it gradually declines. In growth the life -forces con- 
 trolled the simple chemical forces of Nature, and. thus appro- 
 priated and built up. But now the chemical forces gradually 
 gain upon the vital, and the animal goes down naturally, but 
 orderly. There is harmony still in Nature the animal yields up 
 
268 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 28. But did not sin bring death to man? 
 
 A. Yes, in so far as it affected his moral nature, and 
 disturbed the normal development of his whole being, 
 but especially in its accomplishment of the moral separa- 
 tion between man and his Maker. Actualized sin was 
 an incipient dissolution of the original compact written 
 in the very constitution of rational being moral separa- 
 tion an abnormal condition of the highest side of man's 
 nature, and, as a consequence, affecting the totality of 
 his being. 
 
 Q. 29. Would man, then, 'have died, if the possibility 
 of sin had not been thus actualized? 
 
 its forces " conserves" them to the grand economy. Just as 
 this animal had appropriated in its growing stage so it now, as 
 naturally, yields after its maturity. 
 
 Physical death of all animals is a necessity, and a natural 
 phase of the grand physical economy. And man, in obeying its 
 laws of change and conservation of forces, as he passes them 
 over after using them, is only playing his part in the grand 
 drama. His superadded moral nature, indeed, brings in a new 
 element, but this is only co-ordinate; and although it occasions 
 some very notable circumstances that attend his physical experi- 
 ences, especially that of death, yet it is no factor of the essential 
 formula. 
 
 In our moral consciousness and religious sense, physical death 
 is an event of much import; and the mistaken conceptions of 
 the olden times, that have formulated the theory of a reciprocal 
 constitution of our dual being, which ignores specific laws, 
 have given death a penal character of moral elements only; and 
 have thus made this inevitable phase of our corporeal being a 
 most melancholy experience. The order of Nature is by no 
 means chargeable with those melancholy reflections. And it 
 will be infinitely to our moral advantage to have correct views 
 of all the laws of our twofold being. Let all the consequences 
 of sin or moral delinquency be precipitated, in our formularies 
 of ethics, into the moral domain; and let moral death, which is 
 an unnatural estate, appear in all its horribleness, so that sin 
 may become more hideous. What a rich inheritance would 
 thus be secured to theology! and what gl jry to the achievements 
 of virtue. Rev. J. Kost, LL. D., in " Repertory," 1879. 
 
DEATH. 260 
 
 A. He would have made the transition to a higher 
 state without death in the form of such terrible catastro- 
 phe in nature. 
 
 Q. 30. Then death does not necessarily belong to the 
 constitution of Nature? 
 
 A. Death is a physical necessity in the lower orders 
 of being, but man's constitutional dignity and attainable 
 destiny involved only the necessity of transition. 
 
 Q. 31. Is sin, then, the perversion of something essen- 
 tial to humanity, or is it the presence therein of a hostile 
 foreign force not essential thereto? 
 
 A. Sin is a perversion of the life force in humanity, 
 rather than an invasion of anything like a death force 
 from without, and yet such perversion could not have 
 taken place without the presence and possibility of in- 
 vasion by such foreign power as a condition necessary to 
 such actualization. 
 
 Q. 32. Is sin then a force in our nature, or only the 
 motion or effe ct of a force? 
 
 A. Sin is the perverted life force of humanity and 
 therefore a force abnormally active in human nature. 
 
 Q. 33. Then sin is predicable of humanity in its 
 present abnormal condition without any reference to 
 deeds of actual sinning? 
 
 A. Precisely and emphatically so; and yet sin is no 
 essential part of humanity. 
 
 Q. 34. Is the infant a sinner? 
 
 A. No human individual is a sinner until after he has 
 individually and personally and purposely committed 
 some overt act of trangression. 
 
 Q. 35. Is sin then a static force in infants? 
 
 A. It is just as really the perverted life force of 
 humanity in a latent condition in every human indi- 
 vidual as heat, sound and electricity all the physical 
 forces in fact are statically present in matter. 
 
270 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 36. Then sin belongs to humanity as at present 
 constituted? 
 
 A. Sin is in humanity as at present abnormally con- 
 stituted. 
 
 Q. 37. Does sin taint and affect every member of the 
 human race? 
 
 A. Humanity is not a mere aggregation of particular 
 things or number of human beings, but an organism 
 which includes all the members and gives them charac- 
 ter, or whatever is peculiar thereto. If sin has in any- 
 way tainted and affected the general organism of human- 
 ity, nothing but the shrewdness of unscientific sophistry 
 can avoid the logical conclusion that every member of 
 the organism is tainted and affected in the same general 
 way. 
 
 Q. 38. Is humanity then totally depraved? 
 
 A. In a qualified sense, man is totally depraved. 
 
 Q. 39. How should the term "total depravity" be 
 qualified ? 
 
 A. So as to express merely its coextensiveness with 
 human nature in its present abnormal condition. 
 
 Q. 40. Then man, by the actualization of his possi- 
 bility to sin, did not cease to be human? 
 
 A. Man by sinning became neither a brute nor a 
 devil as to the essence of his being. The substance of 
 his nature has neither been destroyed nor transformed 
 into something else. He is human still though de- 
 faced and deformed, he retains the Divine image. For 
 this reason his Maker loves him still. 
 
 Q. 41. If man is still human, and in a qualified sense 
 still retains the Divine image, why does he die what 
 had sin to do with the bringing of death into the world? 
 
 A. As already seen, it had nothing to do with bring- 
 ing death to the vegetable and animal kingdoms death 
 was an ordained physical necessity for them. 
 
271 
 
 Q. 42. But how does sin stand related to the perplex- 
 ing problem of death in the higher or rational order of 
 being? 
 
 A. It is here and in this sense that by sin came death. 
 This is what theologians call "spiritual death.*' 
 
 Q. 43. What has science to do with theology and the 
 question of spiritual death? 
 
 A. Until recently it has had too little to do with the 
 great problems involved therein, just as theologians have 
 had too little to do in an earnest way with true science, 
 and it will be better for theology when it becomes less 
 dogmatic and more consistently scientific in the work 
 which the Author of a twofold revelation has given to 
 the scientific theologian and the Christian scientist to do.* 
 
 Q. 44. What, then, is spiritual death, scientifically 
 considered ? 
 
 A. It is the moral sundering from its Maker, or 
 Fountain of its existence, of a being with a rational or 
 spiritual entity in its constitution. A falling out of cor- 
 respondence or communion with its substantial Source. 
 
 Q. 45. And sin is the cause of this sundering? 
 
 A. Sin is not the mere cause, but the very essence of 
 spiritual death in the realm of spirit. Sin is static death 
 in the abnormal state of the spirit, and death is sin in the 
 process of development. 
 
 Q. 46. How far may the process of such development 
 be carried before sin expends its force? 
 
 * The true ministry of Nature must at last be honored, and 
 science take its place as the great expositor. With the inspira- 
 tion of Nature to illumine what the inspiration of Revelation 
 has left obscure, heresy in certain whole departments shall be- 
 come impossible. With the demonstration of the naturalness of 
 the supernatural, skepticism even may come to be regarded 
 as unscientific. Drumraond, "Natural Law in the Spiritual 
 World," pp. 32, 33. 
 
272 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 A. For the same reason that gravital force will act 
 upon matter as long as matter exists, and wherever mat- 
 ter is found, the force of sin will continue to act upon 
 abnormal human nature as long as human nature con- 
 tinues in an abnormal state, and wherever human nature 
 in such abnormity is found, unless 
 
 Q. 47. Unless what? 
 
 A. Unless sin as a force be met by an antidote or 
 counterforce corresponding with the nature and com- 
 mensurate with the degree of the force to be eliminated. 
 
 Q. 48. What has science to do with spiritual anti- 
 dotes? 
 
 A. This question will be discussed in the next chap- 
 ter. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What is an antidote? 
 
 ANSWER. An antidote is an applied counterforce a 
 remedy that which neutralizes the evil or poisonous 
 power of something else at work in organic existence 
 that which eliminates another force from any particular 
 field of organic action, and relegates it to its fountain 
 source. 
 
 Q. 2. Are count eractant forces limited to the organic 
 world, or do they also belong to the domain of physics 
 and in the realm of inorganic chemistry? 
 
 A. No pent-up Utica contracts the comprehensive 
 domain of forces. When not static they are active or 
 counteractive throughout the boundless universe of God. 
 In the lower orders of being they are types of better 
 things above, and prophecies of higher things -to come. 
 The science of chemistry reveals nothing more clearly 
 than the fact that either matter or its properties, or the so- 
 called new properties of its many possible combinations, 
 or the forces resident therein, are continually neutraliz- 
 ing each other. For this reason the art of medication is 
 largely the practical science of applied chemistry. Acids 
 or sour corrosive substances are neutralized by alkalies. 
 So also are narcotics neutralized /. e., their forces are 
 subject to elimination or transference by the application 
 thereto of a counterforce resident in belladonna or some 
 other anti-narcotic agency of nature which has the power 
 
274 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 to act or counteract as a superior energy. The same is 
 true in the domain of physics, where forces deal with 
 each other and with homogeneous matter, without refer- 
 ence to its many possible compounds, as is the case in 
 chemistry. While all the forces are one in their common 
 primordial essence, they are multiform in distinct mis- 
 sions and manifestations of being, and each one has the 
 property of transference or is subject to neutralization 
 when in the presence of a superior force or a force acting 
 under more favorable conditions of retention. For ex- 
 ample, as seen in Chapter IV., heat neutralizes cohesion; 
 and again, in Chapter V., magnetism neutralizes gravity, 
 and lifts up that which, according to the workings of 
 gravital force, would tend downward. So, in the higher 
 sphere of morals or spirit, that which tends downward 
 under an abnormal force may be arrested and reversed in 
 its course by the application of a moral or spiritual 
 counterforce, which, neutralizing the abnormal force 
 that pulls the moral entity downward, lifts its object up, 
 and reinstates it upon its original plane and in the proper 
 iind normal sphere of its being. 
 
 Q. 3. Is it to be understood, therefore, that in the 
 sphere of chemistry or in physics or elsewhere matter can 
 i. jutralize matter or serve as a counteractant thereof?* 
 
 * One of the greatest mistakes that the world has ever made 
 i.-i its constant and fruitless effort in some form to propagate 
 ] iiilanthropy at the point of the bayonet. And the Church, 
 v ith too much of the world-spirit and world-tactics, as well as 
 too much of the world's false philosophy, is constantly commit- 
 ting the egregious blunder of substituting material for force and 
 culc.il ting quantity for quality. There is great zeal for God, 
 l:ut not according to that knowledge which sees the most essen- 
 tial entities of Christianity in their true and immaterial charac- 
 ter, nnil uses them in accordance with the purposes of their or- 
 din.'ition. The Church has, indeed, "tasted of the heavenly 
 $ i't. and of the powers of the world to come," but its ruling 
 philosophy seems to be largely unconscious of the real and true 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 275 
 
 A. Not at all. Matter, having the negative property 
 of inertia and being but a passive substance, has no power 
 over itself, much less can one portion of matter have 
 power over some other portion thereof, either to transfer 
 or change any of its properties. It is, for example, the 
 alkaline force resident in certain kinds of material which 
 counteracts or neutralizes the force resident in acidifer- 
 ous matter. When any one of these chemical forces is 
 present in a living organism in such quantity or under 
 such conditions as to threaten such organism with disor- 
 ganization or death, and the other force is applied as a 
 counteractant, the latter may be called an antidote. 
 
 Q. 4. Is sin then a disease that calls for a remedy in 
 the form of an antidote in order that death, its more 
 fully developed form, may be averted, and the patient ul- 
 timately restored to spiritual health? 
 
 A. Sin is that abnormal force in humanity which 
 throws the spiritual side or quantity of human nature- 
 and in a certain consequential sense the entire being of 
 its human subject into a diseased condition. The great- 
 est Philosopher that ever blessed the world with a revela- 
 tion of truth upon this subject declared the medical 
 character of his mission among men by announcing the im- 
 plied and tremendous fact which underlies his own self- 
 evident proposition: " They that be whole need not a 
 physician, but they that are sick." 
 
 Q. 5. Is humanity then really sick unto death? 
 
 A. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 
 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no 
 soundness in it. And it will be well for the ^science of 
 
 counteractant force which Heaven has placed in its organism 
 and at its command, and through which alone it can hope to 
 roll back the popular tide of iniquity and spiritual wickedness 
 in high places by neutralizing those immaterial " principalities 
 and pow r ers " which have a deeper and darker origin than mere 
 "flesh and blood/' 
 
276 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 biology, as applied to the human nice in the full solution 
 of the intricate problem of human life, when it once rec- 
 ognizes the organically diseased condition of abnormal 
 humanity as a fact taught by Revelation and a truth con- 
 firmed by all the moans and groans of abnormal human 
 history. 
 
 Q. 6. What then is the antidote, and how may it be 
 administered or applied? 
 
 A. The above question may have its answer expressed 
 in the following formula: An organism once brought 
 under the indwelling power of incipient death can es- 
 cape ultimate disorganization or a condition of endless 
 abnormity, only as a higher and healthier order of life 
 reaches it at some point in the earlier stage of its de- 
 velopment, and by a vital contact and coalescence with 
 its disordered life eliminates therefrom the poison which 
 affects it, and thus rescues it from the dominion of 
 death. 
 
 Q. 7. Has such a higher life-force been introduced 
 into the diseased organism of humanity at any time in 
 its history or at any point in the process of its abnormal 
 development? 
 
 A. This question involves the vital point of all the- 
 ology worthy of the name, and calls for Gilead's most 
 substantial balm. As a soteriological question it crosses 
 the straight path of legitimate science and can no longer 
 be ignored as something outside of its proper province. 
 Substantialism emphasizes the fact that such a higher 
 life-force has been introduced into the organism of ab- 
 normal humanity, and calls for a proper interpretation of 
 the testimony of history to justify the claim. 
 
 If science is of God, it has as much right as religion to 
 appeal to history for the justification of its claims. The 
 pages of Scriptural History, even though they should be 
 regarded as nothing more than a historical record and 
 in such character they have at least as much claim upon 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 27? 
 
 our credence as the chapters of accredited profane his- 
 tory are good authority for the assertion that such a 
 higher order of force has entered the organism of abnormal 
 humanity. Furthermore, the correct reading and scien- 
 tific study of all subsequent history sacred and profane 
 as well as all human experience, so far as it has been 
 flavored with the fruit of the entrance of that higher life- 
 force into the race, have corroborated the statement of 
 the Biblical record. Thus the record which claims 
 inspiration and infallibility for itself; all sacred his- 
 tory subsequent thereto; and all legitimate experience, 
 join their concurrent testimony as to the truth of 
 the foregoing claim. Hence it follows most legiti- 
 mately and conclusively that all systems of philosophy 
 which fail to take this fundamental factor into their 
 future reckonings must remain unscientific and finally 
 perish from the earth to make room for something better. 
 
 Q. 8. But does not science transcend its own proper 
 limits when it attempts to study the deep things of God? 
 
 A. It does not. If a correct knowledge of the forces 
 and facts of Nature assists us in a more proper interpreta- 
 tion of the higher facts and forces of Christianity, it is 
 both our proper privilege and imperative duty as Chris- 
 tian scientists, to avail ourselves of all the help thus- 
 placed within our reach; especially so since Christianity 
 is the proper corrective, continuation and crowning com- 
 plement of Nature, rather than a disjointed section of 
 the universe out of all connection and correspondence 
 with the world's present order of things.* 
 
 * " It is not, of course, to be inferred that the scientific 
 method will ever abolish the radical distinctions of .the spiritual 
 world. True science proposes to itself no such general leveling 
 of any department. . . . Nature is not a mere image or emblem 
 of the spiritual. It is a working model of the spiritual. In the 
 spiritual world the same wheels revolve bat without the iron. 
 The same figures flit across the stage, the same processes of 
 
278 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 9. Was not the Incarnation of the Son of God, ac- 
 cording to the Scriptural account thereof, something 
 entirely above all that goes before it in the order of Nat- 
 uresomething supernatural and therefore entirely 
 above the proper sphere and range of reason? 
 
 A. True science does not admit that there is anything 
 in the universe supernatural, except in a relative sense. 
 God himself is natural in no sense above himself in 
 the realm of the infinite. The most orthodox confes- 
 sions call Christ "the natural Son of God/' All the 
 facts and forces of Revelation the kingdom of God are 
 natural in the sphere of Christianity. Whenever science 
 or religion begins to shirk from the line of its proper 
 mission by pleading the statute of limitation on the false 
 ground of alleged absolute snpernaturalness in any one of 
 the higher realms of being, it has either hampered itself 
 by a false philosophy, or lacks courage to go in where 
 God has made it possible and proper for his rational 
 creatures to enter with unsandaled feet. To rule the In- 
 carnation entirely 'out of the range of Christian science, 
 would be to deny the continuity of law from the lower 
 through the higher orders of being, and to impeach the 
 testimony of all the prophets in the sanctuary of Nature. 
 
 Q. 10. What prophecies are there in Nature proclaim- 
 ing the Incarnation an ordained necessity, and something 
 entirely in harmony with the world's twofold law of in- 
 volution and consequent evolution? 
 
 A. All Nature is prophetic of higher things to come. 
 The plant is supernatural to the mineral, though the 
 mineral be not conscious of the fact that there is such 
 vegetable order of existence entirely above it. There is 
 unconscious prophecy in the fact that the life-force of 
 the plant clothes or incarnates itself in the substance of 
 
 growth go on, the same functions are discharged, the same bio- 
 logical laws prevail only with a different quality of bios." 
 Drummond's " Natural Law in the Spiritual World," pp. 21-27. 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 279 
 
 the mineral kingdom. So, too, is the animal supernat- 
 ural to the plant, and what an adumbration of higher 
 things to come is the fact that the life-force of the 
 former lavs hold of all things subnascent or subnatural, 
 availing itself of the force of chemism in matter to 
 clothe itself upon with that which is beneath it. The 
 same is true of the human kingdom in its supernatural- 
 ness as related to all below. The life-force of the 
 rational lays hold of the lower orders and is C.vsi'r. <d !o 
 subdue all things unto the human. Man's life ii cjinu.tc'3 
 itself in the mineral, vegetable and animal sub. -tj-ncoS. 
 Are all these involutio-evolution processes to be 1 le-j; ;i d^-.l 
 as having reached their final culmination in m; ii's p-e.s- 
 ent order of being? No! The cold stones from bone. . li 
 and the glittering stars from above cry out against the 
 unreasonableness of such a supposition. Why, th n, 
 should science at this point get fut of breath and tl.r w 
 up its helpless hands in token of unconditional sum ri- 
 der- when confronted with the false plea of absolve 
 supernaturalness in the higher orders of the natural? 
 Man is supernatural to the ox, and yet tfee ox knowei h 
 his owner; of course not as man knoweth himself; neither 
 does true science claim to be able by searching to find 
 out God as the Infinite is known to himself: but in the 
 sense and to the extent that he has shown himself unto 
 man in Eevelation, of which the Incarnation is the cen- 
 tral fact, and before whose sacred significance true 
 science can never consent to shut the eyes of her admira- 
 tion, or seal her lips of legitimate inquiry. 
 
