ll 
 
 II 
 
 ll 
 
 II 
 II 
 
 El I 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 I ■ 
 
 II - m 
 
 l 
 
 i ■ m $1 
 
 tl H Sal ml 
 
 tr ; t-kfrf* h;^ Mis- -.Jrn';: • ■■•-•;l1*ul»:; 
 
 .r'V, i 
 
 ll Uirt- f . i Kfl lowi 
 
 .'■'■,•,: I 
 
 &-V-" 1 ■ : 
 
 iititfJVi I 
 
 ■ ; 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY 
 OF THINGS 
 
 COMPLETE IN TWO BOOKS 
 
 ISSUED IN ONE OR IN TWO VOLUMES 
 
 BOOK ONE 
 THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE 
 
 BY JAMES FERGUSON 
 
 DENVER COLORADO U. S. A. 
 EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 TRADE ADDRESS 
 
 "PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS" 
 1343-45 CURTIS STREET 
 
 1922 
 
^ 
 
 w 
 
 Copyright, 1922, 
 By James Ferguson. 
 
 Set up, Electro-plated, Printed and Bound, 
 IN DENVER COLORADO U. S. A. 
 
 
 NOV 28 72 
 
 C1A690733 
 j 
 
i 
 
 —PREFACE- 
 TO BOOK ONE, THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE 
 
 The principal datum upon which this system is built was 
 obtained from the old school books on Natural Philosophy, by 
 David A. Wells and G. P. Quackenbos, published in 1857 and 
 1859. Later I read a few other books best among them being 
 Youman's "Conservation of Forces" and Spencer's "First Prin- 
 ciples." About this time (1877) I commenced writing on the sub- 
 ject of philosophy and my first effort was to explain the cause 
 of Gravitation. The general theories worked out during the few 
 years following that time, and which apply to gravitation, elec- 
 tric attraction and repulsion, molecular attraction and repulsion, 
 (as in chemical changes) magnetic attraction and repulsion, the 
 phenomena of the tides, comets, sun-spots and the universe as 
 a whole, were published in 1899; now out of print. All of these 
 theories, with copious additions, are reproduced in this book. 
 
 All but the last two chapters of this book were rewritten 
 for the last time, prior to 1904. A brief review of the progress 
 of philosophy since that time, seems necessary to a complete 
 understanding of the contents of this book. But I must make it 
 brief for a thorough review cannot be attempted here. 
 
 From the beginning it seems that the various systems of 
 Idealism, subjective and objective, which deny the existence of 
 things apart from mind, Realism or Naturalism, which contends 
 for the reality of a world of matter, motion, mind, external to 
 the conscious individual, and Scepticism or Agnosticism, which 
 contends that not only the above named but all systems of phi- 
 losophy are more or less doubtful, have covered the whole of the 
 proper sphere of philosophy. 
 
 Early in my speculations I reached the idea that there must 
 be a good reason for scepticism; and I thought I had found it in 
 idealism. Subjective idealism assumes that all things are in the 
 conscious mind and that they exist only when we are conscious. 
 Objective idealism teaches that all things are ideas created by 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE II 
 
 God and existing independent of us; but we can absorb them. I 
 gradually came to the idea that there was no truth in subjective 
 idealism but there might be some truth in objective idealism. 
 God makes things but He does not make our ideas about things. 
 We make them ourselves and what we make depends on how 
 we think. If we commit sin or act the fool we cannot blame God 
 for it and so escape the responsibility of wrong doing. This form 
 of idealism would give us a real basis for a science of morality, 
 so I adopted it with the proviso that realism or naturalism, in 
 short, all knowledge can be nothing in itself but a system of 
 ideas in the mind, and the question for us to decide is, what is 
 the true idealism? When we find the answer to this question, 
 I believe scepticism will be routed from this planet. 
 
 I very soon reached the conclusion that ordinary judgment 
 or common sense was the only mode of procedure in the quest 
 for real knowledge, for me at least, and that good judgment 
 must depend on knowledge of real things. The first step in phi- 
 losophy, as I then thought and still think, is an answer to the 
 questions, what are space, time, matter, motion, mind? (§ 1) 
 If nature is one complete and perfect whole, it must have a set 
 of laws or conditions of existence — a system of first and funda- 
 mental truths on which to rest and hold together. So far in phi- 
 losophy it seemed clear that no such system had yet emerged 
 but at the present time (1922) it may be best to mention here 
 what other prominent writers have said about this question of 
 ultimate truths. The following has appeared subsequent to 1899. 
 
 In his book "A Theory of Reality," 1899, George T. Ladd, 
 Professor of philosophy in Yale University, says: 
 
 "But is space properly spoken of as though it was an active 
 principle? To this question scientific psychology gives no hesi- 
 tating or equivocal answer. It demonstrates beyond doubt that, 
 considered from the psychological point of view, space is most 
 properly and precisely just that. It attains its highest develop- 
 ment in that systematic doctrine of spatial qualities and spatial 
 relations which the physical sciences so successfully employ." 
 
 In another place he says: "Time and space are thus regar- 
 ded in the light of universal "media." Things, with all that 
 they really are and all that belong to them, are in these media." 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE III 
 
 The exact meaning of the word "media," is not clear to me 
 and the dictionaries do not explain. But if no one can tell us 
 what space or time is we cannot expect anything definite. 
 
 Ralph B. Perry, Professor of philosophy in Harvard Uni- 
 versity, says in his "Present Philosophical Tendencies" 1916. 
 
 "The critique of science which has just been examined might 
 be termed a methodological critique, as distinguished from the 
 metaphysical critique to which we must now turn. According to 
 this critique, science has to do with appearance or phenomenon 
 rather than reality, because of the nature of its basal concepts, 
 space and time. These concepts are inherently contradictory or 
 lacking in self-sufficiency; and physical nature as the realm of 
 space and time, must be supposed to be in the end resolved into 
 something else. They must be corrected, or overcome, in some 
 higher Unity as evil is held to be transmuted into good in the 
 providence of God." 
 
 He finds this critique in Immanuel Kant. According to Kant 
 space and time are vitiated by antinomies. "This means that on 
 the supposition of the reality of space and time, it is possible 
 to prove with equal certainty, several contradictory pairs of 
 thesis and counter thesis; such as that space has boundaries 
 and has not, time has a beginning and has not, space and time 
 have indivisible elements and have not, etc. The moral accord- 
 ing to Kant, is that we must repeat the original supposition, 
 and deny the reality of space and time." 
 