 Q. 11. But is not the Incarnation, as a new factor in 
 the world's organic history, something to be seized and 
 understood only by faith? 
 
 A. Faith is indispensable; yet what is faith, object- 
 ively considered, but a new organ* in humanity which 
 would not be possible therein without the advent of the 
 new order of life which the Incarnation brought into its 
 
280 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 organism. True science in its proper and comprehen- 
 sive sense includes faith that substantial faculty or 
 organ which recognizes the immaterial and otherwise in- 
 visible entities of being and factors of history as the most 
 real and dynamic forces of the universe. It is not a faith 
 which either contradicts or disregards the manifest teach- 
 ings of either Nature or Revelation. Standing in proper 
 relation to both it holds them in proper relation to each 
 other. It is this reasonable and reasoning faith which 
 enables the scientific student of Revelation and the Chris- 
 tian disciple of Nature to " understand that the worlds 
 were framed by the word of God," and also to understand 
 further that the world as it culminates in man was re- 
 deemed by the same incarnate Word. 
 
 Q. 12. But is it not irreverent for Science to attempt 
 an entrance where angels either fear or fail to enter? 
 
 A. Christian science*** is more likely to become de- 
 vout than otherwise at the manger cradle of Immanuel. 
 Besides, if Science, after it has availed itself of an attain- 
 able knowledge of all the knowable facts and forces which 
 the God of Nature and Revelation has placed at its ap- 
 propriation and command, does not attempt to pass the 
 court of the Gentiles and enter with reverential attitude 
 the holy place, it will prove itself a contemptible coward 
 before the eyes of angels, God and men.* 
 
 * The Incarnation is. indeed, above any thing which the human 
 mind has been called upon to philosophize about, but Christian 
 scientists do not for any such reason make the arbitrary separa- 
 tion between natural and supernatural for the convenient pur- 
 pose of placing one order of being under the range of human 
 knowledge and the other under the reign of mystery. Is the so- 
 called supernatural more absolutely unintelligible to the natural 
 than the human is to the animal, that man must stand with 
 mock modesty at the very threshold of the powers of the con 
 descending heavenly world while " all the trees of the field clap 
 their hands " at the coming and in the presence of the incarnate 
 majesty of their Maker? While Christian men bend worship- 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 281 
 
 Q. 13. But does not the foregoing view of the world's 
 organic unity of design and development imply that the 
 Incarnation was a constitutional necessity* in order to 
 the full rounding out of the one grand and comprehen- 
 sive purpose of Him who projected the universe from 
 his own substantial self that it might roll its one in- 
 creasing and unceasing tide of declarative glory back to 
 his substantial throne? 
 
 A. It is so implied. To start forward with the bare 
 idea that the Incarnation was designed primarily to 
 serve as God's opportunity in man's extremity is to 
 switch the whole central purpose of God from the 
 eternally-ordained and well-ballasted central track of his 
 providence upon an infralapsarian side track of casual 
 history, in order that Jehovah might, by such strategic 
 means, brought in by the promptings of a fortunate 
 after-thought, checkmate the preceding proceedings of 
 
 * That must ever be a false and mutilated view of the nature 
 and history of man, which rests not on a firm apprehension of 
 his true relationship to God. as this comes out ultimately in the 
 Constitution of the Messiah. That must ever be a false and 
 defective view of the nature of God, as related to the world, 
 which stops short of theanthropy, as the true and necessary 
 central sun that serves to irradiate and complete all other revela- 
 tions by which he is known. Dr. Nevin, in Mercersburg Review, 
 1851, p. 56. 
 
 fully before the Incarnate Mystery, Christian science recognizes 
 it as a mystery with many mysterious types and prophecies in 
 Nature. Wherever the higher order of life-force condescends to 
 clothe itself with the elements in the order next beneath, it is ac- 
 companied with a proclamation of the general law specifically 
 affirmed in the angelic enunciation to the Virgin: " The power 
 of the Highest shall overshadow thee." When the vegetable 
 takes up the mineral it is in virtue of the fact that " the power 
 of the higher overshadows" and inter-permeates the elements of 
 the lower order of being. 
 
282 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the devil,, and thus drive back the surging tidal waves of 
 the world's abnormity, sorrow and death.* 
 
 Q. 14. What would have been the course of the 
 world's history as regards the Incarnation, if humanity 
 had not been brought under the power of death by the 
 actualization of its possibility to sin? 
 
 * The only proper stand-point for both science and religion 
 is the christologic principle as enshrined in the theanthropic 
 person of Immanuel. From this common and commanding 
 point of view Jehovah may look down, and man may look up 
 with mutual admiration. No man hath seen God at any time, 
 except as the latter has become visible through the revelation of 
 himself in the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the 
 Father; and it is equally true that God hath seen no man at 
 any time, except as he has viewed Mm from the grand, central 
 observatory of the Incarnation. God can look upon his works 
 with complacency only as He sees them in their completeness. 
 Man without Christ would be as incomplete as Nature without 
 man. As man is the crown of Nature, Christ is the crown of 
 man. All sound christological thinking must come finally to 
 hold the Incarnation as essential to the actualization of that 
 eternal and supreme thought in the mind of Jehovah, which 
 finds its full expression in the fact and form of the Universe. 
 Under any other view, creation can be regarded as only the first 
 few spans of a bridge extending from a finite shore toward the 
 unknown and unknowable center of some infinite ocean until it 
 comes to the the jumping-off place. 
 
 Jesus Christ is not only the beginning and ending, but also 
 the center of God's creation; and a proper recognition of this 
 cardinal, christocentric fact is the beginning of all true investi- 
 gation into whatever is knowable of God, man, and Nature; 
 and nothing is truly known or knowable of either, except as 
 eaoh is searched and seen in proper relation to each other. To 
 this end was Emmanuel born, that he might bear witness to 
 the truth. His testimony was given, not in the way of affirming 
 the correctness of some abstract and theoretic statement, but by 
 manifesting himself as the personal embodiment of THE TRUTH, 
 and the key to the proper apprehension of all relative truths, 
 whether in religion or science. This, then, we repeat, is the 
 proper point of observation, especially for our unprecedented 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 283 
 
 A. The Messiah, as the " King Immortal," would 
 have taken his position of honor at the head of the race 
 by becoming bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh, and 
 thus lead his human subjects on their way to glory with- 
 out the necessity of an antidote for its disease and a 
 battle with its enemy. 
 
 age of devotional and intellectual activity. It should be chosen 
 for its commanding eminence, and occupied for its universal 
 centrality. From this point the Christian philosopher, making 
 use of all the helps afforded in Revelation and Nature, exercis- 
 ing the functions of both faith and reason, may sweep the en- 
 tire religio-scientific field of known and knowable truth, and 
 demonstrate to all the world that God's great handiwork is not 
 a mere stupendous pile of jumbled irrelativities, but the well- 
 designed expression of ONE eternal thought, in which and sub- 
 ordinate to which all other thoughts, as well as all expressions 
 thereof, are for each, and each for all, and all for Him who is 
 over all, God blessed for evermore. 
 
 The above advocacy of the one cardinal point in the religio- 
 scientific compass implies, of course, that the Incarnation be 
 accepted and held in its proper and permanent sense. The old 
 heresies of Gnosticism. Ebionism, Eutychianism, and Nestorian- 
 ism must be guarded against as ever seeking to repeat them- 
 selves in the onward march of the most earnest christological 
 inquiry. To be of any assistance in explaining the meaning of 
 Nature, in studying the dignity and destiny of man, in search- 
 ing to find out God, and, in short, to serve as the anthropological 
 key to the problem of the universe, the Incarnation must be 
 apprehended as a fact of concrete and substantial force in the 
 history of the world's life. The Son of God did not merely 
 inshrine Himself in a human soul, and encamp for a few years 
 in the body of a man, but assumed, for all eternity, the sub- 
 stance of humanity in its generic sense, so that he became the 
 second' Adam, the head of creation, " in whom are gathered 
 together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven 
 and which are on earth." The foregoing also presumes the 
 truth of a postulate not generally accepted by the most popular 
 theological thinking of the world, viz.: The Incarnation would 
 have become a reality in the history of the world, even if man 
 had not sinned. 
 
2$4 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 15. Then the actualization of the possibility of sin 
 made it necessary that the Messiah should also become 
 Redeemer and Sacrifice? 
 
 A. Just so;* and that the life-force which was 
 brought into humanity through the Incarnation should 
 neutralize the false force therein, eliminate the conse- 
 quent elements of disease, and counteract the workings 
 of its moral poison according to the working whereby the 
 Fountain of life was "able to subdue all things unto 
 Himself." 
 
 Q. 16. Then Christ possessed in his own person a 
 life-force which was and is the antidote of death? 
 
 A. This is the central tenet of " New Theology/' 
 known for nearly a half century as Mercersburg TJieology, 
 yet it can never be consistently held and advocated ex- 
 cept from the standpoint of The Substantial Philosophy, \ 
 
 * This is not offered to the intelligent reader as something 
 new. It has been affirmed by some of the profoundest thinkers 
 in the past, and has more recently received additional emphasis 
 from many of the most advanced theologians in Europe, and 
 especially in Germany, among whom may be mentioned Dr. J. 
 H. A. Ebrard, Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee, Bishop Martensen, Dr. 
 Liebner, and Dr. J. A. Dorner. Neither would we have the im- 
 pression go abroad that we are entirely ignorant of the difficulties 
 which confront this theory in the questionable light of some of 
 our present prevailing exegesis. The Holy Scriptures are gen- 
 erally approached and interpreted from either the harmortolog- 
 ical or sorteriological standpoint, rather than from the proper 
 theanthropological point of view. This, we think, is a mistake. 
 The entrance of sin into the world laid upon Immanuel only the 
 additional necessity of humiliation, sorrow, and pain; or, in the 
 language of Dr. Liebner: " Sin served only to bring in this modi- 
 fication, which, indeed,- reaches far and deep, that now Christ 
 appears also as a Redeemer and Sacrifice." Creation, not the 
 perversion thereof, drew after it the complementive act and fact 
 of the Incarnation. 
 
 f Substantialism, as applied to Christianity, aims to bring out 
 a deeper meaning of the atonement than that which usually 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 285 
 
 as founded by Dr. Hall, and partially formulated in the 
 volume of this book. 
 
 Q. 17. What then is the primary idea of the atone- 
 ment? 
 
 A. The restoration of man to himself to a normal 
 condition of his being to purity, freedom, health, and 
 consequently to God, rather than the reverse order, as 
 held in the old Anselmic theory of reconciling God to 
 men, as though the mission of theology was principally 
 to try to help God out of trouble and make him consist- 
 ent with himself, instead of showing, in the light of 
 Revelation and science, how God is helping man out of 
 trouble. 
 
 Q. 18. Is there, then, anything in The Substantial 
 Philosophy not in harmony with the Scriptural represen- 
 tation of the Atonement? 
 
 A. Indeed, there is not. On the contrary, it is in 
 beautiful harmony therewith, but positively at variance 
 with many of the most popular theories thereof. 
 
 Q. 19. Then the Incarnation brought a new life into 
 the organism of humanity? 
 
 A. It brought in the life of the Word, which became 
 flesh, and by such assumption of our nature constituted 
 a source of new life and salvation to men. There is, 
 therefore, a Divine-human life-fountain in the very or- 
 
 floats upon the surface of the undulatory theory of God's great 
 gospel to man. As a philosophy it occupies the position from 
 which it can consistently emphasize the life-force of the Historic 
 Christ as something more dynamic in religion than even all the 
 inexpressible agony of a dying Redeemer. It proposes to sweep 
 away the miserable travesties that now obstruct the highway 
 of a better theology, and open the road to a clearer and more 
 scientific apprehension of God's word, so that faith and reason 
 may rejoice together in the blessedness of the great truth that 
 " if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
 death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
 saved by his life,"" 
 
286 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 ganism of humanity,, to which all individual human be- 
 ings are in some way invited by the Spirit and the Bride. 
 
 Q. 20. What was the direct or immediate effect of tlje 
 entrance of this new and higher life into the organism of 
 humanity? 
 
 A. The assumption of humanity by the Son of God, 
 and the consequent bringing into it of this higher life- 
 force, was its restoration to its normal state a state of 
 moral purity, which again involved the possibility of 
 normal development to the highest dignity and glory 
 attainable upon the plane of the finite. 
 
 Q. 21. Was humanity as to its entirety saved by the 
 Incarnation? 
 
 A. Everything essential to the constitution of hu- 
 manity was actually saved in the person of the Redeemer.* 
 The salvation of all human individuals, which was ren- 
 dered possible in the wise and organic economy of the 
 kingdom, remedial in its constitution, is not essential to 
 the salvation of humanity. The tendency toward indi- 
 vidualization is only a law of the development of the life- 
 force (as shown in Chapter XI.) in humanity; therefore 
 humanity does not necessarily include the sum total of 
 all human individuals. 
 
 Q. 22. Did the entrance or this new order of life in 
 any way affect all individuals of the race in their relation 
 
 * The old controversy as to the extent of the atonement 
 whether the atonement is general or limited was little better 
 than the chattering of magpies. Let it once be admitted that 
 humanity was assumed by the Word, and saved as to all that it 
 essentially involved, and there will he no room for such chip- 
 basket divinity, and no reason to dispute about the question of 
 the extent of the atonement. Atonement has been made for all 
 that is essential to humanity, and if any individuals of the race 
 are not healed of their moral malady, the cause can be found in 
 the fact that the sufficiency of the remedy is not efficiently ap- 
 plied to some of the individual inmates in the general hospital 
 of the diseased race. 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 287 
 
 to God and that high attainable destiny involved in the 
 problem of human life? 
 
 A. It did. That which affects an organism affects 
 all its parts parts in possibility and parts in actuality. 
 
 Q. 23. Will all individuals of the race, in its abnor- 
 mal state, become members of the new organism which 
 was started in the Christ upon its normal course of devel- 
 opment toward the attainment of its proper dignity and 
 destiny. 
 
 A. Such an attainment was rendered possible, but ifc 
 .does not appear nrobable either in the light of Revelation 
 or Science. It has been clearly shown in previous chap- 
 ters of this book that physical forces never enter matter in 
 such a way as to do violence to the lower orders and ele- 
 ments of being; that some kinds and combinations of 
 matter have no ability to receive certain force-elements 
 of Nature, and when that ability does not exist in matter 
 the said certain forces do not operate upon said matter. 
 Now if this same parity of reasoning be carried, accord- 
 ing to the law of the continuity of law, into the realm of 
 biology, and into that department of biology which treats 
 of the forces and laws of Christianity, it will lead us on a 
 parallel line of induction to the inevitable conclusion that 
 while Christ is the Saviour of all men only unto them that 
 receive him can he give power to become the sons of God 
 in his reorganized family, even to them that believe on 
 his name. 
 
 Q. 24. But is there not a fallacy in the above reason- 
 ing, since the respective realms of physics and biology are 
 so very different? 
 
 A. Not at all. The difference rather strengthens 
 every joint and member of the syllogism, and emphasizes 
 the legitimacy of the conclusion reached. If Nature 
 never allows her forces to do violence to helpless and un- 
 conscious matter, it is not reasonable to suppose that vio- 
 lence would be a law in the higher kingdom whose mis- 
 
288 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 sion in the realm of humanity is to suppress lawlessness 
 and grant its candidates for citizenship the greatest 
 amount of liberty consistent with the nature of rational 
 and responsible beings. 
 
 Q. 25. Why do some individuals savingly receive the 
 Messiah with the life -force fontally found in His person, 
 while others echo the old infidel cry: " Away with Him?" 
 
 A. For the same general reason that the sun while it 
 affects all matter found in the solar system does not send 
 its force into resistible opacity or into matter which has 
 not the ability to receive the scintillations of its light. . 
 
 Q. 26. But does not the proclamation of the presence 
 and power of the Messiah's kingdom create ability in all 
 human individuals to receive the saving benefits thereof? 
 
 A. The proclamation of God's remedial kingdom in 
 the world is nothing more than the life-force thereof as- 
 serting itself among men. In such self-assertion it ex- 
 tends the substantial threads of its dynamic energy 
 toward all; yet it can no more draw men who are desti- 
 tute of receptivity, and who are determined to remain 
 in such destitution, into the circles of its saving embrace 
 than a charged magnet can lift up particles of glass or 
 sawdust. Ability cannot be created where there is no 
 reception of creative energy. If, as seen in a former 
 chapter, the peculiar arrangement of the particles in 
 some kinds of matter by virtue of cohesive force prevents 
 the entrance thereinto of a luminous force, it should not 
 be considered as a thing without prophecy or precedent, 
 that the peculiar arrangement or derangement of ele- 
 ments and faculties in the constitution of certain rational 
 individuals should render them entirely impervious to the 
 life-force of the Messiah. 
 
 Q. 27. If, then, some individuals should remain for- 
 ever in their diseased condition, are they individually re- 
 sponsible for their own sad future state? 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 280 
 
 A. Indeed they arc, even though their cases should 
 become chronic for all eternity. 
 
 Q. 28. How can that be made to appear in the light 
 of justice? 
 
 A. If the preaching of the Gospel or the presentation 
 of this life-force offers ability to receive it, it does not 
 for that reason take away the ability not to receive it. 
 Sick men, with the prescription in their hands and pills 
 in their mouths, still have the power to throw physic to 
 the dogs. 
 
 Q. 29. But the foregoing does not take into consider- 
 ation God's great benevolence. Does not Christ's love 
 for the world move him to save all? 
 
 A. Love is life in activity the highest form of activ- 
 ity that can possibly be predicated of life, whether infi- 
 nite or finite. Love works according to the law of the 
 life of which it is phenomenal or expressive. Therefore 
 it cannot do what life has no power to do.* 
 
 Q. 30. How does this life-force of the Messiah reach 
 the individuals of an abnormal race to bring them into 
 a normal state and saving relation to himself, thus anti- 
 doting in such individuals the poison of sin, and neutral- 
 izing the power of death? 
 
 A. Life-force, like the physical forces of Nature, 
 travels according to its own law of conduction, and 
 though its own peculiar media. 
 
 * Love is not an entity, but the expression of an entity. 
 When the Scriptures represent that God is love, they do not 
 teach that he is love in the sense of a Divine emotion, but that 
 love is the highest form in which his essence goes out toward 
 the objects of his benevolence. So, too, thought is not an en- 
 tity, but an action or expression of a rational entity or thinker. 
 To claim the salvation of all individuals on the ground of God's 
 infinite compassion is to draw a false conclusion from false phi- 
 losophy, in false sympathy, through a rickety syllogism of false 
 logic. 
 
290 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 31. What is the fundamental feature of Chris- 
 tianity's law of conduction or propagation? 
 