 E. G. Spaulding Professor of Philosophy in Princeton Uni- 
 versity, in his "New Rationalism" 1918, says: 
 
 "Space like time is an organized whole or relational com- 
 plex that consists of several kinds of parts, and that has vari- 
 ous characteristics. It consists of dimensions, such as lines, 
 planes and volumes. Any finite space consists of smaller spaces; 
 that is, lines as finite, consist of smaller lines, planes, of smaller 
 planes, and volumes, of smaller volumes." 
 
 "Space, Time and Deity," is the title of a large and said 
 to be a very important contribution to systematic philosophy in 
 two volumes, 1920, by S. Alexander M.A., LL.D., F.B.A. HON. 
 Fellow of Lincoln College Oxford, Professor of Philosophy in 
 the University of Manchester England. 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE IV 
 
 The first sentence in chapter one, volume one, of this work 
 reads as follows: "It is not, I believe, too much to say that all 
 the vital problems of philosophy depend for their solution on the 
 solution of the problem what Space and Time are and more par- 
 ticularly how they are related to each other." 
 
 This is my own view exactly, but I have included Matter, 
 Motion, Mind, in the first category. (First three chap. Book 1.) 
 
 He treats space and time empirically, describing and analy- 
 sing them and considering their connections, if any, as we do 
 other realities. He does not ask whether they are real in them- 
 selves or not but assumes that they are and asks what that re- 
 ality is. To understand how space and time are related to each 
 other he considers the matter in these words: 
 
 Page 44. "Other features will declare themselves as we pro- 
 ceed, some obvious, some less so. But they will be found to re- 
 quire for their understanding the understanding of how Space 
 and Time are related to each other. These are often thought, per- 
 haps commonly, to be independent and separate (whether treat- 
 ed as entities as here or as systems of relations). But a little 
 reflective consideration is sufficent to show that they are inter- 
 dependent, so that there neither is Space without Time nor Time 
 without Space; any more than life exists without a body or a 
 body which can function as a living body exists without life; that 
 Space is in its very nature temporal and Time spatial." 
 
 Then follows a long and most elaborate discussion, all of 
 which aims to show that space and time are not separate things 
 but one thing — the one and the only whole thing; the primordial 
 "stuff or matrix out of which things and events are made." 
 
 The author says page 60: "Meantime, I may proceed with 
 the metaphysical exposition. We have then to think of Space 
 and Time in much the following way. (a) By themselves each 
 consists of elements or parts which are indistinguishable so long 
 as the elements of the other are excluded, (b) In reality each 
 point of space is determined and distinguished by its instant in 
 time, and each instant of time by its position in space. The ele- 
 ments of the one reality which is Space-Time, and not either 
 Space or Time alone, owe their distinctness in either kind to the 
 complementary element." 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE V 
 
 The reader may be able to understand the meaning of the 
 three passages quoted above, but for me and in view of what 
 follows they are a little hazy. On p.p. 340-341 he says: 
 
 "We are describing the infinite Space-Time as the substance 
 which includes all substances and is the system of them. But the 
 idea of infinity is prior to that of an infinite system of existents, 
 which is really derived from it. * In truth, infinite Space-Time 
 is not the substance of substances, but it is the stuff of subst- 
 ances. * Just as a roll of cloth is the stuff of which coats are 
 made but is not itself a coat, so Space-Time is the stuff of which 
 all things, whether as substances or under any category, are 
 made. If I call it the stuff and not the material, it is to avoid 
 confusion with the very much more specific idea of matter, as 
 matter is commonly understood. Matter is a finite complex of 
 space-time with the material quality, as we shall see later." 
 
 From the three passages quoted above I get the following 
 by way of understanding. The universe, or all the categories of 
 things, viewed collectively, is primarily a composite of points of 
 space, and instants of time, determined and distinguished by 
 their interdependent relationship. And these space-time ele- 
 ments are substantial entities. This, from my point of view, is 
 very plainly an unwarranted confusion of the space-matter or 
 nothing- something relation. The idea that an instant of time can 
 be a substantial entity, or a point of space can be necessary to 
 the continuation of time, or that these space-time elements can 
 be distinguished and known as such yet be space-time itself, is 
 beyond my range of thought. These space-time elements to be 
 thinkable must be things and to be things they must have the 
 regular background of difference — the one essential to the very 
 existence of things and thought. 
 
 In the last passage quoted above this author plainly reveals 
 the fact that he regards the universe as a compound, or perhaps 
 more correctly speaking, a complex of different substances. A 
 stuff is not a substance and what we call matter is neither stuff 
 nor substance. Matter is something which has the material qual- 
 ities, which stuff or substance has not. 
 
 How he has managed to make these distinctions in matter 
 is not revealed and how far he has succeeded in working out 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE VI 
 
 a system of real things within his space-time fundamental, is 
 also not evident. But from what follows it appears that he has 
 not yet reached a systematic arrangement of all things, which 
 explains the mysteries about them, as required by philosophy. 
 
 Page 336: * 'Space-Time is thus the source of the categories, 
 the nonempirical characters of existent things, which those 
 things possess because of certain fundamental features of any 
 piece of Space-Time. These fundamental features cannot be de- 
 fined. For to define is to explain the nature of something in terms 
 of other and in general simpler things, themselves existents. But 
 there iB nothing simpler than Space-Time, and nothing beside it 
 to which it might be compared by way of agreement or con- 
 trast. They cannot even be described completely. For description 
 like definition, is effected by reference to existent entities." 
 
 He thus ends in the inexplicable, as did Spencer and all the 
 philosophers prior to this date. This at least is the result reached 
 at the end of volume one, 347 pages. I have not yet seen volume 
 two, but from a review of the whole by Professor Leighton of 
 the Ohio State University I get the following: 
 
 "If time were bare time it would consist of perishing ins- 
 tants. Instead of a continuous time there would be nothing more 
 than an instant, a now which was perpetually being renewed. 
 Time would then be for itself and for an observer a mere now, 
 and would contain neither earlier or later. * In order that time 
 should linger, space must recur, a point must be repeated in 
 more than one instant. * Space is generated in or by time. Space 
 is the trail of time. Time is the occupation of a stretch of space. 
 Space-Time consists of lines of advance connected into a whole 
 or system, a system of motions. * The history of the universe 
 is a continuous redistribution of instants of time among points 
 of space." (The Philosophical Review for May 1921.) 
 
 Professor Leighton's review (a small part of which is re- 
 produced above) gives us a more specific account of the inner 
 nature of Professor Alexander's Space-Time. This, I suppose, 
 will be sufficient to give the reader a very correct idea of this 
 work, which is now said to be the latest, most complete, and 
 most authoritative work in philosophy. Every studemt of phi- 
 losophy should examine this work. It may help him to a better 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE VII 
 
 understanding of the real nature of things. At least it will be 
 a good example of present philosophical tendencies and it may 
 forecast a change to the interest of progress. It will be noticed 
 that all the writers above quoted have offered no definite con- 
 clusion as to what space or time really are in themselves, except 
 Professor Alexander; and he has failed to define his ultimate 
 because he cannot find a suitable correlative. There is nothing 
 beyond or deeper than his space-time ultimate. 
 