 A. Christianity propagates itself through media or 
 intervening substance between which and itself there is an 
 affinity or something in common, and something in the 
 process of assimilation. Christianity after being started 
 as a new creation* began to reach out toward abnormal 
 
 * Christianity is (1) a new creation, as real and distinct as that 
 which in the beginning included the heavens and the earth. 
 (2) It has an objective and entitative existence, holding in the 
 organic union of the substance of the Son of God with the essen- 
 tial substance of humanity, in the sense that " the word (Logos) 
 was made (assumed) flesh." (3) This new creation heads in 
 Christ, " the last Adam," " the Lord from heaven," the " quicken- 
 ing Spirit,", even as the old creation culminated in the first 
 Adam, "a living soul," (1 Cor. 15). It is a kingdom in organic 
 unity, as well as a unity in expansive and progressive evolution. 
 Christ the true Witness, the Beginning of the (new) creation 'of 
 God (Rev. iii. 14), is the primordial parent (Is. ix. 6), of the 
 peculiar progeny born of the very substance of Him " of whom 
 the whole family in heaven and earth is named *' (Eph. iii. 15). 
 (4) This kingdom of God is at hand, replete with substantial 
 forces, for the solution of the most intricate and complicate 
 problems of the universe, and for the salvation of all assimi- 
 lable subjects in the sub-kingdom of humanity. (5) Having an 
 objective existence, in an organic entity, it is not dependent 
 upon subjective repentance, faith or experience, however essen- 
 tial these conditions and organs of receptivity on the part of the 
 individual who becomes a citizen of the royal realm, and a 
 consequent recipient of its saving virtue. (G) In a word, 
 Christianity is life not a mere attenuated, human life, but a 
 distinct effluence of the life of God, which was not in the world 
 in the same sense, and to the same extent, before the Incarna- 
 tion. " In Him was life, and the life became the light of men." 
 This life is not merely a divine " mode of motion," but the very 
 substance of things hoped for by the deepest yearnings of the 
 substantial human soul. 
 
 It follows further that Christianity, as to its inner organic 
 entity, is not molded from without, or made dependent upon 
 its form, as Materialism teaches concerning the dependence of 
 the soul upon the body, and as some acousticians still teach, 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 1 
 
 humanity or individuals therein through that portion of 
 the race already in the process of becoming normal i. e., 
 that portion already in the convalescent stage. 
 
 Q. 32. But does not God as a spirit, and as the Per- 
 sonal, Supreme and Infinite Force of the Universe, move 
 without law and without reference to any specifically or- 
 dained channel or media of communicating himself and 
 his saving benefits to men? 
 
 A. God is always obedient to his own laws, and is 
 therefore no more likely to direct that Christianity 
 should be propagated without wisely ordained lines of^ 
 travel than that he would- have ordained that sound, heat 
 or electricity should be conveyed independent of their 
 peculiar media and modes of conduction.* 
 
 * God, like Nature, despises a vacuum, and prefers to send 
 out his agents through inhabited space. As seen in Chapter X. , 
 sound, being a substance, cannot travel except through sub- 
 stance, and its rate of speed is governed and accelerated by the 
 affinity it finds in its media of conduction. Heat travels best 
 along that portion of an iron rod already permeated by heat- 
 force; and electricity could not travel with such accuracy and 
 in such an astounding rate of speed in the intelligible convey 
 ance of messages except by the copper- wire route. Why, then, 
 should so much of our modern Protestantism become crazy upon 
 the baseless supposition and unphilanthropical theory that the 
 Messiah and Christianity are to move forward in the accom- 
 plishment of their peculiar mission in the world without corre- 
 sponding media of conduction and methods of operation ? 
 
 affirming the dependence of " sound " upon the medium of its 
 conduction. Like all other orders of life, in bending its energies 
 toward externalization, Christianity is free to take and change 
 its own form in the organic onflow of its mission, until it com- 
 pletes its terrestrial history in that final fullness and form which 
 shall respond to the pattern within: and while thus free, it is 
 also bound to take only such form as its inner model constitu- 
 tionally involves. That final form will be the triumphant 
 church, the body of Christ, the fullness (complement) of him 
 that filleth all in all. (Eph. i. 23). 
 
292 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 33. What is the organic wholeness of those Messi- 
 anic forces, media of communication and propagation 
 and proper methods of operation called? 
 
 A, Kevelation and true science join heartily in de- 
 nominating it the Church or Body of Christ. 
 
 Q. 34. What is comprehended in the true idea of a 
 body, and what is expressed by the scientifico-scriptural 
 term thus employed? 
 
 A. The church as Christ's " body "* and " fullness " is a 
 
 * That is no mere flourish of inspired rhetoric which represents 
 the Church as " the body. of Christ." A " body " is not a mere 
 aggregation of material thrown together in convenient and 
 comely shape, but an organism of invisible forces and plastic 
 powers which ever seeks to complement itself in material form. 
 As the human body takes up elements of the lower kingdoms 
 mineral, vegetable, animal permeates them by its own pow- 
 ers, assimilates the assimilable, and throws off the excrementi- 
 tious matter, so is it the mission of the Church, as the embodi- 
 ment of the higher kingdom of heaven, to receive the salvable 
 elements of the sub-kingdom of humanity, quicken them by the 
 heavenly life of which it is made the bearer, and, when heedless 
 indifference or hellish resistance does not thwart the heavenly 
 purpose, assimilate them into the substance, and make them 
 very members incorporate in that mystical body and kingdom 
 which " ruleth over all." Again, just as it is possible for a 
 human system to take into the stomach too much foreign 
 matter for thorough digestion and consequent health, so is it 
 also possible for the Church to become gorged with indigestible 
 flesh and thus disturb the functions of the religious stomach, 
 develop unmistakable symptoms of ecclesiastical dyspepsia, 
 and bring a morbid condition of piety into the most pretentious 
 portions of Christendom. According to the view of the writer, 
 this is now the peculiarly alarming condition of the Church 
 throughout the civilized world; and if our opinion is founded 
 upon fact, it is certainly the part of wisdom to institute an 
 earnest inquiry both as to the cause and the cure of the chronic 
 malady. 
 
 The common mistake is made in locating the disease in one 
 or several of the \nere symptoms thereof. Pelagius was finally 
 condemned, but semi-Pelagianism is the very devil in false 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 293 
 
 concrete entitative organism vitalized and energized with 
 the highest form of life-force in the universe of God, and 
 through which the powers of the heavenly world are con- 
 stantly reaching down and into the realm of abnormal hu- 
 manity, communicating the remedial force fontally pres- 
 ent in Immanuel to such as have the ability to receive it.* 
 
 * " The Protestant doctrine does not identify Christianity and 
 the visible church, but neither does it separate them. The rela- 
 tion between the two has been explained by introducing the 
 term ideal church and actual church. We may explain here 
 that in our use of the term ideal, we do not mean the church in 
 thought, or as a mere mental conception, as antithetic to real 
 but in a substantial sense in antithesis to the actual, just as we 
 speak of the idea of the beautiful, the true and the good as ob- 
 jective substantial entities." Rev. T. G. Apple, D. D., LL. D., 
 Professor of Theology, Lancaster, Pa. 
 
 theology, once let loose and still at large deceiving the nations. 
 Pelagianism grounds itself in a superficial view of the moral 
 condition and real necessities of humanity as the subject of 
 salvation from sin. The popular theology of this age, .however 
 emphatic the language of the confessions may be in the oppo- 
 site directions, is considerably dipped with Pelagian error. It 
 does not regard the human family as very seriously affected 
 with anything like the epidemic essence of moral death. The 
 term "regeneration" is frequently, if not commonly, used to 
 emphasize the importance of conversion, while the latter means 
 nothing more than a conviction that something wrong has been 
 done, accompanied with an honest intention to quit making 
 such mistakes. This is quackery in its most unsoteriological 
 perfection. No wonder that so little account is made of the 
 positive and substantial entities of the Christian religion where 
 there is no clear discovery of a necessity for such a healing balm 
 in Gilead. An empirical diagnosis leads to empirical thera- 
 peutics. 
 
 As long as such theological poverty prevails in molding the 
 sentiment and in shaping much of the questionable workings of 
 Christendom, it matters but little what theory of doctrine, 
 church government, or religious customs may be in the ascend- 
 ancy. Calvinism is the finest system of metaphysical abstrac- 
 tions ever wrought out in the laboratory of human brains: and 
 
294 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 35. Through what channels or agencies in the 
 church is this remedial force conducted to the individual 
 members of the diseased human race? 
 
 A. Through the Word and the sacraments by procla- 
 mation and propagation. 
 
 Q. 36. Is there anything in the human body pro- 
 phetic of these peculiar functions of the church? 
 
 A. Indeed there is. This is the very thing primarily 
 emphasized in the analogous reasonings of both Revela- 
 tion and Science. Life, resident in the corpuscles of the 
 
 yet, blind to the beauty of the concrete, and deaf to the music 
 of heaven's choral symphonies in the organic conception of the 
 truth, as a mere theory of the Divine Being's mode of motion in 
 the "plan" of redemption, it does not contain "irresistible 
 grace " enough to insure the final perseverance of one poor saint. 
 Arminianisni emphasizes the other side of the same abstraction. 
 It may be regarded as a theory of the mode of motion on the 
 part of fallen humanity in its fruitless struggles to transcend 
 the limits of its own helplessness. Transubstantiation, consub- 
 stantiation and the negative sacramentarian theories of unsub- 
 stantiation would do well to remain silent for about the space of 
 a half hour, that the basic and primary question of immaterial 
 SUBSTANTIATION in being may have a respectful hearing in the 
 court of Christendom. Until that point is reached, it would be 
 unwise to make any expensive preparation for an early dawning 
 of the millennium. Evangelical Alliances, Pan-Assemblies, 
 Holiness Convocations. Church Congresses and Salvation Armies 
 may serve to reveal the existence of a felt want, and even act 
 as agents in leveling down the mountains and filling up the val- 
 leys, but they can never make the comers thereunto perfect. 
 Better things are required. Not the least of these things is a bet- 
 ter philosophy. It may be said that true religion has nothing to 
 do with philosophy. Possibly not; yet it occurs to us, just at this 
 writing, that fatee philosophy has had enough to do with religion 
 to impede the proper progress of Christianity in the world. And 
 now, in this approximate dawn of her twentieth century, Zioii 
 unconsciously sighs and seeks for something to roll away the 
 false philosopher's stone from the door of the sepulcher ot 
 Truth, that the invisible forces and consequent glory of her sal- 
 vation may appear. 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 295 
 
 blood, travels out upon its mission through the arteries in 
 the body to lay hold of substances within the compass of 
 its grasp, assimilating them so far as they are assimilable, 
 and repelling those substances that do not yield to the 
 plastic power of the life-force which thus permeates the 
 body and perpetuates it by such constant process of as- 
 similation. So with the church which is the body of 
 Christ. The life-force of the great Redeemer and Physi- 
 cian of diseased man is not to be regarded as Heaven's 
 mere mode of motion operating in an abstract way, but 
 like all other forces, whether in chemistry, physics or 
 biology, moves out upon its mission,, not only according 
 to its own law, but also through its o^n peculiar chan- 
 nels of conduction. The main channels are the Word* 
 and the sacraments which may be regarded as the nerve 
 and arterial lines in the body of Christ, through which 
 the life-force, as authority from the Head and vitality 
 from the Heart of a redeemed humanity, approaches, 
 confronts, calls upon and enables men to arise from their 
 death-state of trespasses and sins. 
 
 Q. 37. When this life-force of Christ thus enters a 
 human individual of abnormal humanity, and meets 
 
 * The Scriptural and truly scientific idea of the Word involves 
 something deeper than the mere literal conception thereof. The 
 Personal Word, who is the source and immaterial substance of 
 the written and spoken Word, cautioned his disciples against the 
 danger of limiting its meaning to signs expressed by characters 
 or to sounds articulated by human breath. " The words that I 
 speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.'" This is the 
 great Teacher's warning against the materialistic or wave-theory 
 of his glorious Gospel. This theory largely prevails in the mod- 
 ern theological world. Indeed, no other theory can be consist- 
 ently held or possibly maintained without the adoption of the 
 fundamental principle of the Substantial Philosophy. The true 
 syllogism must run as follows: All life is force; all force is sub- 
 stance; Christ's Word is life'; therefore it is substantial force in 
 his body, the church. The proper preaching of the Word, and 
 
296 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 with such reception as to coalesce with the essential 
 elements of his moral and rational being, what is the 
 result called? 
 
 A. The Scriptures of God and true science unite in 
 terming it regeneration. 
 
 Q. 38. Then regeneration is affected by the force 
 from above? 
 
 A. It is. And yet the force from above could not 
 regenerate a stone, a plant or an ox. 
 
 Q. 39. Why not? 
 
 A. Because these orders of being have not the ability 
 to. receive so high an order of life in the sense that man 
 can receive it. 
 
 Q. 40. Why have they not such ability? 
 
 A. As seen in Chapter I., man's peculiar and intimate 
 relation to God, by which he retains within him the God- 
 consciousness, consisted in his having the Divine image. 
 The Divine image in man is an element of God's own 
 substantial being which was never communicated to any 
 of the lower orders of existence. And although sin 
 entered and marred that image, it was not destroyed. 
 
 the proper administering of the Sacraments are complementary 
 means through which the life -force of Christ goes out in its cor- 
 relative forms of truth and grace. This truth and grace are 
 lodged in the church, the embodiment of Christ's kingdom upon 
 the earth, and are thus objectively at hand by virtue of the 
 Word having been made flesh to dwell thus among us (John i. 
 14) by his perennial presence. The popular and reigning theory 
 in the general assemblies and literature of our earnest Protest- 
 antism, as to the essential constitution of the church, is as far 
 from the truth as the wave-theory of sound. The theory, if al- 
 lowed to run logically out to its own conclusions, would empty 
 the veritable body of Christ of its objective realities, substantial 
 force and historic character, and resolve it into a mere society of 
 Christians huddled together for mutual advantage and protec- 
 tion, and held together like a heap of sand. This theory cannot 
 long maintain itself before the rising and ruling philosophy of 
 the world. 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 297 
 
 For this reason man is not unconditionally lost. He is 
 capable of being made over regenerated'. 
 
 Q. 41. Does not abnormal human life develop under 
 the influence of the gospel into normal humanity, or may 
 not humanity be educated up into Christianity? 
 
 A. No more than the most precious stone can rise by 
 the power of the lapidary into a plant; or the plant by 
 the assistance of the botanist leap the impassable chasm 
 that separates it from the animal realm of existence. 
 
 Q. 42. Then regeneration is something more than 
 spontaneous generation? 
 
 A. It is something different. Substantialisrn disputes 
 the baseless theory advanced by modern evolutionists that 
 higher orders of being are spontaneously generated from 
 the protoplasm of the lower; and in applying its broad 
 and catholic principles to Christianity it consistently con- 
 tinues to maintain that any such spontaneous generation 
 is equally impossible in the still higher realm of biological 
 being.* " Except a man be born /row ABOVE he cannot 
 see the kingdom of God." John Hi. 3, New Ver. 
 
 Q. 43. Has faith nothing to do with regeneration? 
 
 A. Faith, in its two -fold stage of development, is both 
 the organ through which the possibility of the n?w birth 
 is actualized and a fruit of such birth as an accomplished 
 fact. There is really no Christian faith in a man until 
 after he is Christianized. When the individual is made a 
 Christian, faith becomes an entitative substance of his 
 being. It is objective in its positive existence, and a cre- 
 ation not out of nothing, but from the elements already 
 
 * Much of our theoretical, orthodox Christianity is nothing 
 more than humanitarianism at best. Notwithstanding the claim 
 to the contrary, many of our pulpits and much of our so-called 
 Christian literature send out and circulate the poisonous doc- 
 trine that man can either perfect himself. in his present sphere, 
 or, by his own force, transcend his present bounds. 
 
298 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY, 
 
 at hand; yet not from these in the sense of evolution, as 
 though the original elements had power to transcend 
 their limited sphere and spring into a higher order of ex- 
 istence. Faith is an entity " born from above," and yet 
 as something conceived in the very womb of human per- 
 sonality. It is not something manufactured to order in 
 heaven and sent in its completeness from the skies; 
 neither can it have birth in the animal or in the angelic 
 constitution. Humanity, as constituted in the image of 
 God, is the only soil receptive of such heavenly seed. 
 This mere receptivity is too generally mistaken for faith 
 itself. Such theology is exceedingly superficial, un- 
 scriptural, and unphilosophical. It might just as well 
 call the Virgin Mary's receptivity or conceptivity the 
 veritable Son of God. There is no Christian faith in the 
 human heart until after it has been overshadowed by the 
 power of the Highest, "and quickened by the life of the 
 Highest, Faith is then developed according to a vital 
 process of spiritual gestation and growth. Barring the 
 possibility of miscarriage, it passes the stages of its 
 progress, and rises gradually into its higher form of ex- 
 istence, in fulfillment of all the prophecies in the lower 
 orders of being, and in a growing conformity to its own 
 heavenly type. That type is Christ. Such conformity 
 to type is all that the Church on earth can ever have, or 
 know, or give as a satisfactory solution of the great 
 scriptural echoes of predestination. Away with mere ab- 
 stract divinity! The world has had too much metaphys- 
 ical theology. God " hath chosen us in HIM:" and " Ye 
 are complete in Him." That which completes itself in 
 him starts in him. He is the beginning and the end of 
 all principles and processes with which he has anything 
 organically to do " the author and finisher of our faith." 
 That which starts in him partakes of his nature of his 
 substance. That which starts organically in him and 
 partakes of his being has life, even as he has life in him- 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 299 
 
 self. Life, though not a mere force, is nevertheless al- 
 ways a force. When this life becomes faith, faith is a 
 force the mightiest derivative force in the universe. It 
 is distinct from Christ, and yet as inseparable as it is dis- 
 tinct. The just live by faith, because faith-life is the 
 Christ-life of all whose " life is hid with Christ in God." 
 That faith is concretely functional we readily allow, 
 but that it is a mere function, or faculty of something 
 more real than itself, we cannot admit. Even Herbert 
 Spencer is scientifically orthodox enough to say that " we 
 have next to no power of tracing up the genesis of a 
 function, considered purely as such." Separately con- 
 sidered, there is no such function in existence, and con- 
 sequently there need be no effort made to trace after its 
 origin. Faith has no being, even as a function, except 
 in its relation to the organ which functionally acts, or 
 rather the organ through which life acts in the discharge 
 of its functions. The organ is nothing except in the or- 
 ganism of which it is an organic part, just as the organ- 
 ism is destitute of vitality outside of the kingdom, and 
 the kingdom is nothing without the real presence of the 
 king. 
 
 The "king invisible" never asserts his power in either 
 of the several distinct kingdoms of his universal empire, 
 from the mineral up to the mediatorial, without being 
 peculiarly present both in the existence of its elements 
 and in the operation of its laws. If this is pantheism, 
 the Bible is a pantheistic book, and Christianity a pan- 
 Christistic religion. But it is not pantheism. There is 
 no confounding of the creator with the creature. Even 
 the penitent thief, upon the rack of torture, had sense 
 enough to recognize and confess this general philosophic 
 principle as applied to Christianity. In fact, that recog- 
 nition was an act of his faith. The impression made by 
 the regicidal tragedy of the Cross enabled him to exercise 
 his incipient faith in the form of prayer "When thou 
 
300 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 comest into thy kingdom." This is no exception to the 
 general law of the empire. The Rock of Ages never 
 crystal] zed an amethyst without being present in the 
 lapidary of his own work; the Rose of Sharon never 
 caused a flower to bloom until he first came in the king- 
 dom to which the flowers belong; and the Redeemer 
 never saved a single son of exiled Adam except as he ap- 
 proached the individual in, with, and through his re- 
 medial kingdom. 
 