 Now, in as few words as possible I will try to make it plain 
 why, not only this writer but all the others, have failed to touch 
 bottom in philosophy. They have ignored or overlooked what I 
 have called the most important distinction in philosophy — the 
 Space-Matter or Nothing-Something relation. (Chapter First.) 
 
 The question "what are things," may truly be regarded as 
 the first and most fundamental of all questions. Every thing, 
 actual, ideal or relative, must be regarded as a thing and that 
 which is not a thing must be nothing. The true philosophy must 
 be a science of the whole, just as Astronomy, Physics, Chemis- 
 try, Psychology, Biology and Sociology, are sciences of the 
 parts. It should be (1), a definition of things, (2), a primary 
 classification of things, (3) , an explanation of the true relations 
 and systematic arrangement of things, as would be required and 
 understood by the ordinary common sense of mankind. This at 
 least, is the view which appeals to my understanding and I be- 
 lieve it will be fully justified in the pages of this book. 
 
 Here I will repeat my definition of things along with a first 
 classification of things, and some further comments which do not 
 appear in the text. By bringing this matter in at this place the 
 reader can readily compare my views with those of the others 
 quoted above on this question of the ultimate nature of things, 
 or what time and space are in themselves. 
 
 There is nothing but things and nothing, and even nothing 
 must be something if we can think of it. Every thing is a thing 
 for three simple reasons: (1), By reason of its Difference from 
 other things and nothing. (2), By reason of its Relations to 
 other things and nothing. (3), Because there is a space occupy- 
 ing Substance, (properly called matter,) in which it was neces- 
 sary to create difference in order to create things. 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE VIII 
 
 Here I am offering a fundamental classification of things. 
 
 All things belong to two classes: (1), Real things: (2), Rel- 
 ative things. Real things are all contained in the space occu- 
 pying substance which we call matter. Relative things are what 
 we have named Space, Time, Differences, Relations, Mathe- 
 matics and its branches. Relative things differ only in their re- 
 lations to real things; in themselves they are nothing — the only 
 nothing we can think of, yet they are thinkable and so must be 
 something; but they are something only in the relative sense. 
 
 In itself, space is a relative something — a necessary con- 
 dition to the existence of real things. Whatever exists must be 
 in space because there is no out of space. In its relations to real 
 things space is nothing — not something as matter, motion or 
 mind is. We can think of an unlimited empty space and being 
 thinkable space must be an object of thought and must be re- 
 garded as a relative thing simply because it would not be any- 
 thing at all if out of all relations to that which occupies space. 
 This is likewise true of Time, Differences, Relations, Mathemat- 
 ics and all of its branches. Time is simply the duration or past, 
 present and future of real things. Without the real things there 
 would be nothing enduring and of course no time. The idea that 
 bare time consists of perishing instants can be reconciled only 
 with the idea that time is a substantial entity. The form of a 
 substance may perish by a change of form; but nothing cannot 
 perish. The true relationship of time, space, and real things is 
 thus made to stand clearly in view. 
 
 Without real things relative things would not be known be- 
 cause mind is a necessary part of the reality. But relative things 
 would exist without real things because they are the laws, prin- 
 ciples or conditions indispensable to the existence of real things; 
 the fundamental truths upon which the true system must rest. 
 They are the rules or means of measuring or estimating the di- 
 mensions, numbers, forms, and relations, of real things, but they 
 are not the real things. We can measure the distance between 
 two objects in space bat we cannot measure space. When we 
 measure the interval between two events in time we do not 
 measure time, but we do measure the uniform motion of inert 
 matter— the axial motion of the earth. Two added to two make 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE IX 
 
 nothing, but two real things added to two real things, make 
 four real things. A material circle is a real thing, the form of a 
 circle is a relative thing. Laws of Nature are not Nature. 
 
 What is nothing? This is another hard question, which, it 
 seems has never been answered. So far as I can learn here is the 
 first answer in human history. 
 
 In itself, nothing is something. It is a necessary condition 
 to the existence and knowledge of real things. It is only in the 
 difference and contrast of nothing-something, that any real 
 thing can exist or can be known. An universal nothing would be 
 a boundless empty space with no real thing in it, and this, of 
 course is unthinkable, simply because there would be no one to 
 do the thinking. But in the view of a thinking being, nothing 
 may be a rational possibility or a relative thing. 
 
 In its relations to real things, nothing is nothing — not some- 
 thing as matter, motion or mind is — yet it may be known as a 
 relative thing. So it comes to this: Nothing is empty space and 
 empty space is a relative thing. 
 
 Since the human mind has never known what space or noth- 
 ing is, we have no appropriate word for the expression of an 
 absolute non-existence or a real nothing. The words 'real and 
 relative* may seem inappropriate but what would be better? An 
 absolute nothing would have to be, in itself, a state of being in 
 which there is no space; and this of course would be a rational 
 impossibility. So it follows that empty space, though relatively 
 thinkable, is the only nothing that the human mind can think of. 
 
 It is not impossible to see that the same conclusion will ap- 
 ply to all the relative things. All are abstract truths which have 
 no meaning if not viewed in some relation to real things. No 
 real thing can exist without time and space in which to exist. 
 Without difference in something real there are no real things. 
 Without real things there are no real relations of things. The 
 true principle of relativity is a branch of mathematics. The first 
 step in the practical use of any branch of mathematics requires 
 some knowledge of some form or complex of real things. We 
 cannot figure on relative things. One of the great mistakes of 
 modern science is in the very general belief that a thorough 
 mathematical training is a needed qualification for physical re- 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE X 
 
 search work. The mistakes of Prof. Einstein and his followers 
 are discussed in the appendix to this book. It is there shown 
 that they have all ignored or overlooked this very important dis- 
 tinction among things. It seems to be a very general belief that 
 space and time have dimensions like material things. Space is 
 supposed to have three dimensions; length, breadth and thick- 
 ness. According to Einstein space and time are the same thing 
 and it has four dimensions. It also has different lines of direc- 
 tion in different places and even in some places space-time is 
 warped or curved exactly as we might expect of material lines. 
 
 It is a striking fact that all the writers so far concerned in 
 the literature of Einstein and his followers, have used exactly 
 the same language that we all use when writing or speaking of 
 real things, as above defined, Nowhere can we find a word to 
 show that any one has ever thought of making this distinction 
 among things. Now the question: Is this view sound or justi- 
 fied by science and facts? Is it not true that if this definition 
 and classification of things proves to be scientifically incontesta- 
 ble, that it must furnish the foundation for a complete and per- 
 fect SYSTEM OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY? 
 
 In a system like this we would have the well known and well 
 recognized fundamental laws or conditions above named as rela- 
 tive things and which are necessary to the existence of anything. 
 
 On the Physical side of real things we would have the forms 
 and states of Matter and Motion, with Inertia as their govern- 
 ing law and which would be the basis of the Physical Universe. 
 
 On the Mental side of real things we would have the forms 
 and states of Mind, which, under the laws that govern the con- 
 scious Mind would form the basis of the Mental Universe. 
 
 With a limited physical universe and an atomic ether me- 
 dium governed by physical laws as described in this book all the 
 mysteries known to physical science may be in fact are explained. 
 Principal among these mysteries are: the cause of gravitation 
 or falling motion, the cause of electric and magnetic attraction 
 and repulsion, the cause of chemical or molecular attraction and 
 repulsion, the cause of the repulsive action of the sun on the 
 tails of comets while in perihelio, the mystery of the tides and 
 many minor mysteries; and all are explained and united under 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE XI 
 
 the well known laws of motion which govern the movements of 
 inert matter. If this theoretical notion can stand the scrutiny 
 of exact science it will be the most sweeping generalization ever 
 offered to the world. 
 
 While setting up the last pages of this preface another new 
 book on philosophy has come to my notice. Its title is: 
 
 "The New Idealism/' by May Sinclair, London and New 
 York, 1922. The aim of this work is to examine the foundation 
 of realism more critically, and to outline a reconstruction of 
 idealism more closely than was possible five years ago. 
 
 The writer says in part: * 'Realism is ten times more for- 
 midable than it was in 1917. * The issue has been narrowed 
 down to the field of Space and Time, and it is there that the 
 battle between realism and idealism must be fought. The issue 
 is very clear. For however realists may differ among themselves, 
 whether they say with Professor Alexander that Space-Time 
 is the ultimate reality, or with Professor Whitehead that the 
 ultimate entities are events, they are all agreed that mind is 
 not the ultimate entity and must be kept out of the problem. " 
 
 This writer makes a stromg plea for mind as one of the 
 ultimates. She says: "Mind on any realist scheme, is only one 
 more entity, one more change in a sequence of changes; the last 
 thing, not the first, though highest, if you like, in value.' ' 
 
 The realists are trying to account for mind as part of a sys- 
 tem in which mind was not present from the beginning. Space- 
 Time point instants, do not think. This authoress maintains that 
 consciousness is ultimate, that there is primary and secondary 
 consciousness and that the assumption of realism (that in the 
 act of knowing we know that things exist in themselves apart 
 from the knowing mind) is not justified by the new idealism. 
 
 The aim of this authoress seems to be for an improved form 
 of objective idealism, wlaich recognizes an external reality; but 
 whether the external world is purely mental or partly physical 
 is not yet clear to me; in fact, all these discussions and disputes 
 between realism and idealism have proved to be exceedingly 
 confusing and much of it is incomprehensible to my mind. They 
 all look to me like attempts to build a system of ideas which 
 have failed to reach the real object in philosophy. The trouble 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE XII 
 
 must be in the point of view, in mine at leaat. How a point-in- 
 stant of space-time, can be a real thing, yet not a space-time 
 occupant, but space-time itself, is for me the best example of 
 an impossibility that I can think of. This from my view point. 
 
 My views on this subject were not altgether acquired from 
 books or education and I have absolutely no reason to think that 
 they were a result of inspiration from on high. In early life I 
 read but few books because I did not have them to read and I 
 accepted as true only that which seemed to agree with a certain 
 sense of right or innate judgment, which, so far as I could see, 
 was always in me— simply natural. In 1863, at the age of 18, I 
 hiked myself to the plains of western Kansas and Colorado and 
 here, while rusticating close to nature, I got my point of view. 
 This of course is not the college way and I suppose this is why 
 bo many college men do not agree with me. 
 
 Here I will reproduce an exact copy of my original point of 
 view, which was put in writing at least 40 years ago. I quote 
 from my first book; set up and copyright issued in 1895. Pub- 
 lished in 1899. First edition 100 copies; 18 copies sold; 61 copies 
 sent to news papers and magazines; 21 copies still on hand. 
 
 None of the scientific or philosophic publications paid any 
 attention to it and the few news-papers that took some notice of 
 the book did not seem to understand it. Here is my original and 
 still commanding view point. I cannot get away from it. 
 
 "An universal likeness (no difference) can be thought of 
 only as a boundless nothing — or as pure empty space. Empty 
 space does not contain any thing, and in itself it is nothing; at 
 least it is the best example of nothing the human mind can have. 
 It is possible to think of space in contrast with something, and 
 so it may be regarded as an object of thought; but when con- 
 sidered in the strictly abstract sense (as separated from some- 
 thing) we cannot think of it as being something. Deeper than 
 this deepest contrast of nothing-something, mind cannot go, and 
 this is the limit and foundation of all knowledge. 
 
 "This contrast, or difference of nothing-something, is also 
 an irrevocable condition to existence. In the universal likeness 
 of pure space there is no difference, and in the entire absence 
 of difference there are no things. Difference, therefore, is the 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE XIII 
 
 first law of existence. Space being everywhere, that which ex- 
 ists must exist in space, and must be limited as space is unlimi- 
 ted. That which exists in or occupies space is called Matter. As 
 to what matter is, the testimony of common sense can be relied 
 upon with perfect safety, since we can only think of it as a 
 space relation, differing from space, limited in space and as hav- 
 ing form and motion in formless and motionless space. Matter 
 being the only space relation is therefore the sole foundation 
 of being. The universe (all things) must exist in matter and by 
 reason of difference. Outside of matter is empty space or noth- 
 ing, and in nothing there is no difference. The word "things" 
 is said to be the widest in our language and it is wide enough 
 to take in all but nothing. It is only things that can exist, and 
 each and every thing, in order to exist, must differ from noth- 
 ing and from other things. Mind can know only things and no- 
 thing, and each and every thing, in order to be known, must be 
 distinguished from nothing and from other things, through a 
 sense of their difference. Difference, therefore, is also the first 
 law of sense and of knowledge. This, in brief, is Universal Rela- 
 tivity: the law of all laws, because it precedes and includes all 
 things. Though recognized by Hobbes, Hamilton, Mansel,Bain, 
 Spencer, Condillac, and others, it seems to me that this impor- 
 tant principle has never been duly appreciated, or applied as far 
 as it will go. Feeling convinced that this is the primary law, 
 that there is nothing deeper, and that there is no limit to its 
 application until we reach the limits of the universe, I have ad- 
 opted it as my sole guide throughout this work. I have even en- 
 tertained the idea that this law is the key to all knowledge. To 
 define anything, is to distinguish and described, all its differences 
 and relations. When we have done this we then know that thing. 
 All differences in matter (things) admit of a primary clas- 
 sification as follows: 
 
 A. Difference of Kind: (1) matter itself, (2) the motion of 
 matter, (3) the mind of matter. These three, Matter, Motion, 
 Mind, are entities: they cannot be created, destroyed or chan- 
 ged into anything else. 
 