 Such salvation is possible for each individual, because 
 God has already so approached and redeemed the race in 
 its generic sense. The ages bore testimony to the stately 
 stoppings of his gradual approach, until it was truthfully 
 heralded forth that "the kingdom of God is at hand." 
 Thus at hand, it involved peculiar forces and func- 
 tions of its own. While under one view this kingdom 
 which "came down from God out of heaven" was 
 foreign to that of humanity, it nevertheless, conditioned 
 itself to the peculiar constitution and wants of the latter. 
 Scarcely had it appeared above the sin-bedarkened hori- 
 zon of the race until the challenge of its authority and 
 the saving benefits of its provisions were uttered from 
 the throne within: "Repent, believe; for the kingdom 
 of heaven is at hand." This announcement virtually 
 implied that it was the approach of this kingdom which 
 raised the possibility into the power of faith, by laying 
 hold of the only point of contact in man. This point of 
 contact is the divine image defaced, but not destroyed. 
 This involves the God-consciousness as a surviving ele- 
 ment in the fallen race, and always essential to the con- 
 stitution of humanity. At this point, in the very center 
 of the individual's personality, may be engrafted " the 
 powers of the world to come," enabling " the blessed and 
 only Potentate " to say in truth to the individual be- 
 liever: "The kingdom of God is within you." Thus 
 engrafted, the work of Christian growth begins, and the 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 301 
 
 process of individual evolution continues in accordance 
 with the law of spiritual embryology. Thus,, " Christ 
 dwells in the heart by fa'th." The life which the Chris- 
 tian lives is " by the faitli of the Son of God." Christ, 
 his kingdom and faith are inseparable, and yet distinct, 
 in the Christian. He spoke both of his kingdom and of 
 faith as a grain of mustard seed. We see no escape from 
 such conclusions except by an infidel rejection of God's 
 Word and an unscientific denial of the resolvability, 
 transmissibility, and conservability of force. 
 
 Thus faith, whether force, faculty, organ, organism in 
 embryo, or all together, is "the gift of God/' As al- 
 ready seen, it is a gift inseparable, yet distinct, from 
 the giver. It is given in a sense somewhat analo- 
 gous to that in which the sun gives light and vision. 
 The sun not only calls the plant into individual being 
 in the vegetable kingdom, but also calls forth within 
 it the faculty through which it receives the light. The 
 first thing that light finds in the vegetable seed is 
 capacity. So with the possibility of the organ of vision 
 in the animal or in man. The eye is not merely met by 
 the light, it is elicited before there is any real organ of 
 vision. The truth of this assertion is amply demon- 
 strated in the caves of the earth, where perpetual dark- 
 ness reigns. In animals long deprived of light there is a 
 tendency to beget a progeny without eyes or if eyes, 
 without vision. So in the higher and spiritual order of 
 being. Revelation from above is heavenly force coming 
 down. Finding capacity in man, its first creative an- 
 nouncement is like that of Ananias to Saul: "Receive 
 thy sight." Thus faith cometh by hearing, and yet it is 
 not faith until it is conceived in the moral protoplasm of 
 the human soul. These two factors must be held in 
 proper relation to each other, in order to a proper con- 
 ception of the genesis of faith as a substantial and entita- 
 tive force in the Christian. The kingdom from above, 
 
 y^ f ^ B1 ^^^S^ 
 ff OF THE & 
 
 f MNiVERsrr 
 
302 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 replete with a heavenly purpose, power, and glory, 
 reaches clown into the one immediately beneath it in the 
 gradation of being, "touches with its mystery of life the 
 souls of men " " dead in trespasses and in sin," quickens 
 them into a higher order of animated existence, bears 
 them across the otherwise bridgeless gulf between the 
 mere human and that which is divine-human, and 
 endows them with its own higher possibilities and 
 powers. 
 
 What saith the Scriptures? What is the most reason- 
 able rendering of the passages in which the term faith 
 occurs? Limited space admits of inquiry concerning but 
 a few texts. Luke xvii. 6: ".Faith as a grain of mus- 
 tard seed." The reference is not primarily to the small- 
 ness of the seed, but rather to the fact that it is the 
 embryonic embodiment of life that that life is a sub- 
 stantial force, the product of a kingdom behind it, and 
 the possibility of an individual organism before it. 
 Christ was too much of a philosopher to compare faith 
 to a grain of sand. Gal. v. 6: "Faith which worketh by 
 love." In this text faith cannot mean the action of the 
 intellect of the individual; neither can it mean the mere 
 action of the "new creature " formed within him. Ac- 
 tion is not predicable of mere action. Back of all and 
 in all there is something more than action. Faith work- 
 eth; therefore faith is inseparably distinct from the work 
 it is an entitative actor. 2 Pet. i. 5: "Add to your 
 faith virtue, knowledge, temperance." etc. Here is a 
 process of addition. Not by outward accretion, or ac- 
 cession of parts, but by development. The seven graces 
 are evolved from the root principle of faith a substan- 
 tial entity. 1. John v. 4: " For whatsoever is begotten 
 of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory 
 that hath overcome the world, even our faith." Here is 
 something procreated, generated, even "our faith." It 
 is an entity because it is begotten. Who will dare to 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 30P> 
 
 step forward and say that God begets nonentities? It is 
 a force because it " overcometh " some other force. Does 
 not such inspired language justify us in the assertion that 
 faith is the mightiest force in the world, since it hath 
 overcome (new ver.) the world? Is there any room left 
 for the meager diet of abstractions so generally served at 
 the crowded table of unphilosophic dogmatics? Out 
 upon this wrecched heresy in theology! It corresponds 
 with the untenable tlreory of molecular motion in 
 physics! No wonder that the faith which is so unscien- 
 tifically ignorant of its original moorings and entitative 
 existence is often found creeping into its own circular 
 syllogisms without any comforting contents! This is at 
 least one way in which men crawl into the convolutions 
 of their own false logic to indulge in delusive dreams of 
 heaven. 
 
 From what has been shown in some of the foregoing 
 paragraphs, it follows in the way of most logical deduc- 
 tion that faith as a force-entity in the Christian operates 
 in a two-fold activity. It clings to the pure powers that 
 begat it from above, and conflicts with the perverse 
 powers that oppose it from beneath. The scriptural 
 terms " overcometh " and " victory " imply opposition. 
 These terms would have no meaning in the absence of 
 such "principalities and powers/' The "victory" of 
 faith-force implies defeat of counter -force. What is this 
 counter-force? Is it something constitutional and nor- 
 mal in the human race, or is it a foreign, adventitious 
 element which the Scriptures denominate sin ? We 
 affirm the latter. A failure to recognize this truth 
 seems to us the weak point in Prof. Drummond's great 
 book on "Natural Law in the Spiritual World." At 
 least he has failed to emphasize the fundamental fact of 
 the world's substantial forces, normal and abnormal; and 
 for this reason the treatise, which is otherwise a valuable 
 contribution to science, is not worthy to be compared 
 
THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 with the " Problem of Human Life." If the great phi- 
 losopher of Edinburgh has apprehended sin as a force, he 
 has at least failed to apprehend force as a substance. To 
 deny the existence of sin as of such character in the or- 
 ganism of humanity, is to resolve the whole process of 
 human redemption into a sham-battle. Perhaps his eyes 
 were blinded by Supralapsarian theology, held as a mere 
 system of metaphysical abstractions. 
 
 Q. 44. How does regeneration stand related to the for- 
 giveness of sins? 
 
 A. Forgiveness follows as a result of the introduction 
 into man's nature of that which brings absolution througli 
 regeneration, and it will be a day of mutual confirma- 
 tion for Kevelation and Science when they can express 
 the same truth in the same language: " He that hath the 
 Son hath life, and there is, therefore, no condemnation 
 to them that are :n Christ Jesus." Life, truth, righteous- 
 ness and holiness are inseparable in the constitution of 
 Christ's person; so regeneration, conversion, justification 
 and sanctification are the correlative terms expressive 
 of his complementary work in, with, and for the in- 
 dividual. Christ's truth, righteousness and holiness 
 ground themselves in his life; so does conversion, justifi- 
 cation and sanctification follow in consequence of regen- 
 eration. It may also be added that Christ's life regener- 
 ates, his truth converts, his righteousness justifies 
 (procures pardon), and his holiness sanctifies. Let the- 
 ology be studied upon this line of investigation and a 
 doctrinal day, brighter than the sun of Austerlitz, will 
 soon begin to dawn upon the church. The old theology 
 concerning the forensic theories of pardon, as well as 
 much modern mechanical bosh, proceeds upon the suppo- 
 sition that the central element of the atonement was law 
 rather than life that God needed reconciliation more 
 than man needed restoration, and that God was more 
 concerned about the vindication of his wounded honor 
 
DEATH'S ANTIDOTE. 305 
 
 than he was about the healing of the wound that sin had 
 made in the more vital parts of human being. The 
 church must soon change the emphasis from some of her 
 theological tenets or make preparation for a ridiculous 
 jubilee over the implied fact that Jehovah succeeded in 
 extricating himself from the danger of inconsistency. 
 Let the trumpet be sounded and a change be ordered all 
 along the line. Let the question " How can God be 
 just?" be relegated back to the court of heaven, and 
 proper prominence be given to the more soteriological 
 question: "How can man be made every whit whole?" 
 Thus will be brought into proper view the foundation 
 upon which the welcome doctrine of Divine forgiveness 
 may stand in its legitimate place. But still it may be 
 said to the church's honor that her faith has always been 
 better than her philosophy her creed better than her 
 ruling theology. The articles of the Apostle's Creed are 
 arranged in accordance with the natural order of things: 
 The church, life-communion in the church, and the for- 
 giveness of sins in virtue of what is communicated with 
 such life. Thus the Substantial Philosophy when prop- 
 erly applied to Christianity is beautifully in harmony 
 with the creed of Christendom, though gloriously at 
 variance with much of its philosophy and many of its 
 theories. 
 
 Q. 45. In regeneration, what is born again? 
 
 A. The life-force from above, when all the condi- 
 tions of its introduction and instatement in the human 
 individual are at hand, begins its work in the vital 
 center of his being. The person is born again, and yet 
 in such sense that the individual or person continues 
 identically the same. Personality has its high rank of 
 being in the union of reason and will. These are there- 
 fore seized upon in the very ineipiency of the new birth 
 by the life-force which produces it. From this personal 
 
306 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 center* of man's individual being the force works out by 
 process through the entire periphery of his nature, until 
 he is "raised up at the last day." 
 
 Q. 46. Is regeneration then an instantaneous act? 
 
 A. Science must hold that regeneration is an in- 
 stantaneous beginning of the workings of the higher 
 form of life-force in the human soul, although there be 
 a historic preparation going before and a gradual process 
 following after. 
 
 Q. 47, Then what is sanctification? 
 
 A. Scientifically considered, sanctification is the pro- 
 cess cf getting well. A process running through the 
 entire period of medication and spiritual convalescence. 
 
 Q. 48. When will this process end? 
 
 A. In its proper and most comprehensive sense it will 
 end when sin has been fully antidoted, and when death 
 is consequently swallowed up in full and final victory. 
 
 Q. 49. When will that take place? 
 
 A. This question will be answered in the next chap 
 ter, on the ressurection of the dead. 
 
 * The person is not only the center of man whose radii and 
 periphery are all the activities (entities) of body and soul, but 
 also the center of Nature. . . . What Nature contains in frag- 
 ments is united in the person of man. . . . Our personality is 
 complete only when we are conscious of God and our relation to 
 him, and when we suffer God to speak to it and through it. 
 Dr. Fred. A. Rouch, in his " Psychology," p. 178. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE R/ESUKRECTION OF THE DEAD. 
 
 QUESTION' 1, Does the question of the resurrection of 
 the dead come in any sense within the proper province of 
 science? 
 
 ANSWER. It does. As seen in Chapter XL, biological 
 science treats of being in the domain of life. If now, by 
 the exercise of some force, or some perverse force-element 
 antagonistic to life, as seen in Chapter XII., living beings 
 are overtaken with an alleged catastrophe, seemingly de- 
 structive of all there is of life and for life, science is in 
 duty bound to continue its work to the full extent of its 
 ability to institute and complete a thorough investigation 
 of the case. 
 
 Q. 2. What, then, is the first duty of science in its 
 investigations of the conflict in which death has seem- 
 ingly triumphed over life? 
 
 A. To inquire carefully as to just what is necessa- 
 rily involved in the idea which the term " death " is 
 made to express. 
 
 Q. 3. What has already been shown in the " Problem 
 of Human Life," and in this book a formulation of 
 truths based thereupon as to the sense in which alone 
 death is predicable of any form of being? 
 
 A. It has been shown, as never before, from the 
 unique standpoint of the Substantial Philosophy, that 
 there is no death, except in the sense of change from 
 
308 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 one form or condition of existence to some other form or 
 state of being.* 
 
 Q. 4. What has the Substantial Philosophy, as formu- 
 lated in the foregoing chapters of this book, re-estab- 
 lished upon a new and more rational basis? 
 
 A. The indestructibility of all matter, and the con- 
 servability of all the substantial force-elements of the 
 universe. 
 
 Q. 5. Can no kind of being ever be annihilated? 
 
 A. Nothing whatever, of a substantial and entitative 
 character, whether material or immaterial, can ever go 
 out of, or be forced out of existence it can only be 
 changed. 
 
 Q. 6. Are these changes constantly going on in 
 Nature? 
 
 A. Indeed they are, in every domain thereof. Chem- 
 ical changes are common and constant in the material 
 world. In the vegetable and animal kingdoms, disorgan- 
 ization and reorganization complement each other. In 
 the domain of physics the various forms of Nature's 
 forces are undergoing an endless transformation, and yet 
 never change as to the primordial substances of their 
 being; and if the analogies of Nature are not the mon- 
 strous utterances of a false prophet, the same general 
 
 * With the physical forces of Nature demonstrated to be sub- 
 stantial entities, as already done in this series of articles, thereby 
 equally demonstrating the substantive nature of the vital and 
 mental powers and forces of all living and conscious beings, 
 this philosophy at once spans the chasm between time and eter- 
 nity, and embraces within its logical grasp the substantial here- 
 after as well as the invisible substantial here of humanity, and 
 furnishes a reasonable proof of a conscious and personal immor- 
 tality for the human race when this purely physical and tempo- 
 rary existence shall have passed away. The mind and life as 
 substantial forces are necessarily indestructible, on the basis that 
 no substantial thing can ever be annihilated though changed in 
 form however often, Dr. Hall, in Scientific Arena, 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 300 
 
 truth will apply to the higher problem of human life, 
 justifying the conclusions ^that what we call the death- 
 catastrophe in man is only a further change of his state, 
 and that in such a changed condition he remains the 
 same as to the essential substance of his being. 
 
 Q. 7. But granting for truth all that is claimed in 
 the foregoing argument, what bearing has it upon the 
 resurrection of the dead? 
 
 A. In so far that the dead, notwithstanding the al- 
 leged catastrophe, are neither annihilated nor changed 
 into something radically different from what they were 
 before the change, but that they are in a state of exist- 
 ence which leaves the question of the resurrection within 
 the range of possibilities. Christendom is at present in 
 possession of no theory of the resurrection in harmony 
 with recent discoveries of science. Christians are sat- 
 isfied that God, as his own interpreter, will, in his own 
 time, make the mystery plain; and that the resurrection 
 of the dead will eventually be comprehended by reason, 
 even as it is now accepted by faith. But are we in the 
 meantime to shut our eyes and suck our thumbs like 
 babies who lull themselves to sleep on imaginary milk? 
 True, we should not be wise above what is written in the 
 infallible "Word of God. Neither should we be content 
 to remain ignorant below what is written in the volume 
 of Nature, which, when not perverted by the element of 
 sin, is equally infallible in its own proper sphere of in- 
 struction. And, further, we assert that there is no pre- 
 sumption in an ardent desire and legitimate effort to be 
 wise above those conclusions drawn from the unscientific 
 and contradictory apprehensions of that twofold revela- 
 tion of harmonious truth which is every where given under 
 the autograph seal of the great Jehovah himself, and 
 which should never be considered as correctly understood 
 until each part is seen to corroborate the other, and both 
 are glorified together. 
 
310 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 8. But does not the foregoing prove too much, viz. : 
 that the dead animals are also in a state of vital or mental 
 conservation in which it is possible for them to survive 
 the shock of death and hear the beckoning blasts of the 
 resurrection trumpet?* 
 
 * But since the mind and life as substantial forces are neces- 
 sarily indestructible, on the basis that no substantial thing can 
 ever be annihilated though changed in form however often, the 
 difficulty arises, does not this great principle of Substantialism 
 prove too much by including the conscious immortality of all 
 lower animals, since their vital and mental powers and forces 
 are as really substantial entities as are those of human beings ? 
 We admit the plausible force of this difficulty, and it was 
 among the earliest that attracted our attention when trying to 
 solve the *' Problem of Human Life" here and hereafter. See 
 the " Problem of Human Life," pp. 468-471. And although the 
 problem cannot be settled as we would solve a problem in 
 mathematics or mechanics, it admits, as we believe and will en- 
 deavor to show, of a sufficient weight of evidence to form a 
 well-grounded hope for the personal immortality of the one 
 class; while the vital and mental powers of the other, or lower 
 class, are only conserved as crude force returned to the primor- 
 dial fountain whence all vitality and mentality originally came. 
 
 If electricity, magnetism, sound, heat, light, and gravity are 
 really substantial or entitative forms of force, and not mere 
 modes of motion of material particles, then these various forms 
 of force, though immaterial, are necessarily as indestructible as 
 is gross matter itself; and instead of ceasing to exist when their 
 manifestations are no longer observed, they are either converted 
 into some other form or forms of force, or, as the Substantial 
 Philosophy so rationally teaches, they subside into the universal 
 force-element or fountain of crude force from whence they orig- 
 inally came, and from which they are re-manifested as needed 
 in the economy of Nature and through the various means aod 
 processes appointed to those ends in the wise counsels of the 
 creative will. 
 
 So, also, as we have just hinted, must it be with all the lower 
 orders of the animal kingdom. Their vital and mental powers, 
 being also as truly and really substantial as their bodies, are 
 equally indestructible; but as these powers or forces, judging by 
 
THE RESURRECTION OP THE DEAD. 31 1 
 
 A. A proper discrimination between the personal and 
 impersonal beings in creation will show that the above 
 objection is not well grounded. It is man's personality 
 that raises him above the general law of subsidence or 
 returnability to the primordial fountain of all force. 
 Though the spirit of man in death returns to God who 
 gave it, it goes there as its own personal and identical 
 self. It can go in no other form or character, since it is 
 
 reason, have served the extent of the uses and purposes of their 
 manifestation here, they, too, must subside, at the dissolution of 
 such animals, into that compartment of the force-fountain of 
 Nature suited to this department of the force-element from 
 which the vital and mental powers of all living creatures must 
 originally have come. This special compartment of the force- 
 element of Nature, where vitality and mentality are conserved, 
 so to speak, is especially correlated with the personal God of the 
 universe as to his vital and mental powers, just as the physical 
 force-element, before referred to, is correlated with God's phys~ 
 ical laws and powers by which the corporeal operations of the 
 universe are carried on through the variously manifested forms 
 of force as they emanate from this physical fountain. 
 
 But according to the reasonable view which Substantialism 
 takes, and which is supported by other rational considerations, 
 the vital and mental powers of man, as the culminating and 
 crowning work of the Almighty, and like unto the personality 
 of God himself in every conceivable way, only on a finite 
 plane, must have been designed and originally destined for a 
 personal and conscious existence in a future life analogous to 
 that which God himself must possess and enjoy as surely as he 
 exists at all. The vital and mental faculties and endowments 
 of man this culminating achievement of infinite wisdom and 
 power with their innate self-consciousness and self -contempla- 
 tion, and with their limitless capability for eternal advance 
 ment, would seem to prove an infinite absurdity in their ve- / 
 creation if they, too, were destined for the utter loss of per- 
 sonal consciousness and identity as soon as the body dies, and, 
 like the no longer valuable or available powers of the beast, to 
 be consigned to the unconscious and impersonal vital and 
 mental force-fountain from whence- they came. Dr. Hall, in 
 the Scientific Arena, Vol. I., p. 49. 
 
312 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 indelibly impressed with the image of the Infinite 
 Person.* 
 
 Q. 9. What then have we a right to expect from 
 science touching the resurrection of the personal dead? 
 
 A. We have a right to expect science to show whether 
 they are in a conserved condition in which they may be 
 reached, and from which they may be raised, provided 
 there be a resurrection power to reach and raise them. 
 
 Q. 10. Has science responded to this rational expecta- 
 tion on our part? 
 
 A. The Substantial Philosophy with its recently dis- 
 covered facts, and its rational view of the substantiality 
 
 * The very strongest, however, of all scientific and philosoph- 
 ical arguments by which to prove the personal and conscious 
 existence of man in another life is first, the scientific and 
 philosophical demonstration that God himself must and does 
 exist as the personal, intelligent creator and organizer of this 
 universe, as proved by the design, artistic beauty, and order 
 everywhere manifested in Nature, from the whirling clockwork 
 of the celestial spheres to the painted marvels of a humming- 
 bird's crest, even down to the artistic and intelligent taste dis- 
 played in the exquisite lines and colors of the microscopic shells 
 of ocean found in the rayless depths of her darkest caverns. 
 
 We speak of God's personality, since it is impossible to con- 
 ceive of any intelligence of the highest order only as we make 
 the mental comparison wi^h. our own conscious powers and 
 rational personality. We can imagine such personal being to 
 be higher than ourselves even to be an infinitely intelligent 
 and powerful being but we can never conceive of such sur- 
 passing intelligence, power, and artistic skill to be less than 
 ourselves, or less than a personality. The material body of 
 man achieves nothing, even in the present gross state of 
 being, only as the physical instrument through which the 
 immaterial entity acts and which dwells temporarily within 
 and manipulates such body. We are but lifeless, inert mat- 
 ter as soon as that immaterial entity has departed at death 
 Hence the immaterial entity within us is the real man which is 
 to endure. 
 
 As sure, then, as a personal God exists independently of ma- 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 313 
 
 and consequent conservability of all forces, has demon- 
 strated from all the known analogies and prophecies of 
 Nature that the personal dead are not dead in a sense 
 that would render a state of conscious existence impos- 
 sible, or their resurrection therefrom improbable. Either 
 this conclusion is true or the prophets of Nature are mis- 
 erable liars, every one of them. 
 
 Q. 11. Well, what do the lower prophetic forces of 
 Nature say? 
 
 A. They show the continuity of Law, from lower to 
 higher, through all the graduated realms of being, and 
 place the burden of disproving the truth of their prophecy 
 
 terial form and conditions, so surely may every thoughtful and 
 rational human personality rest in confidence, with hope scien- 
 tifically and philosophicallj 7 grounded in the nature and fitness 
 of things, that he, too, has a personality not dependent on this 
 corporeal frame except for a temporary schooling through which 
 the inner man is passing and preparing, like the butterfly during 
 its chrysalis state, for the higher development when it shall be 
 released from crude dross to mount on gilded wings. 
 
 This very fact of a rational personality within us says in un- 
 mistakable language to every man: If God lives and can think 
 and plan and work without a material organization, then I can 
 live also, and think and plan and work without a material body 
 as an instrumentality. For why should an infinite personal God 
 have made this immaterial, personal being within the present 
 gross structure of flesh and bones with aspirations and capabili- 
 ties for infinite duration and enjoyment, except to live substan- 
 tially as God himself lives, unless he originally intended to mock 
 his crowning work with conceptions of possibilities never to be 
 realized, and with longing aspirations for enjoyment which 
 \vere never to be gratified? We totally fail to conceive the pos- 
 sibility of an infinite personality working out such a scheme as 
 this universe filled with countless millions of intelligent person- 
 alities like unto himself, except in degree, and with the cer- 
 tainty that these crowning triumphs of infinite skill, so suitable 
 for his own intellectual associates throughout eternity, are 
 doomed to annihilation after this brief and often miserable ex- 
 istence on earth. Dr. Hall, Arena,Vo\. L, p. 50. 
 
314 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 upon those who, in the face of all analogy and law, affirm 
 that death ends all that there is of man and for man. 
 
 Q. 12. Do these prophecies of Nature foreshadow the 
 resurrection of the personal dead? 
 
 A. If that is not their prophecy, they have no obvious 
 mission in the universe of God. Normal solids after 
 being transformed into gases or fluids are brought lack 
 again to normal matter. Electric force is changed into 
 thermal electricity and heat, and then changed back to 
 lightning, which climbs the stairway of the atmosphere 
 and rides in the chariots of the clouds. So in the mai'- 
 velous metamorphoses of the insect. Who will say that 
 even the same portion of the vital force in the insect does 
 not pass from one form to another, and if so, why not 
 back again, and up until the arelia becomes the gay and 
 festive butterfly, whose heaven is sunshine and whose glory 
 it is to weigh itself upon the flower. 
 
 Q. 13. But is not the resurrection of the dead ex- 
 clusively a doctrine of Eevelation and a matter of faith? 
 
 A. It is indeed a doctrine of Revelation and a matter 
 for faith to embrace, but it is not exclusively from Reve- 
 lation or for faith. Nature also contains a revelation, 
 and science and reason have a work to do in grasping the 
 mystery. It is the duty of Christian science to receive 
 all revelations and utilize all the light that shines into 
 the compass of her grasp. Until recently science was 
 not prepared for anything that the higher Revelation had 
 to say upon the subject. 
 
 Q. 14. What do the Scriptures of revealed truth say 
 concerning the death catastrophe in the history of man? 
 
 A. The texts are plain and numerous: "All the days 
 of my appointed time will I wait till my change come."- 
 Job xiv. 14. " We shall all be changed." 1 Cor. xv. 
 51. "Who shall change our vile bodies?" Phil. iii. 21. 
 Other passages might be quoted recognizing the presence 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 315 
 
 of the element of sin in humanity, and giving the change 
 a sombrous shade. In all of them, however, there is a 
 showing of the original purpose of God that man should 
 pass by transition from the present to another realm of 
 human existence. 
 
 Q. 15. What is the state of man immediately after 
 the dissolution or change? 
 
 A. The Scriptures call it Sheol or Hades, and science 
 accepts the term as fairly expressive of the general con- 
 dition of the personal dead. 
 
 Q. 16. Would Hades have been a state in the history 
 of humanity if the possibility of sin had not been ac- 
 tuatized, thus changing the constitutionally required 
 transition of man into the consequent sad and sombrous 
 form of death? 
 
 A. It wonld not. Death rode in upon the pale horse 
 and Hades followed with him. Eev. vi. 8. 
 
 Q. 17. What does Science know about Hades? 
 
 A. As yet, Science knows only in part. Even the 
 Scriptures are a sealed book, except so far as its meaning 
 has been unlocked by him who holds the keys of Death 
 and Hades. Science alone with all the possibilities of 
 its progress, can never open the apocalyptic book of seven 
 seals, and bring to light the hidden contents of the inter- 
 mediate state. This power is vested in him who liveth 
 and was dead. The Lion of the tribe of Judah prevails 
 to open the book; and true science joins the four-and- 
 twenty Elders as they bow before the Lamb to sing the 
 "new song'': " Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
 to open the seals thereof: for tJwu ivast slain." Rev. v. 
 9. Christ's person is the key to the enigma of the uni- 
 verse, and his death the solution of all the problems 
 within the veil. The entrance of sin into the world, 
 and the entailment of its mortuary consequences upon 
 
316 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the world, made it necessary for Christ to pass, in a real 
 historical way, under the dominion of death in order to 
 unseal that great book of futurity whose most interest- 
 ing contents are to be found immediately over the border 
 of this present life. 
 
 Q. 18. Did Christ really enter Hades? 
 
 A. lie did; and none deny it except such as are 
 " fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets 
 had spoken concerning him," and all that was of neces- 
 sity included in his remedial person and work, from his 
 conception by the Virgin to his return through the ever- 
 lasting doors to glory. This view is taken from the truly 
 Scriptural and scientific standpoint of organic redemption. 
 It centers in, and flows forward with, the entire history 
 of the Christ, on a line parallel with the forces at work 
 in the history of abnormal humanity, until both powers 
 meet in the realm of death, where death is swallowed up 
 victoriously. Otherwise there would have been no "path 
 of life" leading to "fullness of joy": neither could our 
 God have " gone up with a shout/' The Bible is full of 
 this Christocentric theology. The logic of any opposite 
 theory holds its premises and conclusions within the me- 
 chanical compass of dry abstractions. However plausible 
 it may appear, its syllogisms are full of fallacy, and its 
 pious platitudes full of emptiness. Divine consistency is 
 not the key to the atonement. Neither does God save 
 the world for the sake of the mere agony of his suffering 
 Son. His death involves more than the tragedy of 'the 
 Cross. Golgotha was the gate-way to the Satanic citadel 
 beyond. The last scene in the dark drama was executed 
 behind the sombrous curtain. Christ's heel was bruised 
 on Calvary, but the serpent's head was not effectually 
 crushed until the promised "seed" had passed "from 
 Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah," to invade the 
 sepent's headquarters. Thus did he wrest "the keys of 
 death and hell " from him who had the power of death 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 317 
 
 (Heb. ii. 14.). Thus, too, was the Gospel preached to 
 them that are dead, making it possible for all the un- 
 doomed "spirits in prison " to " pass the crystal ports 
 of light, and dwell in endless bliss." 
 
 This is not "another Gospel," but the faith delivered 
 already to Old Testament saints. The twilight prophecy 
 of such a coming Conqueror tinged the horizon of the 
 patriarchal age. Abraham foresaw the day of Messianic 
 triumph, and was glad. David embraced the primitive 
 promise, and expressed his hope of deliverance from the 
 power of death (Ps. xvi.). Peter was able, under the 
 baptism of Pentacost, to draw more meaning from Da- 
 vid's language than what was clear and distinct in the 
 inspired fnith of the Psalmist at the time of its poetic 
 utterance. Neither did St. Peter embrace this great 
 truth at once in all its plenary significance. He contin- 
 ued to advance 'beyond himself, or, rather, was carried 
 forward by the objective power of the concrete truth, 
 until his higher inspiration and his consequent deeper 
 penetration enabled him to see David's Lord and Son in- 
 vade the mystic realm of mortality and preach deliverance 
 to the captives (1 Peter iii. 19). 
 
 Thus did the concrete and objective Gospel start with 
 the development of the race, and move forward in the 
 central channel of human history. The panorama of its 
 successive and inseparable scenes passes continually before 
 the restless audience of fallen humanity, communicating 
 to each obedient individual the substance of a higher life 
 and consequent faith, through which its saving benefits 
 may be apprehended, its proportions surveyed, its beauties 
 admired, and the personal Fountain of its excellencies 
 adored. Such an exhibition leaves neither room nor 
 relish for the unsavory hash of disjointed abstractions. 
 Both science and faith require "that which every joint 
 supplieth" in an organic way. It seeks a comprehensive 
 view of all the sections in the past, present, and future of 
 
318 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 one grand, progressive movement of Messianic life- force, 
 until, before its raptured vision, "hell shall ope its dol- 
 orous portals to the peering day," and the ransomed 
 (l spirits in prison" march forth to swell the old tri- 
 umphal shout of prophecy: "Lift up your heads, ye 
 gates: and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the 
 King of Glory shall come in." 
 
 What a solemn, sacred enigma confronts us in the 
 "three days" of transition from the cross to the Re- 
 deemer's resurrection! Christ was really dead his soul 
 was separated from his body. This state of separation 
 was his intermediate state. The " corn of wheat " had 
 fallen into the ground that " the law of the spirit of life 
 in Christ Jesus " might germinate the promised " seed " 
 into a glorified humanity, "free from the law of sin and 
 death." This involved the conflict with principalities 
 and powers. What a significant and far-reaching victory! 
 A dead Christ had more commanding influence over the 
 elements of his abode than had a living Jonah when he 
 "cried out of the belly of hell." Jonah prayed; Jesus 
 preached. His preaching was not so much a proclama- 
 tion of a power beyond himself as a demonstration of the 
 power he had in himself " the Lord, strong and 
 mighty in battle." The sermon in the sanctuary of 
 Hades, on that last significant Sabbath in the calendar of 
 Judaism, was nothing less than the power of his personal 
 presence in the intermediate state. Its eloquence was 
 " in the demonstration of the Spirit," and told power- 
 fully in breaking the bands of captivity for the pious 
 dead. Neither were its effects confined to the abode of 
 spirits: " The graves were opened, and many of the 
 bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of 
 the graves after his resurrection " (Matt, xxvii. 3). This 
 was a result of the descent into Hades. It reveals the 
 law, and points to the fact of a general resurrection. 
 
 Q. 19. Then Hades is not a state of torment? 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 319 
 
 A. It is not necessarily such. Corresponding with 
 the rise and progress of Substantialism there has been an 
 advance in the way of sound theological and Christolog- 
 ical thought. Hades has been too commonly identified 
 with perdition, purgatory or the grave. The question of 
 the peculiar condition or state of human beings conse- 
 quent upon the separation of soul and body was too gen- 
 erally either confounded with that of the place or locality 
 of the departed, or submerged into the very different 
 question of rewards and punishment*, according to the 
 moral characters, respectively, of such departed. But a 
 now interest has been awakened in this subject, and a 
 new direction taken by the inquiries thus stimulated. 
 Bright theologians throughout the world are alive to the 
 important movement. New England theology no longer 
 elevates the external organ of its sensitive olfactories at 
 the mere mention of the word which formerly seemed to 
 savor more of sulphur than divinity. 
 
 Indeed the way is now thronged with pious pilgrims 
 and scientific adventurers, who wish to explore the val- 
 ley which intermediates between death and the resurrec- 
 tion of the body. Believing that the soul is an organized 
 entity, substantial in the essence of its being, arid inde- 
 pendent of this tabernacle, we join the eager throng, and 
 look with pleasure upon the land of Beulah, where, 
 amidst the flowers and fruits of Paradise, our sainted 
 friends have pitched their hadean tents, and now wait in 
 hope for that greater "glory which shall be revealed in 
 us " all, when, ' ' in the resurrection at the last day/' 
 '" Christ shall change these vile bodies, and make them 
 like unto His glorified body, according to the working 
 whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself." 
 
 Q. 20. Was Christ's resurrection the mere effect or 
 fruit of what went before in his personal conflict with 
 antagonistic forces, whereby he in his person and passion 
 neutralized the force of sin and death in humanity, or 
 
320 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 was it also the evidence that he in bis resurrection was 
 the fruitful source of resurrection force for others? 
 
 A. Christ, as the generic man, and in his organic re- 
 lation to the whole of the race, was, in the same generic 
 and organic sense, the fountain and " forerunner " of all 
 redeemed humanity. 
 
 Q. 21. Did Christ in his resurrection return to the 
 same order or condition of human life which he had 
 passed out of when he committed his spirit into the 
 hands of his Father? 
 
 A. lie did not. The resurrection of Christ was no 
 reinstatement into his former realm of existence. It 
 was a transition to something beyond an entrance into 
 a higher realm of being, according to what was origi- 
 nally made possible in the constitution of human nature, 
 and which, notwithstanding the actualization of sin, was 
 continued possible, yet not without just such an antidote 
 as that which was brought to its rescue and deliverance 
 in the person and work of the Second Adam, who was 
 also "the Lord from Heaven " and '' quickening spirit." 
 Under this view of Christ's mission "into the lower 
 parts of the earth," his resurrection appears as the fruit 
 rather than the achievement of his victory. When Jesus 
 cried with a loud voice it indicated " the greatness of his 
 strength." In that strength he entered the realm, ex- 
 tracted the sting, and exhausted the power of death. 
 Having thus " abolished death," he reached that turning- 
 point in his eventful history when " death had no more 
 dominion over him." Having captured captivity, he lead 
 it captive. Having spoiled principalities and powers, he 
 made a show of them openly" (Col. 2, xv). Having 
 been confined as a willing captive in the city of the dead, 
 he arose in the midnight hour of human history, and, 
 with more than Samsoman might, plucked up the pillars 
 and carried away the gates of the hadean metropolis. 
 No wonder that "our God has gone up with a shout!" 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 321 
 
 No wonder that the apostles preached Jesus and the res- 
 urrection with such enthusiastic emphasis! "It is Christ 
 that died; yea, rather, is risen again." 
 
 Q. 22. Was his resurrection the culminating point of 
 all possible progress the end of all transition in the 
 history of the Redeemer? 
 
 A. The resurrection of Christ was indeed a cardinal 
 period in his history, but it was not the final period to all 
 that his full transition from the earthly to the heavenly 
 state involved. 
 
 Q. 23. Did he leave his resurrection body behind him, 
 and take on a new body during the forty days of his con- 
 tinued sojourn upon the earth or at the time of his ascen- 
 sion into heaven?* 
 
 A. He did not. His resurrection body doubtless un- 
 derwent further change, according to the laws of the 
 higher realm upon which he had entered, and to whose re- 
 quirements and environments it was gradually adjusting 
 itself according to all that is known of the law of growth 
 and development; but it was the same body still, even as 
 the risen Christ remained the same identical blessed 
 Jesus who had come forth from the state of the dead, 
 and who with triumph passed within the veil to appear 
 in the presence of God for us. 
 
 Q. 554. But what has all this to do with the resurrec- 
 tion of human individuals? 
 
 A. Very much indeed. If humanity were made up, 
 in a mechanical way, of a mere aggregation of separate 
 and distinct beings, it would be otherwise. But human- 
 ity in the concrete is an organism, and as seen in Chap. 
 
 * We are exceedingly sorry not to find that vigorous thinker, 
 Christian scholar, earnest preacher and pious man Bishop 
 Randolph Foster, with us, in this, the very heart of all New 
 Testament theology. In his excellent book, " Beyond the 
 Grave," p. 161, he takes the opposite view. 
 
322 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 XII., that which affects the head affects the whole, and 
 that which affects the whole affects all the parts. 
 
 Q. 25. Will all human individuals be raised from the 
 dead in virtue of the resurrection of Christ? 
 
 A. They will; because Christ's risen humanity stands 
 organically related to all the members of the human 
 race. 
 
 Q. 26. Does it not then follow that all will have part 
 in the healing benefits of his life and the glorious fruits 
 of his resurrection? 
 