 B. Difference of State: (1) states of rest and states of 
 motion in matter (on the physical side) , (2) states of unconscious- 
 
PREFACE TO BOOK ONE, PAGE XIV 
 
 ness and states of consciousness in mind (on the mental side). 
 The opposite states of matter are changeable into each other; 
 so also are the opposite states of mind. 
 
 C. Difference of Form: (1) forms of matter and forms of 
 motion on the physical side (changeable) ; (2) forms of memory 
 and forms of consciousness on the mental side (changeable). 
 
 All matter is Inert when it is not conscious, and when it is 
 conscious it is not inert. The inertia of matter with its laws of 
 motion, is the first principle which governs the Physical Side of 
 the Universe. There is nothing in physical nature but forms of 
 inert matter and forms of physically guided motion. All physi- 
 cal activities or so called forms of energy, as sound, heat, light, 
 electricity, magnetism, chemical action and sensible motion, are 
 but forms of the motion of inert matter, which motion persists 
 because matter is inert. 
 
 The ability of matter to be conscious is what we call Mind. 
 Mind is a property of all matter and the conscious mind is the 
 only free agent or real energy in the universe. When matter or 
 its mind is conscious it is not inert, and so may control its own 
 motion as in ordinary conduct. From which it follows that all 
 energy or power must come from the Mental Universe, which, 
 to our present physical sense is unseen. 
 
 This, in brief was my original point of view and to this day 
 I have not found a single reason to depart from it. In fact I be- 
 lieve I have made a number of important contributions to our 
 knowledge the truth of which may be seen from this view point. 
 A first definition of things, a first classification of things, a first 
 classification of all forms of motion into physically guibed and 
 mentally guided, a new theory of sense perception and the exter- 
 nal world for this life and the next, anew theory of the person- 
 ality of God and of our relations to Him, and a new theory of 
 the future life; are among the most prominent of the aditions 
 to our theoretical knowledge of the universe. 
 
 This preface is more extended than usual in order to include 
 a brief notice of what other well know and credible authors and 
 professors of philosophy have said on the subject of space and 
 time; also to show just how I differ with them. 
 
 Denver Colorado Dec. 28th. 1922. J. F. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK ONE. 
 THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 
 
 The following is a general outline of the contents and object 
 of this book. A like summary of book two will be found at the 
 beginning of that book. Dealing with the same subject, the two 
 books may be issued together under one cover, or separately. 
 The first named form has the advantage of compactness. 
 
 CHAPTER I. PHILOSOPHY, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. 
 
 §1. Introduction. — The sphere of philosophy. A definition of 
 things and of knowledge. Science is the further development 
 and application of ordinary Common Sense to things known. 
 Philosophy is the theoretical science of the Universe; which, to 
 reach its object must proceed on the same common sense and 
 scientific method. A philosophy of things is an explanation of 
 things in themselves — ultimate truths. The salvation of the hu- 
 man race a question of philosophy. The animal origin and pres- 
 ent half-animal nature of man must become a part of our moral 
 and religious teachings. The question of saving souls is purely a 
 question of the transformation of the animal mind into the hu- 
 man mind. The first step in philosophy, is, a comprehensive an- 
 swer to the questions: 
 
 "What are Space, Time, Matter, Motion, Mind?" 
 
 §2. page 10. Sophisticated Philosophy. — There are no words 
 in our language strong enough to deservedly condemn those nu- 
 merous and destructive forms of Idealism, wrongly called phi- 
 losophy, and which persist in teaching that things ultimately, 
 cannot be known. As long as this perverted philosophy prevails 
 the world will have no Philosophy. 
 
 §3. Common Sense Philosophy. — Every 1 living thing must 
 begin its independent existence with some real knowledge of 
 the external world, obtained in sense experience, and this, when 
 thorough and practical for its purpose, is common sense. The 
 further development of common sense leads to Applied Science. 
 From applied science and thru Inductive Inference we gradually 
 pass, by the same process, into Theoretical Science; and this 
 leads directly into the True Philosophy, on which may rest all 
 further developments of Sociology or Life's Problems. 
 
2 CONTENTS. 
 
 §4, page 34. Political Philosophy.— Not only everything that 
 lives from the simplest up to man, but Society itself, in so far 
 as it conforms to the laws of association or mutual dependence, 
 is a Mental Organism. The mental laws which govern this or- 
 ganization are the fundamental laws of life; and therefore the 
 same for animal, man or society. In few words, Conscious Life 
 is possible only in the Association of a number of Mental Ele- 
 ments or Individuals, Organized and Active, for the purpose of 
 securing Agreeable Relations. To the extent that the mental 
 elements or individuals are imperfect in themselves, and to the 
 extent that they are deficient in the organization of their co- 
 operative activities, to that extent they are in want of the agree- 
 able relations which make life enjoyable. 
 
 §5, pags 41. Religious Philosophy. -True Religion is not a re- 
 velation from God. It begins here on Earth in the study of Mind 
 and Matter. Our experience in this life with the rational infer- 
 ence which proceeds thereon, will be sufficient to give us all 
 that's good in religion and life. 
 
 CHAPTER II. THE EXTERNAL WORLD. 
 
 § 6, page 47. The First Thing Known.— The first thing known 
 is the reality of Self-consciousnes. We know that we exist; but 
 we do not know why and how we exist until we understand the 
 true and necessary relationship of Time, Space, Matter, Motion, 
 Mind. The knowledge of self is not relatively evident, but self- 
 evident. All other knowledge is relatively evident and it must 
 begin with these five objects. To understand self-existence is 
 to know these five objects in their true relations all at once. 
 
 §7, page 49. The Law of Things.— This law is found in the 
 Differences and Relations among things and between things and 
 nothing. Existence is not things. 
 
 §8, page 51. The Law of Existence.— A study of the origin 
 of language will reveal the nature of things in themselves. 
 
 §9, page 53. What Existence Is. — In the most comprehen- 
 sive sense of the word existence is found only in Matter, Motion 
 and Mind, and in their relations to Time and Space. 
 
 §10, page 57. Conditions of Existence. — A first condition to 
 the existence of anything, is, that it must occupy time and 
 space. Time and space in their relations to that which occupies 
 time and space, are objects of thought; in themselves they are 
 nothing. If we can think of enpty space we can think of nothing. 
 