 A. It does not so follow, because while some have 
 been made to partake of his life as an antidote for sin", 
 others who will have rejected the antidote, or who did 
 not have the disposition to receive it, will still be found 
 poisoned and diseased with that moral malady ; and, 
 therefore, while between themselves and Christ there is 
 a humanity in common, there will be some elements 
 which they will be found not to possess in common with 
 the great personal magnet of the resurrection morn 
 elements essential to a resurrection unto moral health, 
 consequent happiness and eternal glory. Christ as 
 the risen, ascended and glorified head of humanity v/ill, 
 by some action of resurrection-force going out from 
 his person, and for some purpose, draw all men unto 
 himself. His relation to those who shall have partaken 
 of his life as an antidote for sin and death, and in 
 whom it shall have operated as a healing force, will be 
 one of positive attraction. To such as will not have been 
 benefited by this counteractant life-force of Immanuel, 
 and who are found in Hades as continued and conse- 
 quently continuous sinners, will be resurrected to a con- 
 tinued state of self-condemnation under the continued 
 force of death. As seen in Chapter V., the higher affini- 
 ties found between life-forces and the attraction conse- 
 quent thereupon involve the possibility of repulsion. 
 This possibility of repulsion will reach its ultimate 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 323 
 
 actualization in the peculiar character of the resurrection 
 and rejection of the wicked. The Son of Man, by \irtue 
 of the common affinity between himself and all members 
 of the race, will gather "all nations" before his Judgment 
 Seat, and by the force of repulsion will cause the wicked 
 to "depart from" him. 
 
 Q. 27. Will there, then, be no hope for those who are 
 thus repelled by and from the Fountain of all life, hu- 
 manity, holiness and happiness? 
 
 A. Neither Science nor Eevelation gives any ground 
 for a reasonable hope; and if some unknown remedy 
 should yet be provided and offered, it would not, there- 
 fore, necessarily follow that such individuals would em- 
 brace its remedial benefits after having incorrigibly neg- 
 lected the first great offer of salvation. 
 
 Q. 28. Will there, then, be two resurrections of the 
 dead? 
 
 A. Revelation so teaches, even as Science foreshadows 
 the same in the different movements produced upon dif- 
 ferent substances in different minerals by magnetic at- 
 traction and repulsion. 
 
 Q. 29. "Who shall have part in the first resurrection? 
 
 A. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first 
 resurrection. Such as those in whom sin has been anti- 
 doted in this present state of human life and who are 
 consequently found in Hades in a morally convalescent 
 state. 
 
 Q. 30. And they will be raised to a higher state of 
 blessedness by virtue of their normal relation to him who 
 is the first begotten from the dead? 
 
 A. Just so. The Apostle Paul had no other theory 
 of the first resurrection, except that which held the risen 
 Christ to be the magnet of redeemed humanity. How 
 otherwise could his inspired vision have seen the dead 
 
324 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 in Christ rise first to meet their descending Lord in the 
 air? What but the substantial life-force of the resur- 
 rected Head could penetrate the pale portals of Hades 
 and preach final deliverance to the captive members of 
 his mystical body, the Church? 
 
 Q. 31. Does the resurrection of the dead include the 
 resurrection of the body ? 
 
 A. There will indeed be a resurrection of the body, 
 but not of all the material elements which at some time 
 in life or at the time of final dissolution may have been 
 incorporated and held together by the ebbing life-force 
 of the individual. The first step toward a scientific solu- 
 tion of this question is to secure a clear and distinct per- 
 ception as to what constitutes the body. It was the old 
 orthodox idea that the resurrection body is the outward 
 frame composed of various material substances, and that 
 it would be raised from the grave by some sort of syn- 
 thetic process in miraculous chemistry. This section of 
 the old theology, like our outward tenements of clay, is 
 now fast passing away beyond the power of resurrection. 
 It was born under the reign of a materialistic planet, and 
 has managed to live through the past materialistic ages, 
 but can no longer command the respect of thinking men, 
 since the light of a more substantial luminary has made 
 its appearance in the scientific heavens. It has been 
 weighed in God's great balance and found wanting. If 
 theologians had not been blind to the existence of an un- 
 seen universe, the idea would never have been born. Be- 
 sides, it based itself upon the abstract power of Omnipo- 
 tence. We do not deny the unlimited power of God, and 
 yet we pity any " body of divinity" that has no organic 
 conception of a concrete truth. We admit that Om- 
 nipotence might make a successful search after all the 
 mummies in Egypt and gather up all the original in- 
 gredients of men whose material bodies have been analyzed 
 in the chemistry of fire, but if this is what the creed of 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 825 
 
 Christendom implies as essential to the resurrection of 
 the body, our faith needs a tonic of the most powerful 
 sort. For our part, we expect neither carnal notoriety, 
 church discipline, nor glorious martyrdom, for announc- 
 ing right here that we do not believe in a resurrection of 
 flesh and blood; and we charge nothing whatever for 
 the very valuable information hereby furnished to all 
 materialistic philosophers and theologians, that the field 
 of eschatological science can never fertilize itself with 
 bone-dust. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that by this time and in this 
 age of proper progress, both rational faith and Christian 
 science demand a more satisfactory conception as to what 
 constitutes the essential body of a human individual. It 
 is, then, in order to inquire: "With what body do they 
 come?" The answer is: " Thou so west not that body that 
 shall be;" and yet, "God giveth to each seed a body of 
 its own.'' What is this " seed?" It is not merely the 
 soul, for the soul, as but one side of the man's being, 
 does not build for itself a body, neither does it develop 
 itself into a bodily form, any more than it can be the pro- 
 duct of molecular motion or nervous efflorescence, as 
 materialism teaches. The body, like the soul, grounds 
 itself in personality. The germinal substance of man's 
 entire being is a life-principle originating in God, and, 
 carrying with it the impress of its Great Original, in- 
 volves the power the necessity of endless continuance. 
 
 The key to this interesting question, so far as philos- 
 ophy can contribute anything toward its solution, is 
 found in that tenet of Substantialism which teaches that 
 there is a pre-existent, immaterial and substantial form 
 or type for each and every individual in the organic 
 world. In a modified sense, each human individual may 
 use the language of the second Adam: "A body hast 
 thou prepared me." The heathen need not rage at these 
 declarations, for the Psalmist taught such philosophy 
 
328 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 three thousand years ago. " Thine eyes did see my sub- 
 stance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my mem- 
 bers were written, which in continuance were fashioned, 
 when as yet there was none of them." Yes, "fash- 
 ioned;" first in the all-comprehensive purpose of God, 
 afterward by the plastic power ordained by God in man. 
 This plastic power is not a material germ or starting- 
 point in the process of individual evolution, neither is it 
 a mere mental germ breathed into embryonic nostrils at 
 some instant previous to or during the period of gesta- 
 tion, but a life principle involving both mental and ma- 
 terial possibilities, and a pattern holding its existence as 
 ar organized entity, and, as such, under God, the author 
 of its being, whose will is the law of its well-being, pro- 
 ceeds to complete itself in the way of a twofold develop- 
 ment: viz., the inward, looking to the supersensible side 
 of human nature, or soul, and the outward, as the put- 
 ting on of this tabernacle. 
 
 "A dualism," says Dr. Eauch, "that admits of two 
 principles for one being, offers many difficulties, and the 
 greatest is to unite those principles in a third." A river 
 may originate in two fountain?, but individual life can- 
 not. And because life cannot be scraped together it can- 
 not be separated into parts. 
 
 We repeat, therefore, that whatever there is of a blessed 
 or first resurrection for humanity hinges not on some 
 colossal stride of God's abstract omnipotence, but roots 
 itseli organically in the last Adam. It is in Christ, not 
 merely as a fruit of his own personal victory over death, 
 and his consequent ascension into the higher sphere of 
 glorified humanity, but also and rather as a fountain of 
 substantial sinless life for each individual in organic 
 union with him who is the " quickening spirit." 
 Thus " -in Christ shall all be made alive," because 
 "the quickening spirit" begets a substantial spiritual 
 body in the very womb of the psychical or inward type 
 
THE RESURRECTION OP THE DEAD. 327 
 
 which we, in this answer, have tried to define. "T/iereis 
 a spiritual body." It is not merely the immaterial body, 
 which, according to Substantialism, is the inward pattern 
 of tke outward and material, but the inward body 
 quickened and made spiritual in virtue of a personal life- 
 union with the Second Adam, which the science of the- 
 ology calls regeneration. In this new relation or trans- 
 lation to Christ, the life-principle or body of the indi- 
 vidual does not lose its identity, but begins to unfold 
 normally, according to a different law of development, 
 even " the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, 
 which makes it free from the law of sin and death." At 
 the very moment of such regeneration "this mortal" 
 begins to " put on immortality," and, therefore, when 
 the earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved the new 
 Adamite is clothed upon with his habitation which is 
 from heaven. 
 
 The only question remaining to be touched upon in 
 this answer is when shall the last psychical change take 
 place in the history of each Second- Adamite. Down to 
 this time, the weight of theological sentiment, as formu- 
 lated in the confessions and taught in divinity schools, 
 has favored its postponement to some unknown future 
 period, when the dethronement of death and the aggre- 
 gate rising of the dead is to constitute the grand and 
 final act in time's great theater. There is now, however, 
 a gradual breaking away from all such interpretation of 
 Scripture. Many believe that the doctrine never had any 
 fellowship with the truth. As soon as an individual 
 becomes a member of the Second Adam there is a begin- 
 ning of the process by which "this mortal shall put on 
 immortality." The more loyal and obedient hearts in 
 the Redeemer's family are beginning to rebel at the sense- 
 less thought that any part of man's real being must go 
 down into the grave and sleep away unnumbered years in 
 the cheerless chambers of sepulchral solitude. 
 
328 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 32. Then it is the person who is raised from the 
 dead? 
 
 A. The person is raised from the state of the dead; 
 and all that belongs essentially to the constitution of the 
 personal individual will be subject to the life-force or 
 resurrection power of Him who is the Resurrection. Just 
 as Christ, as the organic head-center of the whole human 
 race, draws the individuals of the race from the state of 
 the dead, so does personality, or the personal head-center 
 of the human individual, draw after it and unto itself all 
 that ever belonged essentially to it, and all that is neces- 
 sary to complete or recomplete itself in the resurrection 
 from the state of the dead. 
 
 Q. 33. Is it, then, to be understood that the Substan- 
 tial Philosophy, as applied to the Christian doctrine of 
 the resurrection of the dead, does not admit the correct- 
 ness of the theory that there will be a resurrection of the 
 identical material particles formerly placed in the grave? 
 
 A. The Substantial Philosophy cannot admit the cor- 
 rectness of anything so much in conflict with the legiti- 
 mate deductions of true science, and the obvious teach- 
 ings of Revelation.* 
 
 Q. 34. But it has been claimed, in view of the fact 
 
 * Bishop Foster, of the M. E. Church, in his course of lectures 
 delivered before the Chautauqua Assembly in 1878, and after- 
 ward published in his " Beyond the Grave," p. 162, says: " The 
 word resurrection is strained when it is insisted that it is 
 equivalent to the statement that the exact body is to be re- 
 stored. It may even be doubted whether it is an assertion 
 concerning any part of the body. Its utmost meaning is, that 
 the MAN who is cut down by death shall live and flourish again " 
 (italics and capitals ours). Also on p. 161: ''There is no par- 
 ticle of it [the body] that it [the soul] particularly cares for. If 
 it should los'e atom by atom, as in fact it does daily, it would 
 not go into mourning. Its mold in the grave will have no 
 special charm for the soul. Let us cease to be the sport of 
 dreams and slaves of prejudice. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OE THE DEAD. 329 
 
 that Christ arose from the grave in the same body that 
 Joseph of Aramathea wrapped in linen and laid in the 
 tomb, that it therefore follows, since Christ's resurrec- 
 tion is the pattern of ours, that the literal and material 
 bodies of dead men will also arise as to every identical 
 particle of dust to which the material of their bodies re- 
 turned through the full and final process of dissolution 
 in the grave. Is such reasoning correct, and can such a 
 conclusion find justification in the real premises of the 
 case? 
 
 A. Christ's resurrection is not a pattern of ours in 
 any such sense, as though the great teacher had written 
 a copy for his pupils to imitate. It is the pattern in the 
 sense that he is the type, source or root-principle of all 
 that follows organically in the way of effect or conform- 
 ity to type. To make Christ a mere outward pattern, in 
 a mechanical sense, of any fact, or act, or achievement in 
 the history of the individual Christian, or in the history 
 of his kingdom from grace to glory, betrays the wretched- 
 ness of abstract thinking, and the leanness of our most 
 popular theological literature. Away with such mince- 
 pie divinity! Christ indulged in no rhetorical nourish 
 when he said: "I am the resurrection." His is there- 
 fore the pattern of the saint's resurrection, not in the 
 sense of something to be copied after, but as the princi- 
 ple of resurrection fruit. Paul so understood the sub- 
 ject treated in Cor. xv. Otherwise, the whole chapter 
 would be a miserable mess of jargon. The core of his 
 masterly argument is in substance: "If you do not 
 admit the flowing of the stream, you deny tho existence 
 of the fountain; but the fountain is a fact Christ is 
 the resurrection, and he is risen from the dead, and, 
 therefore, the stream must flow as a necessary and legiti- 
 mate result, viz: All who are substantially and organic- 
 ally in him are already risen with hinij and the process 
 must complete itself in the resurrection of their bodies." 
 
330 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 But it does not follow that the material of their bodies 
 will arise as Christ arose in his material body. That sort 
 of reasoning would lead us to conclude that St. Peter's 
 resurrection will show the nail-prints which the Apostle 
 received in his crucifixion, and a continuance thereof 
 would lead us into absurdity, world without end. Paul 
 said that he was crucified with Christ, and by the cross 
 of Christ. Are we therefore to conclude that his mate- 
 rial body hung upon the material cross on which the 
 Redeemer died? Even Catholicism in the doctrine of 
 the mass, does not teach anything more objectionable 
 than some of the materialistic inferences of such Prot- 
 estant theology. It is in this way that violence is done 
 to the Bible, science and common sense. And it will 
 never be otherwise, indeed, until a general and hearty 
 recognition of the invisible and organic entities of being 
 becomes the guiding star of both faith and reason. It 
 must ultimately come to this. Science must endure as 
 seeing the invisible, or perish utterly from the earth. 
 
 We believe in a full salvation, and in a full resurrec- 
 tion; but our faith has neither room nor relish for the 
 many monstrous deductions of materialistic philosophy 
 now pestering the Church as severely as the frogs did the 
 inhabitants of Egypt. If this is rationalism, we are 
 proud to plead guilty of the charge. The practice that 
 once filled the Church on earth with relics is bad enough; 
 the theology that tries to carry them into the Church 
 triumphant is worse. It may appeal to the resurrection 
 of the Second Adam, but will find no justification in that 
 principle and formative period of a process in which all 
 saints have a consequential part. Christ was without sin, 
 and as there is no merit in physical decay there was no 
 reason why God's holy One should see corruption. As 
 pure water leaves no sediment, so the immaculate Re- 
 deemer left no " remains" in his death. The saint leaves 
 a sediment behind, because every principle and particle 
 
\ f ^ 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OP THE DEAD. 331 
 
 of his essential personal being is filtered through the 
 Rock of Ages. Publish it and keep it before the people, 
 that in the light of the more Substantial Philosophy of 
 the dawning future it will be seen and acknowledged that 
 the sedimental deposits of the grave are no more neces- 
 sary to constitute the saint's complete identical being in 
 the glorified state of the just made perfect than the set- 
 tlings of impure water are essential to the water as such 
 after God has taken it up and clothed it upon in the 
 clouds of Heaven, to reflect the beauty of the sunbeams, 
 and give back the rays of his supernal glory. 
 
 Q. 35. Then it is the resurrection of the dead rather 
 than merely that of the body which is promised in Rev- 
 elation, and with which science has to deal, so far as it 
 has a commission for such work? 
 
 A. The above question involves its own correct answer. 
 Any proper and thorough exigetical examination of the 
 great majority of the Scripture passages bearing upon the 
 subject of the resurrection will show that they support and 
 justify no other view. Even in that great inspired treat- 
 ise, 1 Cor. xv., where the groat apostolic substantialist 
 discusses this feature of the subject, he introduces the 
 deeper and more general topic by his interrogatory prop- 
 osition: "How say some among you that there is no 
 resurrection of the, deadf And as he proceeds to dis- 
 cuss its bearings and effects upon the resurrection of the 
 body a mere branch of the general subject he gives the 
 entire materialistic theory away by the inspired declara- 
 tion: "Thou soivest not that body that shall be." 
 
 Q. 36. But does not the Creed of Christendom express 
 faith "in the resurrection of the body," rather than in the 
 resurrection of the dead? 
 
 A. Christendom is not at variance with the truth in 
 the confession of its faith in the XI. Article of the 
 Creed. It must be remembered that the old Gnostic 
 heresy and tendency to spiritualize everything pertaining 
 
,'*32 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 to Christ's person and his work in the Christian was still 
 in the Church in those periods of her history when the 
 Creed was passing through, the gradual process of formu- 
 lation, and that in order to hold fast to the great truth 
 of the resurrection of the dead, with all that it involves 
 and implies, including what the Gnostic heresy denied, 
 viz., the resurrection of the body, the Church wisely 
 empJtasized that side of the truth; and so it continues in 
 truth and by toleration even unto this day. The time 
 will probably come, however, when Christendom, assailed 
 as she now is by the opposite tendency toward material- 
 ism, will be obliged to place the emphasis back to where 
 the Scriptures and true science will justify its location 
 and continuation through all the future periods of her 
 militant history; and in the light of the Substantial Phi- 
 losophy all the subordinate confessions of faith will echo 
 back the consistent sentiment of one unanimous Amen.* 
 
 *The " Heidelberg Confession " was never intended as a strait- 
 jacket for any man's reserved rights and opinions. We know 
 of nothing in its teachings in conflict with our expressed view 
 of the first resurrection as seen in the light of the Substantial 
 Philosophy. If, however, it should become manifest in the 
 future that thp.t venerable and amiable little book, or for that 
 matter any other confession in Christendom, is evidently at 
 variance with the obvious teachings of true science, the symbol 
 must be made to unde-go any such change and modification as 
 may be necessary to bring it into harmony with the truth. We 
 consider the foregoing assertion as neither very original nor 
 radical, but a proposition which must be regarded as fundament- 
 ally correct as long as progress is the watch-word of science, 
 and perfection the pole-star of human history. And we remark 
 further that science is not under bonds to appear before the bar 
 of the Bible, w r hen the latter is considered as a mere volume of 
 valuable archives to be ransacked at random by the vandalism 
 of materialistic induction. Both the teachings of science and 
 the Bible as now constituted, and as it now incorporates not 
 only divine, but also human elements which, it is reasonably 
 presumed, may, notwithstanding its recent revision, possess at 
 least some slight possibility of further defects must finally 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 333 
 
 Q. 37. Then Substantialism as applied to Christianity 
 is not at variance with the Gospel of Christ and the blessed 
 hopes which its promises kindle in the hearts of Christian 
 men? 
 