 §11, page. 60. What Philosophers say of Time and Space.— 
 All the philosophers have admitted something, which, in its relat- 
 ive manifestations is a reality; and which we have called time, 
 space, matter, motion, mind and force; but which, in its ulti- 
 mate nature is unknown, and by many it is declared to be for- 
 ever unknowable. 
 
CONTENTS. 3 
 
 §12, page 70. Comments and Conclusions. — This supposed 
 or assumed Unknowable proves to be not only the first things 
 really known, but in all its differences and relations it is as sim- 
 ple and as easily understood as anything that can be known. 
 When we know that we exist, then the simple effort to under- 
 stand self-existence leads at once to a clear common sense un- 
 derstanding of the five objects above mentioned, in their true 
 relations to each other and to self. These, to start with, are all 
 we need for the complete Philoscphy which explains all Things. 
 
 CHAPTER III. GENERAL LAWS, MATERIAL AND MENTAL. 
 
 §13, page 76. Matter, Motion, Mind. — Matter is the one 
 thing, in which it was necessary to create difference, in order to 
 create all Material Things. Motion is the one thing, in which it 
 was necessary to create difference, in order to create all Phys- 
 ical Things. Mind is the one thing, in which it was necessary to 
 create difference, in order to create all Mental Things. Things 
 Material, Physical or Mental, in all their actual or possible re- 
 lations, comprise the Universe of Things. 
 
 §14, page 78. Differences, Similarities, Transformations and 
 Uniformities. The Physical and the Mental Universes. 
 
 §15, page 85. Inertia-Consciousness. — All things at all times 
 are under the dominion of laws of matter or mind. The first law 
 on the physical side is the Inertia of matter. The first law on 
 the mental side is the Consciousness of matter. 
 
 §16, page 88. Physical Energy. — Physical energy is the mo- 
 tion of inert matter, and the law of its conservation is the law 
 of inertia. Mental Energy (the only real energy) is the motion 
 of conscious matter, its persistency and real power being due 
 to the change of inertia into consciousness, thus enabling the 
 conscious matter to control the direction of its own motion as 
 in the ordinary conduct of living things. 
 
 §17, page 92. What Science has done for this Philosophy. — 
 All the recent developments of physical science tend to confirm 
 these theoretical conclusions. 
 
 §18, page 95. Comments and Conclusion. — The general laws 
 announced in this chapter are carefully applied to all the mys- 
 teries of the Physical Universe in the four remaining chapters. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. MYSTERIES OF ASTRONOMY. 
 
 §19, page 100. Primary Divisions in Matter and Motion.—- 
 The two greatest divisions in matter are: (1), Ponderable, or 
 that which has weight and (2), Imponderable, or that which is 
 the mechanical cause of weight. The physical laws which we 
 derive from the inertia of matter, require that all motion should 
 be communicated from body to body thru their contact, and in 
 the form of impact or pressure. 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 §20, page 102. Gravitation.— Gravitation, or the weight of 
 the planets and other celestial bodies, is due to difference of 
 pressure from the Ether Medium, (imponderable matter) and 
 this pressure is due in turn to the radiation of motion from the 
 sun, the planets and other ponderable bodies, in the forms of 
 light, heat and electricity. Gravitation is explained and brought 
 under the physical laws derived from the inertia of matter. 
 
 §21, page 108. Gravity and Cohesion. —All the facts of ter- 
 restrial gravity, cohesion, etc. are reduced to physical laws. 
 
 §22, page 114. Newton's Law of Gravity. — The law of the 
 action of gravity critically compared to this general theory. 
 
 §23, page 117. The Moon and the Tides. — The moon's action 
 in producing the tides is purely physical. 
 
 §24, page 120. The Moon's Atmosphere. — The moon's at- 
 mosphere was dissipated by physical causes. 
 
 §25, page 121. The Sun and the Planets.— Sun Spots, Solar 
 Storms, Magnetic disturbance in the earth and earthquakes are 
 traceable to physical causes. 
 
 §26, page 127. Comets. — The repulsive action of the sun on 
 the tails of comets, while they are making their perihelion pas- 
 sage around and near the sun, receives a physical explanation. 
 
 CHAPTER V. MYSTERIES OF PHYSICS. 
 
 §27, page 133. Sensible and Insensible Forms of Motion. — 
 All forms of motion on the physical side are subject to physical 
 laws. All wave motion should be the same in form. 
 
 §28, page 137. Electricity. — All the forms of electricity and 
 magnetism are shown to be forms of motion in the ether me- 
 dium, in its close relationship to ponderable matter, 
 
 §29, page 138. Frictional Electricity, — Motion imparted to 
 the ether may result in its expansion; hence the electro-motive 
 force. The ether is expanded in the same way as any gas. 
 
 §30, page 142, Positive and Negative Electricity. — These 
 are due to plus and minus degrees of expansion in the ether. 
 
 §31, page 147. Molecular Architecture. —The structure of 
 the molecules revealed by the study of electricity. 
 
 §32, page 149. Electric Attraction and Repulsion.— The true 
 and inner nature of electricity is revealed by simple means. 
 
 §33, page 152. Voltaic Electricity. —Motion communicated 
 to the ether by chemical action. 
 
 §34, page 155. Other Forms of Electricity.— Electric attrac- 
 tion and repulsion and magnetic attraction and repulsion are 
 shown to be due to difference of pressure in the ether medium. 
 
 §35, page 159. The Forms of Electricity Compared, — In all 
 the forms of electricity and magnetism thus far compared we 
 are able to see the same simple deportment or manner of action 
 of inert matter in its countless forms of motion. 
 
CONTENTS. 5 
 
 CHAPTER VI. MYSTERIES OF CHEMISTRY. 
 
 §36, page 162. General Facts and Theories, — The atomic the- 
 ory and other theories and facts of chemistry explained, 
 
 §37, page 166. The Theoretical Prospect,— The outlook is 
 good for an electro-mechanical theory of chemistry. 
 
 §38, page 169. Molecular Attraction and Repulsion. — This 
 is explained as required by physical laws, 
 
 §39, page 174. Record Evidence, — Inference from the es- 
 tablished facts of chemistry and physics, 
 
 §40, page 182, Experimental Research by Others, — Confirm- 
 ing evidence in the experimental labors of Tyndall and others. 
 
 §41, page 192, Artificial and Natural Clouds, — These are ex- 
 plained and reduced to physical laws, 
 
 §42, page 196. Snow Crystals, — A physical explanation of 
 the formation of snow stars or crystals, 
 
 §43, page 202. Modern Views of the Ether and Electricity. — 
 Critical review of the late book by Prof. Oliver J. Lodge. 
 
 §44, page 218. Meteorology. —All the phenomena of the at- 
 mosphere are traceable to physical causes. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. THE PHYSICAL HEAVENS. 
 
 §45, page 221. A General View of the Universe. — The im- 
 mensity of the universe from this theoretic point of view. 
 
 §46, page 225. Gravity among the Stars. — The same me- 
 chanical ether pressure and laws of motion are universal. 
 
 §47, page 229. The Universal Cycle. — There is a great round 
 of physical changes thru which matter is continually passing. 
 
 §48, page 230, The Birth and life of Planetary Systems,— 
 Planetary systems are produced by the condensation of plane- 
 tary nebula as required by the now accepted nebula theory. 
 
 §49, page 233. The Dissolution of Planetary Systems, — Plan- 
 etary systems are dissipated in space when the last of their ra- 
 diant motion has deen dissipated; thus suspending the difference 
 of pressure which holds them in their orbits. 
 
 §50, page 235, The Origin of Planetary Nebula.— The plan- 
 etary nebula from which new systems of planets are evolved, 
 are produced by the impact of wandering bodies of inert matter. 
 
 § 51, page 238, Record Evidence for this Theory. — In the new 
 and temporary stars and in physical laws we find the evidence. 
 
 §52, page 242. What are Planetary Nebula? — The beginning 
 and the ending of the great physical series which maintains for 
 a time the many system of planets, may be found in the plane- 
 tary nebula. This cycle of changes passed in brief review. 
 
 §53, page 247. Conclusion. — A number of questions regard- 
 ing the universe as a whole, are raised as a result of this discus- 
 sion, five of which have received answers. Questions and an- 
 swers are briefly as follows: 
 
6 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. Q. Is the universe limited in space? A. That which exists 
 must be something; and being something, it must be somewhere 
 in space because there is no out of space. If we admit that the 
 universe is something we must admit that it is limited in space, 
 because space in itself is an unlimited nothing. A body of inert 
 matter, limited in space and consisting of discret parts in rela- 
 tive motion, must be bounded on the outside by an absolutely 
 solid or non-porous shell to keep its parts together. 
 
 2. Q. Is the universal cycle upon which planet life depends, 
 permanent? A. The balance of evidence seems to be against its 
 being permanent — that it will be succeeded by a universe ex- 
 clusively adapted to some form of spirit life. 
 
 3. Q. Is there anything in this great material system which 
 is superior to physical laws and more worthy of the name En- 
 ergy or Supreme Mind? A. The universe is clearly a structure; 
 operating in strict obediance to physical laws, perfectly adapt- 
 ed to the support of planetary life and which must have been 
 constructed by a Being of Super-human intellect and power, 
 
 4. Q. What are the attributes of God? A. The Supreme God 
 or Spirit, is, and must be, an Individual, existing under the same 
 laws of mind which govern the life of man and the lower ani- 
 mals on this planet. If He is not this we cannot know Him. 
 
 5. Q. What is creation? A. Creation is a change in the forms 
 of uncreatable matter, motion and mind, and not only the mind 
 of God. but that of man and the lower animals, are the creators, 
 
 6. In Sir Isaac Newton's "Optics," appears a number of 
 statements showing plainly that Newton entertained views re- 
 garding the ether medium and the part it takes in light, heat, 
 sound and gravitation, much the same as those of this book. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 
 
 Pages 280 305: A brief review of religion and science past 
 and present. Like science, religion is progressive. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. what is democracy? 
 
 Pages 306-337: A Pure Christian Democracy is seen to be 
 the ultimate of mental evolution. 
 
CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. 
 
 1. Introduction. — The sphere of philosophy has always 
 been very wide and uncertain, and we may well ask, what is it? 
 Perhaps its most general and popular divisions known in this 
 country are, Natural and Mental, the former being concerned 
 with the physical laws of matter and the latter with laws of 
 mind. There is also a philosophy of History, which is occupied 
 with rules for the chronological arrangement and accurate state- 
 ment of important human events in bygone ages. 
 
 All the enlightened nations of antiquity had their philoso- 
 phies, that of the Hindoos being the oldest and that of the an- 
 cient Greeks being the most celebrated. The Hindoos have six 
 strictly orthodox systems or schools of philosophy, and in Gre- 
 cian thought we can distinguish at least twelve different schools. 
 In modern times the philosophers have not been idle. The sys- 
 tems which have gained most attention are those of Locke (per- 
 ceptive and sensational) ; Berkley and Hume, (idealism) ; Reid, 
 (common sense) ; Kant, (transcendentalism) ; Fichte, (scientific) ; 
 Hegel, (idealism); Comte, (positivism); Spencer, (evolution- 
 ary) ; not to mention several new forms of idealism or imported 
 mysticism. The literature of the subject offers many definitions 
 of philosophy, and when we compare a number of them it is 
 not difficult to see the want of agreement. The two following 
 may be taken as a fairly good statement of what it is now gen- 
 erally supposed to be. — 
 
 "Philosophy is completely unified knowledge." (Spencer). 
 
 But this author has confined our knowledge to the appear- 
 ance of things only, to the effects they produce in our conscious- 
 ness. Things in themselves, what they are and whence or whi- 
 ther, we do not know and from the nature of mind we never can 
 know. Another writer answers the question in this way. — 
 
 "Philosophy is the search for a comprehensive view of na- 
 ture, an attempt at an universal explantion of things." (Weber). 
 
 The one makes philosophy the unification of knowledge 
 within prescribed limits and is therefore little more than a spe- 
 cial science. The other defines it not as knowledge, but as the 
 search for knowledge and the knowledge may be universal. In 
 the one we have the admission that philosophy is knowledge, in 
 the other at least the implication that philosophy may be univer- 
 sal knowledge. In view of these definitions, which are from 
 
—2- 
 
 oor most modern authoritiy, and in view of the present work, I 
 have felt justified in offering a definition of philosophy or ulti- 
 mate knowledge. The following may serve not only as an an- 
 swer to the question, "what is philosophy?" but it ought to 
 make perfectly clear to the reader the meaning of the title of 
 this book. At least it will make plain what I think philosophy 
 ought to be and perhaps will be in the time to come. 
 
 1. Philosophy is Knowledge. If the word has any mean- 
 ing at all it must be at least this. Knowledge can exist only in 
 a knowing mind, and whether we call it philosophy, science or 
 common information, it can never be more than a knowledge 
 of things and nothing. This word "things" or something, is the 
 widest in the English language, and it is wide enough to take in 
 all that exists. The only exclusion to the scope of this word that 
 can be thought of is nothing. Putting these two words togsther, 
 as in nothing-things or nothing-something, we have the form of 
 language which conveys the deepest and strongest contrast or 
 relation of difference. This nothing-something relation I would 
 offer as the great truth which lies at the bottom of all things, 
 and marks the limit of all possible knowledge of things. In the 
 widest and deepest sense, therefore, philosophy is knowledge 
 of all things and nothing. 
 