 A. God forbid; yea, Substantialism establishes the 
 hope of immortality; it tends to show how the law of the 
 spirit of life in Christ Jesus makes human individuals 
 free from the law of sin and death; it justifies the reason- 
 able expectations of the human soul; it encourages the 
 noblest yearnings of the home-sick heart; it catches every 
 promise of Revelation, and then from a truly scientific 
 standpoint it shows that the dignity and destiny of God's 
 chidren require that they should rise from the interme- 
 diate state of the dead and shout their triumph through 
 the skies. 
 
 appear for judgment at the bar of God's Word, which is "for- 
 ever settled in the heavens." This substantial Word of God is 
 the Truth, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, 
 and from whose decisions in all matters of conflicting theories 
 there can be no appeal. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OUK FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 
 
 QUESTION 1. What has been shown in the former 
 chapters of this book? 
 
 ANSWER. By way of beneficial recapitulation it may 
 be stated in brief that, according to the teachings of the 
 Substantial Philosophy, and in a light never previously 
 shed upon the organic chain of subjects treated herein, 
 that the Personal and Infinite God is the fountain and 
 source of all normal things; that God is a substantial 
 being, and that, therefore, the universe as derived from 
 him is constituted of substantial entities; that these en- 
 tities naturally classify themselves into material and im- 
 material substances; that as matter was not made from 
 nothing it can never go to nothing; that all immaterial 
 substances, whether vital or non-vital, are also force-ele- 
 ments in nature and no more destructible than matter; 
 that these force-elements or immaterial substances are 
 either such as belong to the inorganic order of being, as 
 in chemistry or physics, or to the organic domain thereof; 
 that the highest finite form of immaterial substance holds 
 its being in the mental and moral constitution of man; 
 that man is the center of creation, and in man's person- 
 ality creation comes to have meaning, and awakens to a 
 consciousness of itself; that such personality involves 
 also of internal necessity a consciousness of God, the 
 primordial source and perpetual center of all personal- 
 ities; that this God-consciousness in man is the Divine 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 335 
 
 image apprehending the original; that this image is not 
 a mere shadow, but a vital drop of God's undiminishable 
 substance in the being that bears his image; that in virtue 
 of this peculiar indwelling of God in man the latter 
 possessed the power of progress and transition to a higher 
 realm than the present order of human life; that this 
 possibility of rational and moral advancement involved 
 also of necessity the possibility of failure in the way of 
 actual sin and death; that such possibility to sin became 
 actualized in the very beginning of human history; that 
 in such actualization humanity passed into an abnormal 
 state with a consequent tendency toward the state of the 
 dead; that for the purpose of counteracting this abnor- 
 mal tendency the second head of humanity Immanuel 
 God with us became also Sacrifice and Kedeemer by 
 plunging voluntarily into the surging and seething death- 
 stream, and swam along down with the swelling current 
 until by the counteracting force of his own high and 
 holy life he checked the raging, roaring tide at the very 
 threshold of eternal damnation; that such neutralization 
 was fully and finally accomplished in the intermediate 
 state or hades; that as soon as the tide was thus checked 
 death had no more dominion over him, and that all 
 power was his in heaven and earth; that in virtue of 
 such victory over death he arose from the dead; that in 
 such victory manifested in his resurrection, the demon- 
 stration of the Spirit and power was given to his sermon 
 in hades, whereby he had preached deliverance to the 
 captive dead; that even some of the graves were opened 
 in testimony of the glorious achievement; that some of 
 the bodies of the saints walked into Jerusalem to swell 
 the triumphal march of David's risen Lord and Son; 
 that Christ draws with him to a higher plane of life all 
 individuals between whom and Himself there is a 
 healthy affinity in the substantial elements of holy and 
 normal life; in short, it has been shown and seen that 
 
336 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the Substantial Philosophy after solving satisfactorily all 
 the fundamental problems of finite being and human life 
 could also pass with the rod and staff of Science and 
 Revelation through the valley of the shadow of death, 
 proving, as no other system of philosophy ever could, 
 that, notwithstanding the throes and threats of corporeal 
 dissolution, death does not end all that there is of man 
 and for man. 
 
 Q. 2. What now still lies before us in the full prob- 
 lem and comprehensive volume of human life? 
 
 A. Our future state and place after the resurrection 
 from the dead. 
 
 Q. 3. In considering our future state, what is it that 
 first of all enforces its claims upon our attention? 
 
 A. Immortality, which " oversweeps all pains, all tears, 
 all time, all fears and peals like the eternal thunders of 
 the deep into my ears this truth: Thou livest forever." 
 
 Q. 4. Then man is immortal? 
 
 A. Either man is immortal or the whole creation has 
 no higher mission than to mock God's noblest creature 
 and man's noblest yearnings.* 
 
 * Now, if man's spiritual being or inner man, at death, simply 
 steps out of this physical structure, retaining, as we hold, its 
 personal and spiritual identity and character, it is but a contin- 
 uation of the same conscious and spiritual life that we possess 
 here, raised to greater perfection or lowered to greater degrada- 
 tion according to real, intrinsic character in this life, since the 
 real man is then brought nakedly to face the real environment 
 of his selfhood without the obscurations of physical surround- 
 ings. To say that man is not naturally immortal by virtue of 
 his creation in God's image, and by virtue of his having received 
 a spark from God's self-existent being which constitutes his con 
 scious, spiritual entity, is to say that Adam was not immortal 
 before the fall and that he would not have continued to be im- 
 mortal had he never sinned. To be a Christian, redeemed here 
 by Christ, is to be restored to the same immortality that Adam 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 337 
 
 Q. 5. What does immortality involve? 
 
 A. First of all, it implies everlasting duration; but it 
 involves more than duration more than everlastingness. 
 If matter is indestructible it is everlasting, but it is not 
 for that reason immortal. Rolling suns may continue in 
 their eternal circlings, but still they are nothing more 
 than mammoth meteors in the sky. 
 
 possessed before falling under the condemnation of sin, so far as 
 our spiritual entity is concerned. If that redeemed life contin- 
 ues after the body dies, we do not see why it is not a continu- 
 ance of man's primeval immortality. That immortality is 
 promised as a gift of God to the righteous is an intimation that 
 the condition of the unrighteous after death by virtue of their 
 real character and degradation, will be so nearly a state of per- 
 petual death as to be virtually the opposite of the higher immor- 
 tality, though in a modified and limited sense they two will be 
 immortal, since because possessing absolute deathlessness and 
 spiritual consciousness they will never absolutely die. Perfect 
 immortality in its sublimer sense, as the gift of God, will only 
 be theirs who are in character Godlike, and in this higher sense 
 life and immortality were first brought to light or revealed to 
 man by the gospel. 
 
 Our argument, therefore, for the immortality of man, mean- 
 ing thereby his perpetual and indestructible existence as a spirit- 
 ual and conscious entity, is based on the incontrovertible fact 
 that his personal and spiritual entity came originally as a drop 
 from out God's spiritual and vital being. Man as a personal and 
 spiritual entity was noc made out of nothing any more than his 
 body was made out of nothing. His spirit, soul, mind, and life 
 as a whole was a drop of God's intelligent, self-conscious being, 
 and as such shaped into God's image, became the human ego 
 around which forms are reproduced from generation to genera- 
 tion as corresponding physical organisms. The fact that this 
 inner man is substantial, demonstrates its indestructibility, and 
 the fact that this indestructible entity was originally a part of 
 God, consisting of His vital, mental, and spiritual conscious- 
 ness, demonstrates man's immortality by science and the nature 
 of things, whether this inner entity be incased in a corporeal 
 body, as at present, or not. Dr. Hall in Microcosm, Vol. II., 
 p. 56. 
 
838 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 6. "What more does the true idea of immortality 
 involve? 
 
 A. It involves everlasting life, and yet even everlast- 
 ing life is not necessarily immortality. The tree of life 
 in the midst of the Paradise of God, if it be a literal tree, 
 is not immortal in the high sense in which immortality 
 may belong to man. If the four beasts before the throne 
 should continue there forever as literal beasts they would 
 not be immortal. 
 
 Q. 7. What still more is comprised in the expressive 
 word? 
 
 A. It includes the element of consciousness, or the 
 ability to be conscious of self-existence, and even this 
 definition is not entirely exhaustive of the full and deep 
 meaning of the term. The wicked are conscious of their 
 own miserable existence, and yet it would be a travesty 
 of truth to speak of immortality where conscious wretch- 
 edness does nothing more than darken the dungeon walls 
 of deep damnation. Duration, life and consciousness 
 combined can only reach the proper realm of immortal- 
 ity by virtue of that higher life which came fontally into 
 humanity in the Incarnation, and which triumphed over 
 death in him who brought immortality to light in the 
 Gospel of his resurrection, and who alone hath immortal- 
 ity to give unto such as "seek for immortality/' and 
 such as are made recipients of it in regeneration, when 
 that which is otherwise begins to put on immortality. 
 
 Q. 8. Was the human race immortal as it stood pri- 
 mevally in Adam? 
 
 A. It was potentially immortal, and possessed the 
 possibility of becoming such in actuality. 
 
 Q. 9. Does immortality belong exclusively to the 
 soul, or may it also be predicated of the bodies of the 
 saints? 
 
 A. Scientifically speaking it belongs exclusively to 
 neither in the fullest sense of the term. Immortality 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 339 
 
 proper can be predicated only of personality in the high- 
 est form of life. 
 
 Q. 10. Will men have material bodies where saints 
 immortal reign? 
 
 A. There is no reason whatever to suppose that they 
 will be so radically changed in the essential and dual 
 constitution of their nature that in the future state they 
 will appear to themselves as having been torn to pieces 
 and fashioned after another pattern. The tendency of 
 all known finite life is to exterrialize itself in material. 
 There is no evidence that God ever blew the breath of 
 life into a vacuum. Indeed, material has no higher 
 mission in the economy of Nature than to furnish the 
 opportunity for life to manifest itself. Here, the body 
 without life is a corpse, and life, however substantial an 
 entity, without the body, is without its complement ; 
 and there is no authority either in science or Revelation 
 to justify the supposition that in the future normal state 
 of man's being God will put asunder what he in the 
 present state had joined together. The fact that the 
 immaterial side of man's being may exist independent of 
 the material side, or corporeal body, is no evidence that 
 such is either his normal state or that he will continue 
 thus forever unclothed. The separation of the material 
 from the immaterial substances which here constitute 
 the man in the entirety of his being is an abnormal state 
 of human existence it is the state of the dead, and a 
 continuation of this state through eternity would be 
 poor evidence that death had been entirely swallowed 
 up in victory. Indeed, the mere intimation of such a 
 possibility is not very complimentary to him who has 
 proclaimed himself the God of battles, and the complete 
 vanquisher of death in those who have received the 
 benefits of the remedy found fontally in the Victor's 
 person. Substantialisrn is as much opposed to vapory 
 spiritualisticism as it is to bold materialism. Neither 
 
340 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 does it teach, as did some of the old pagan philosophers, 
 that matter is evil, per se, and that continually, and a 
 consequent enemy of the Spirit. It has rather empha- 
 sized the fact so generally ignored in current theories 
 that matter is helpless and unable to perform that which 
 under God can be accomplished only by the immaterial 
 and substantial force-elements operative in being. If 
 this inward life-force of ours whether we call it soul, 
 spiritual body or inner man seeks to clothe itself upon 
 in this present section of human existence, there is no 
 authority, whatever, either in Nature or Kevelation, to 
 justify the baseless supposition that it will be obliged to 
 go naked through all eternity. The analogies from 
 Nature all around, and the promises of God from above, 
 encourage the reasonable demand of the spirit within, 
 as if in abhorrence of everlasting nakedness " Not for 
 that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that 
 mortality might be swallowed up of life \" 
 
 Q. 11. If, then, we are to continue to exist in the 
 future state as beings reorganized after the present type 
 of our dual organisms, and if as it logically follows 
 our bodies in the future shall be as immortal as our 
 spirits, does it not also follow that our present bodies are 
 just as immortal as the spirits which now inhabit them, 
 since they, as well as their spiritual tenants, are to con- 
 tinue identically the same ? 
 
 A. The foregoing question contains much pertinency. 
 According to the Substantial Philosophy, as shown in 
 Chapter XI., there is an inward, immaterial side, coun- 
 terpart or type of the outward body which incorporates 
 material. The two are in exact correspondence with 
 each other, according to the general biological law of 
 conformity to type.* This separation in death, if, in- 
 
 * Here then we meet the question squarely and risk the con- 
 sequences. If the soul is an organized entity it must have 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 341 
 
 deed, there be any real separation at all, is neither nat- 
 ural nor an essential part in the proper history of human 
 life, but the result of the workings of an abnormal force. 
 In any such separation, the inward type can suffer no 
 corruption, but continues intact, and inseparably united 
 with the equally immaterial spirit. It follows, therefore 
 since this abnormal force will have been neutralized 
 according to the workings of the spirit of life in Christ 
 that in the resurrection the inward immaterial type, as 
 well as the spirit, will take again its outward material 
 form. Thus it will be demonstrated that what God had 
 originally designed should be joined together in everlast- 
 ing wedlock cannot be put and kept eternally asunder. 
 Substantialism, therefore, emphasizes the immortality of 
 
 organs, and this organized entity with its organs must be in the 
 form of the physical body it inhabits, because an organism 
 however intangible, must necessarily have some form, and 
 there seems to be no earthly or heavenly reason why our inner 
 man should assume any other form than that of the outer man. 
 In the next place, this inner man when it leaves the outer man 
 at death must reasonably be expected to retain its general 
 form as it passes into the spirit-realm, and still continue an 
 organized entity with the same organs it possessed here, 
 namely, eyes, ears, brain, fingers, etc. This unavoidably im- 
 plies the employment of these organs upon surrounding objects 
 in real acts, such as thinking, seeing, hearing, handling, etc. 
 If the ego or the conscious 1 in the spirit- world uses its eyes and 
 ears, it must have an incorporeal or psychical environment 
 consisting of real objects to see and real sounds to hear; for 
 how can the organized ego use its eyes if there are no real 
 psychical objects or incorporeal forms upon which the psychical 
 sight can be exercised? The whole drift of the Scripture is to 
 teach that man in the next life, even now before any general day 
 of resurrection, is man in the real sense of the word, with his 
 faculties and powers complete We most confidently ex- 
 pect when we shuffle off this mortal coil, that we will be greeted 
 will real sights and real sounds from the soul's new environ- 
 ment vastly surpassing in beauty and grandeur and loveliness, 
 anything ever addressed to mortal eyes or ears in this life. 
 Dr. Hall, Microcosm, Vol. II., p. 35. 
 
842 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 the person, rather than the immortality of either the soul 
 or the body. They are only different sides of one personal 
 being. The union of all the forces and functions of 
 spirit, soul, and body, inner man and outward man, enter 
 of necessity into the proper and complete constitution of 
 the immortal person.* 
 
 Q. 12. Then the saints will be clothed upon with 
 material bodies in the future state? 
 
 A. Science and Revelation unite their testimony in 
 the justification of such a belief. 
 
 Q. 13. Do3s material in heaven differ from matter as 
 we now have some knowledge of it on earth? 
 
 A. It may be more attenuated and must be more re- 
 fined than in its terrestrial state. There are bodies 
 celestial and bodies terrestrial. Celestial bodies incor- 
 porate material in its highest attainable form, even as the 
 blooming flower incorporates material more refined than 
 that which enters into the crude leaf at the base of the 
 same plant. This order of things displays the wise and 
 beautiful designs of Providence. He does not allow the 
 flower to spring into that beauty of which its own deli- 
 cacy is a constitutional part until after the rising plant 
 has lifted the bud above the earth and the devouring in- 
 sects that harbor around the base. God has shown this 
 same benevolent wisdom upon a higher plane in ordain- 
 ing the order of succession through which his rational 
 creatures may pass as they climb the progressive stairway 
 of human existence. Anything like a reverse order would 
 
 * In no organism, beside the human body, is matter .so nearly 
 allied to spirit, and so transparent with the transfused glories of 
 a higher world. In man's body the image of God is represented 
 in a material form! Still more. In the incarnation of Christ, 
 Deity is personally united with matter. This is the house in 
 which God dwells! The Saviour, being " in fashion as a man," 
 united the infinite Spirit with finite matter. Dr. Harbaugh in 
 " The Heavenly Home," p. 197. 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 343 
 
 fill our most confiding faith with tormenting doubts and 
 fears. A refined and celestial body on earth, amidst the 
 snows and storms of " the former things" would be as 
 much out of place as a blooming rose on Greenland's 
 frosty face, or tropic fruits beneath the icy pole. So, too, 
 if it were possible for a body of literal "flesh and blood " 
 to inherit the celestial kingdom of God, its presence there 
 would shock the eternal fitness of things and send a note 
 of discord through all the choral symphonies of heaven. 
 
 Q. 14. "Will the bodies of the saints become so attenu- 
 ated and refined as to be absolutely intangible?* 
 
 A. Neither refined matter nor immaterial substance 
 necessarily involves intangibility. 
 
 * Much vaguity, so to speak, exists in the minds of most per- 
 sons as to the meaning of the words tangible and intangible. 
 The common definition, as given in our dictionaries, confines 
 the meaning of these terms to the tactile sense, or the sense of 
 touch, commonly called feeling. This, however, is not suffi* 
 ciently broad. The five senses constitute a chain of gradations 
 of tangibility, or, more properly, modifications of the sense 
 of touch. In its lowest phase we feel the material body by 
 its actual contact with our tactile nerves. A still higher phase 
 of this lowest sense of the animal economy is experienced in 
 feeling the touch of immaterial substance, such as heat, radiat- 
 ing against the cuticle. But the highest phase of this sense is 
 experienced in the contact of the mind upon the nervous system 
 of the body, causing physical pain or pleasure, according to the 
 mental impressions made. 
 
 Next above the sense of touch comes the sense of taste, which 
 any one, with a little reflection, can easily resolve into a modi- 
 fied form of touch, requiring, as we know, the actual contact of 
 the flavorous substance with our gustatory membrane and 
 nervous system to produce the sensation. Smell is still a higher 
 form or modification of touch, requiring the same actual contact 
 of odorous substance with the nasal membrane and the olfactory 
 nerve to cause that peculiar sensation, no difference whether the 
 odorous particles be material or immaterial substance. Dr. Hall, 
 in Microcosm, Vol. IV., p. 188. 
 
344 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Q. 15. Are not Substantialistn and Swedcnborgian- 
 ism at this point essentially the same? 
 
 A. The Substantial Philosophy accepts the truth 
 wherever found, whether preached by the angels in 
 heaven, Swedenborg in Europe, or the devils in hell.* 
 
 Q. 16. Will our transition from this to the future 
 state produce any change in the relation now existing 
 between the material and the immaterial substances in 
 the constitution of our individual persons? 
 
 A. It will indeed. The former order of things in 
 this particular will pass away, or be reversed. Notwith- 
 standing the superiority of mind over matter, the im- 
 material here is largely conditioned by the material. 
 Hereafter the spirit will be emancipated not /row, but 
 from under matter, which state of subordination is at 
 least largely abnormal and the result of sin. When the 
 spirit is thus emancipated, the body, no less than itself, 
 will be a beneficiary of the change, and the entire disen- 
 
 * Few people have understood Swedenborg. The writer takes 
 off his hat, partially out of reverence for the great celestial 
 rambler, but principally to permit that necessary expansion of 
 the cerebrum actually required for the comprehension of such 
 "mystical lore." Swedenborg seems to have been a "personal 
 paradox,*' and his writings an insolvable riddle. That they con- 
 tain some great pioneer truths for the ages to come has not been 
 denied by men who have the courage to examine all things and 
 hold fast that which is good. John Wesley, Emerson and Car- 
 lyle were only a few of the many who looked upon him as " one 
 of the mastodons of literature," and his mind " majestic, though 
 in ruins." How rich the veins of his original thought, and yet 
 how apocryphal are all his writings. If the Baron's New 
 Jerusalen Church is the one that "cometh down from God out 
 of heaven," St. John's description of the descending bride con- 
 tains more flattery than truth. Swedenborgianism, with its 
 dreams and prophecies, its revelations and speculations, its 
 strained analogies and abominable absurdities, is a a dead lion; 
 and he proves himself a man of Samsonian powers who takes 
 the mellific nectar of truth from such a hive. The Substantial 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 345 
 
 thralled person will arise to a state in which it will be un- 
 conditioned, except by its own finite limitations and the 
 impassable and bridgelcss chasm between itself and the 
 sphere of the infinite. 
 
 Q. 17. But will not the finite saints be permitted to 
 enter into the very presence of the infinite God? 
 
 A. The pure in heart shall stand in the immediate 
 presence of God's person, admire the beauties of his face 
 and all the glories of the place, but such approach even 
 into the presence chamber of the King immortal does not 
 imply that the saints will ever transcend the realm of the 
 finite an} 7 more than the humming bird passes into the 
 realm of the human by being admitted into the palatial 
 residence of the prince? 
 
 Q. 18. And the saints shall dwell together? 
 
 A. It is an axiom in mathematics that all things 
 near a common center are necessarily near to each other. 
 This truth may be applied to the question of the approxi- 
 mate nearness of the saints to each other in the society 
 of the redeemed, 
 
 Philosophy is something superior to this heterologous budget of 
 riotous assertions and beautiful theories. Instead of being what 
 Swedenborg taught, Substantialism is just what he needed to 
 guide the sublime flights of his erratic soul and ethereal piety; 
 and, further, it is precisely what some of its self-important and 
 superficial critics need to distinguish between the verities of 
 God and the vagaries of men. Indeed, many of the objections 
 raised against the new departure savor largely of the most 
 supreme childishness. We are about tired hearing the cry of 
 " spooks in the garret." For our part, if there were no other 
 alternative, we would sooner harbor a few small spooks in our 
 intellectual attic than to have the upper story destitute of all 
 positive contents, and damned with that "respectable" sort of 
 cowardice which prevents all earnest search after something 
 more substantial than spooks, more entitative than shadow, 
 more noble than mere matter, and more enduring than the 
 flashings and flickerings of molecular motion. 
 
346 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 s ' Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet, 
 Their Saviour and brethren transported to greet; 
 Where the anthems of rapture unceasingly roll, 
 And the smile of the Lord is the feast of the soul." 
 
 Q. 19. And shall they know each other? 
 
 A. Why not? If they know each other here where 
 they know only in part, shall they not know each other 
 better when that which is perfect is come? Shall the 
 saints in heaven who are near and dear to each other and 
 in some respects alike, have less of the power of recog- 
 nition than the rich man in Hades when he discerned 
 Lazarus far away across the impassable gulf? 
 
 Q. 20. And are the old relations of earth to any ex- 
 tent renewed in heaven? 
 
 A. The relations which were constituted here for a 
 subordinate purpose will end with the serving of such 
 purpose; but those relations which ground themselves in 
 the essential substance of humanity and in the character 
 of human society as it involves proper permanency, will 
 run forward through the endless ages of the future. 
 
 Q. 21. But will there not be peculiar friendships in 
 heaven? 
 
 A. There will be no such peculiar -loves as those 
 which have a peculiar mission here, and whicli are put 
 off with the peculiarities of the tabernacles that en- 
 shrined them. Reunited husband and wife will not con- 
 tinue to love as husband and wife, for in this respect 
 they shall be as the angels who were never called to 
 propagate angelic species through matrimonial felicities; 
 and yet life is too substantial and the institutions of God 
 too sacred to permit even the rolling years of eternity 
 to wipe out the holiest landmarks of time or obliterate 
 the hallowed memories interwoven with all the woof of 
 the history of humanity's progress through this world 
 and its rise to the more excellent glory in the world 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 347 
 
 above. The fond associations which are sealed and sanc- 
 tified here by the holiest ordinations of God can never 
 wear away. Sailing upon the vital current which took 
 its rise in God's own substantial being, fond memory 
 will still continue to dive beneath the surface and bring 
 up delight from other days gone by. If love is the 
 highest form of activity in God, it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that it is the most permanent emotion springing 
 from the life of man. Surely human love in its best ter- 
 restrial estate is not a flower of such a transient character 
 as to waste all its fragrance on the desert air of this bleak 
 world. When transplanted with its substantial life-root, 
 it will continue to bloom with some proper peculiarities 
 in Heaven. Why not? He who came not to destroy the 
 law loved John with peculiar tenderness here. May not 
 the saints then hope to love their former intimate friends 
 with tender fondness after they shall have exchanged the 
 lower loves of life on earth for the higher life of love in 
 Heaven? . . . But here the author's eyes grow blind 
 with a flowing solution of sacred sympathy for loved 
 ones gone before, as if some dear one out upon the eter- 
 nal ocean deep had stirred the calmness of his sainted 
 breast, and dashed the gentle spray upon our shore. 
 Bishop Foster is at our right hand and speaks to us from 
 p. 193 of his " Beyond the Grave." Let him come to 
 the front and speak for us until these tears are wiped 
 away. He speaks; hear him: "We cannot doubt that 
 those whom we love most here, love most purely and ten- 
 derly, will be likely to be dearest to us there. They will 
 still be our treasures. All that they ever were to us will 
 be remembered; the hold they had on our being will still 
 be felt in more exalted forms. The noble passion puri- 
 fied from all alloy, will rise into far grander and more 
 ravishing intensity. The relations will be sunk, but the 
 bond will be tightened. They will be greatly more to us 
 than they ever were on earth, and more to us, we may 
 
348 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 venture to believe, than they could have been, had they 
 not been bone of our bone and heart of our heart." 
 
 Q. 22. Will the saints be confined to any particular 
 locality? 
 
 A. They will not be limited in their movements or 
 circumscribed by any tiling except their constitution as 
 finite beings. They will have sufficient room to gratify 
 their thirst for knowledge of God's creative power, and 
 ample means to range the fields of heaven and gaze upon 
 the wonders of redeeming love. It lias been shown in 
 this book that force can travel by proper means of con- 
 duction to any inviting element able to receive it; and 
 as life is the highest form of force, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that when it is raised to its highest state in the 
 glorified personalities of rational beings, and when 
 clothed in material like that in Christ's ascension body, 
 no pent-up Utica can contract its powers. The saints 
 will therefore be unconditioned in their ample range and 
 in their facilities of movement, except as they are con- 
 ditioned by themselves and by the wise and infinite 
 Father above them. What more can they desire? Ven- 
 turesome recklessness belongs to that other class of 
 beings who, inconsequence thereof, were hurled headlong 
 through the ethereal skies to darkness and perdition. 
 Sound will not travel through a vacuum, neither is it 
 presumable that saints will want to ramble around 
 through space to see how far they dare venture away 
 from that more central 
 
 " Place where spirits blend 
 
 And friend holds fellowship with friend." 
 Man as a social being must have society. This law of his 
 nature will run parallel with his being. Social mag- 
 netism will ever draw the saints together and keep them 
 clustered around the Lamb, the great Magnet of re- 
 deemed humanity. He will be the center of all centers 
 and the circumference of the entire glorified periphery. 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 349 
 
 Within this periphery there will be many little social cen- 
 ters and gathered groups without the exclusiveness of caste. 
 Little coteries of old friends will doubtless " gather at the 
 river thatflows by the throne of God." The sealed fount- 
 ains of past endearments will be opened afresh, and the pure 
 waters of delight leap forth amidst many a domestic cir- 
 cle once broken by the cruel thunderbolt of death, but 
 again reunited forever. Will not their hearts burn 
 within them as Jesus makes himself known to such dis- 
 ciples in breaking unto them the bread of heaven as 
 never served on earth. We will love our friends in 
 heaven for Jesus' sake and love Jesus more for their sake. 
 Our hearts will not grow weary, but oh, how they will 
 yearn for the old folks and for the young folks at home. 
 It would be blasphemy even to intimate that he who 
 came in love to fulfill the law would himself destroy the 
 law of love. The saints will forever continue to be 
 filled with the sacred memories of the past, the solid 
 joys of the present and sweet anticipations of the future. 
 
 Q. 23. Then heaven will have both duration and 
 locality? 
 
 A. Why not? Man was brought into existence to be 
 a denizen of time and space, and he will continue under 
 that twofold category until his being is radically changed 
 to something else. The supposition of such a change 
 would involve a superlative absurdity. It is nonsense to 
 say that duration will not extend to eternity, and that 
 the lines of time's longitude will not continue into the 
 map the ever-unfinished map of heaven. Time may 
 lose its metric character, and be no longer divisible into 
 sections by rolling suns; and space may continue to defy 
 all finite attempts to comprehend its boundaries and 
 boundlessness; yet if there is time for "a half hour of 
 silence in heaven/' there will be time enough for an end- 
 less day of hallelujahs loud and long, and space enough 
 for the New Jerusalem with all its measured furlongs. 
 
350 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 How can it be otherwise, indeed? God's heaven may not 
 be localized, but the heaven of man must have a place 
 and be a place. As already seen, there will be refined 
 material in heaven. All material, however attenuated, 
 must have extension. Such material extension must 
 have limitation. However boundless space may be, the 
 creatures of space, being finite, must have boundaries. 
 Man is a substantial being, both as to his spirit and his 
 body. He must, therefore, have place as to his finite 
 spirit and room as to his material body. Neither Science 
 nor Eevelation have given us any evidence that attenu- 
 ated, refined or glorified matter shall do away with its 
 constitutional and qualified impenetrability. To the 
 same extent which glorified persons incorporate material 
 will they require that their substantial heaven include 
 material environments. If the bodies of the saints are 
 tangible, the substantive elements of their abode must, 
 in the same sense, be equally so. All the furniture in 
 our Father's house will be tangible to the tactile touch 
 of our celestial fingers, .and all the golden goblets of his 
 banquet chamber tangible to the lips no longer parched 
 with feverish thirst. Substantialism, while it discounts 
 the gross materialism of this world, is not disposed to 
 run into dreamy idealism concerning the next. God 
 never designed that man, after having a substantial ex- 
 istence here, should be a phantom to float upon the 
 shoreless bosom of some ethereal sea, or a shadow to flit 
 away beneath the vault of some ethereal sky. 
 
 Q. 24. What are the environments or surroundings of 
 the saints in the heavenly place? 
 
 A. Our eyes have not yet seen, our ears have not yet 
 heard, neither have our hearts yet been able to experience 
 the things which a kind Father hath laid up for those 
 who by becoming children of Christ have also by the 
 same birth became joint-heirs with the elder brother to 
 that "inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that 
 
OUR FUTURE STATE AND PLACE. 351 
 
 fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them." It is 
 reasonable, however, to suppose that the environments 
 will be such in their substantial character as to surpass 
 our most extravagant dreams of their reality. The 
 reasonableness of this supposition is supported by science 
 and justified by Revelation. What meaning can there be 
 in the last few chapters of the Bible if heaven be less sub- 
 stantial and less real than earth? Surely the New Jeru- 
 salem with its dozen gates ajar, the crystal river with its 
 living, limpid stream, and Mount Zion, on whose celestial 
 summit stands the Lamb surrounded with the happy 
 hosts of the redeemed surely these are not false images 
 of nothing real before which a kind father would have 
 his confiding children bow down and worship in the blind 
 adoration of illusory hopes. Why should there not be 
 pearly gates and golden streets through which to enter 
 and upon which to walk when the ransomed of the Lord 
 shall return and come to Zion with songs of everlasting 
 joy upon their heads? Why should there not be palms 
 of victory borne, and crowns of glory worn by the 
 exultant army of the skies as they parade before the en- 
 throned majesty of the Commander-in-Chief, and cause 
 heaven's high arches to ring with hallelujahs to his ever- 
 lasting praise? 
 
 Q. 25. What then is our duty to God and to our- 
 selves? 
 
 A. It is our chief duty as well as our high privilege 
 to study God's Word and works in the light which they 
 shed upon each other and which they comminglingly shed 
 upon the great central problems of human life, here and 
 hereafter. This can now be done to greater advantage 
 than ever before since the investigation may be made 
 from the standpoint of the Substantial Philosophy 
 founded by A. Wilford Hall, and partially formulated by 
 the author of this book. Blessed are they that heed the 
 suggestions of this volume, for the time is at hand for 
 
352 THE SUBSTANTIAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 men to see the invisible things of God in every domain 
 of finite being. Guided by the foregoing helps and 
 hints, the devout student of Nature and Revelation may 
 quicken his steps in the direction of a more perfect 
 knowledge of him whom to know aright is life eternal, 
 and whom to love supremely is the highest duty of man. 
 Thus walking in the path of duty, and thus possessed of 
 this eternal life, even now, 
 
 "Before we reach the heavenly fields, 
 Or walk the golden streets/' 
 
 we shall be able to partially overcome all false forces at 
 war with the proper dignity and well-being of our nature, 
 pass through our transition period in triumph to the 
 skies, enter upon the higher realm of human existence, 
 join the gathering, swelling throng of former friends to 
 range, in mutual happiness, the flowery fields of heaven, 
 and pluck ripe clusters from the vines of God. 
 
 [THE END.] 
 
PUBLICATION OF HALL & CO 
 
 23 Park Row, New York. 
 
 Among these books are the "PROBLEM OF HUMAN LIFE,'* "UNI- 
 VEBSALISM AGAINST ITSELF," and the bound volumes of 
 " THE MICROCOSM,'* all by A. WILFORD HALL, 
 Ph. D., LL. D., editor of THE SCIEN- 
 TIFIC ARENA. 
 
 LIST OF OUR BOOKS WITH PRICES. 
 
 1. "Problem of Human Life," 524 large double-column octavo 
 pages, richly bound in cloth and gold-lettered. It contains the 
 portraits of the six renowned scientists re vie wed by the author, name- 
 ly, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, Haeckel, Helmholtz, and Mayer, and is 
 pronounced the most extraordinary scientifico-religious book of the 
 century. Price $2. 
 
 2. " TIniversalism Against Itself," 336 octavo pages, by the 
 author of the " Problem of Human Life." It contains a steel portrait 
 of the author, is beautifully bound in cloth, gold and black, and is 
 considered the most original and remarkable exegesis of Scripture 
 texts ever produced. Price $1. 
 
 3. The first four Volumes of The Microcosm, bound substan- 
 tially in cloth, gold and black, containing nearly 400 large royal 
 octavo pages each. The first volume of this set contains also the 
 steel portrait of the editor. A. Wilford Hall, Ph. D., LL. D. These 
 four volumes contain the rise, progress, and development of the Sub- 
 stantial Philosophy founded by their editor, and which, it is believed, 
 is destined at no distant day to revolutionize the scientific world. 
 Price $1.50 per volume, or $6 for tho set. No progressive, thinking 
 man, who cares to keep abreast of the times, should neglect to secure 
 these volumes. 
 
 4. "The Walks and Words of Jesus," cloth, by the late Rev. 
 M. N. Olmsted, an invaluable Harmony of the Four Gospels, just the 
 book for the Sunday School and for every religious family. Price $1. 
 
 5. "Retribution," cloth, a most instructive religious book, by 
 the late eminent scholar, W. L. Barnes, Esq., printed and bound in 
 the best style of the art, with an elegant symbolical steel engraving 
 as a frontispiece. Price $1. 
 
 6. Our condensed pocket Webster Dictionary, cloth, 384 pages, 
 containing more than 25,000 of the principal words of the English 
 language, and several hundred unusual words not yet found in 
 Webster Unabridged. No person who has once used this dictionary 
 will ever be without it. Price 40 cents. 
 
 The above list comprises the books from which selection is to be 
 made in order to secure a set of Appleton's Encyclopedia as a pre- 
 mium. A single copy of either of these works as a sample will be 
 sent by mail or express prepaid at the price named. Address 
 
 HALL & CO., Publishers, 
 
 23 Park Row, New York. 
 
The Scientific Arena, 
 
 A Monthly Religio-Scientific Periodical. 
 
 A. WILFOKD HALL, Ph. D., UL. D., Editor. 
 
 The Organ of the Substantial Philosophy. 
 
 THE MOST ORIGINAL AID VALUABLE JOURNAL OF ITS KIND IN THE WORLD. 
 
 No thinking man who desires to keep abreast of the latest and 
 best thought of the age can afford to be without it. 
 
 From among the kind words of the past month (June) we take 
 these few: 
 
 The first number of the AKENA comes to our dwelling full and sparkling: with the 
 wine of truth. PROF. I. N. VAIL, 
 
 Barnesville, O. 
 
 After a careful reading, I am of the opinion that it is a first-class literary journal; 
 indeed, I think it is the religio-scientific periodical of the age. 
 
 J. W. TROTMAN, 
 
 Hertford, N. C. 
 
 Long may it live and prove to be an "arena" upon which th^ battles of the Lord 
 are fought in a truly scientific spirit. J. L. SCHATZ, 
 
 St. Mary's, O. 
 
 Yesterday I received a copy of the SCIENTIFIC ARENA, and I have fed from its 
 bounties until every page has been read, but I am hungry for more. 
 
 W. A. HENNEGAR, 
 
 Fraucesville, Ind. 
 
 The paper is certainly a valuable acquisition to the scientific world * * * 
 I get much that is richest food to my mind. O. P. HOOVER, 
 
 Dayton, O. 
 
 I will try to extend the circulation of your most valuable paper among others not 
 ret acquainted with the Substantial Philosophy. H. GALLEY, 
 
 Daw son, Pa. 
 
 Each preacher, teacher, and student should take it. It does me better than a $4 
 monthly. REV. WILLIAM FOTSCH, 
 
 Nauvoo, 111. 
 
 Have read with great delight the first number. I regard it one of the most im- 
 portant and useful additions to our literature. 
 
 REV. G. DUEBENDORF, 
 
 Mound Prairie, Minn. 
 
 As the wise men of the East hailed the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem, so 
 do I receive the SCIENTIFIC ARENA, and believe that the philosophical arguments in 
 favor of the Christian religion which appear on its pages \\ill * * over- 
 throw the infidel strongholds. J. L. BRIGHT. M. D., 
 
 New Castle, Ky. 
 
 There is more good reading matter in one number than some other scientific 
 journals that cost five times as much have in a whole year. 
 
 JACOB BAKER, 
 
 Swanton, O. 
 I consider it worthy a place in every family. 
 
 A. V. ABERCROMBIE, 
 
 Bridgeport, Ct. 
 
 Every reading man who sees a copy will subscribe for it. Only 
 fifty cents per year. 
 
 Liberal cash terms to agents. 
 
 Send for specimen copy and club rates. 
 
 P. O. Box 1300. st***^* 23 Pa** Row, New York. 
 

2475 
 
 
 S