 2. Philosophy is the Science of all Things. Science is 
 now rightly regarded as the higher development of common 
 knowledge and it has a number of natural divisions called the 
 sciences. These divisions systematically arranged constitute phi- 
 losophy. Philosophy differs from its parts (the sciences) only as 
 aiming to include the whole. The method and the object is the 
 same for both. It is, or should be, the still higher, wider and 
 deeper, development of the same common knowledge which eve- 
 ryone must possess in order to live. It is not only the search for 
 a comprehensive view of nature or an attempt at an universal 
 explanation of things, but it is also the comprehensive view or 
 explanation. Aiming at a knowledge, or being a knowledge, of 
 things in themselves or ultimate truths, it is, for the most part 
 a theoretical science; because, it includes both the things of 
 sense experience and the things which exist beyond the limit of 
 sense experience. For this reason it may be of great value as 
 an applied science in the work of testing the truth of all knowl- 
 edge or so called knowledge. 
 
 Philosophy is completely unified knowledge because it makes 
 use of all the unifying laws of nature, in particular the most 
 general laws. The philosopher who fails to discover the most 
 general law, or to use it in his generalizations, should hesitate 
 to offer his work as a philosophy. To know that all things or 
 even any department of things are united and explained, is to 
 know the law that binds the whole. 
 
—3— 
 
 Philosophy, as above defined, and as this work aims to make 
 it, is the search for absolute knowledge; and when that search 
 has been rewarded by success it is still philosophy. Now, a defi- 
 nition of things in themselves, also of knowledge, will make 
 our definition of philosophy still more comprehensive. The ulti- 
 mate cause of things may be briefly stated as follows. 
 
 Anything that exists is a thing for three simple reasons: 
 
 1. By reason of its Difference from other things and nothing. 
 
 2. By reason of its Relations to other things and nothing. 
 
 3. Because there is Matter, in which it was necessary for the 
 Creator to create difference in order to create things. 
 
 Things and relations are inseparable. The first and most sim- 
 ple relation among all things, and one that is never absent in 
 any case, is difference. It matters not what other relations may 
 exist among things, and there are many others, the one most 
 fundamental, universal and necessary, is this relation of differ- 
 ence. One of the familiar words in our language is difference, 
 and in it we have an appropriate vehicle of a truth which seems 
 to me to lie deeper in the foundation of being than relations. 
 Difference must precede relations simply because relations are 
 impossible without things and things are directly dependent on 
 difference in the fundamental substratum. Difference, therefore, 
 is the first essential to existence. Relations and things are a 
 necessary consequence of difference. Mind and knowledge are 
 dependent upon all three. Next regarding knowledge: 
 
 Mind can know only things and empty space or nothing. In 
 itself, knowledge is the mental representation of the truth about 
 things and nothing. But it is assumed to be much more than 
 this. What we call ideas, memories, acquisitions, may be know- 
 ledge if they represent the truth. Every different thing, in or- 
 der to be known, must be distinguished from nothing and from 
 other things thru a sense of their difference. The order of de- 
 pendence among the principal things essential to knowledge and 
 philosophy, is; (1), difference, (2), things, (3), relations, (4), 
 the consciousness of all the differences and relations among 
 things, as in common knowledge, science and philosophy. 
 
 But the knowledge called science and philosophy, to be of 
 value must be of truth; in fact a definition of philosophy and 
 knowledge would hardly be complete without an answer to the 
 question "what is truth?" A primary classification of all things 
 may help us to distinguish the true and the false. In the first 
 place, all things not of mind, properly belong to the Physical 
 Universe. Everything else belongs to the Mental Universe. If 
 knowledge is a series of memories, mental representations or 
 ideas in the mind, then knowledge so far as it is supposed to be 
 of the external physical world, is merely representative; and it 
 may not be of the truth: nothing but pure imagination. Hence 
 
— 4 — 
 another division of all things, and one that should be remem- 
 bered, is, (1), those things which have a real existence outside 
 the individual mind, (2), those imagined things which exist only 
 in the individual mind. The first named are here supposed to con- 
 stitute the external world of matter and motion, the existence 
 of which is regarded by many philosophers as not proved. But 
 this view is the only one that fits into the present system; in 
 fact, without it any system at all seems impossible. The last 
 named are all those creations of the mind which misrepresent 
 the things of the external physical world, also the things of the 
 mental world which are external to the individual who misrep- 
 resents. From this division of things comes a correlated division 
 of knowledge, or rather, what we call knowledge. All knowl- 
 edge is, (1), that which mentally and understanding^ represents 
 the truth about things either physical or mental; (2), that which 
 misrepresents or fails to understand the truth about things phys- 
 ical or mental. In the first named, we have all our true ideas; 
 real knowledge. In the seconed, all false ideas; not real knowl- 
 edge. But what is this truth about things, or what is truth? 
 
 The only test for truth that seems possible in any case may 
 be found in the well known and highly practical method of com- 
 mon sense and Exact Science. Scientific research is a higher de- 
 velopment of ordinary common sense in its practical use in this 
 life. It proceeds on sense experience, judgment, analysis and 
 synthesis, and it aims to discover the general harmony and sys- 
 tem among things external to mind, as represented in the har- 
 mony of our common sense ideas of things. This I would name 
 the universal, the exclusive and perfectly reliable test for truth. 
 If this Universe is a faultless and harmonious whole, our true 
 representative ideas of things must reveal a like harmony. 
 
 This definition of philosophy or ultimate knowledge will no 
 doubt meet with some protest from those persons who put their 
 trust in scriptural revelation and the like. But let them take the 
 widest possible view of the subject from the stand-point of up 
 to date and generally recognized science. Perhaps it will not 
 look so bad. This definition is framed to include all things along 
 with nothing, and it has been carefully applied and justified in 
 these books. It is the only view of the universe and of this prob- 
 lem of life and knowledge, that seems to any extent reasonable. 
 Any system of religion or government, any theory of life for this 
 world or the next, which is not justified by philosophy, does not 
 Deserve serious attention. All questions looking to the general 
 good of mankind are questions of knowledge. There is no place 
 in this philosophy for that soulless and one-sided doctrine called 
 materialism, which assumes to explain mind as a simple result 
 of material changes, in which the mind has no controling power 
 over the changes. Neither is there any place for those numerous 
 
— 5 — 
 
 and just as much one sided air castles of idealism or spiritual- 
 ism, which profess to ignore material things. To know mental 
 things we must know material things, for it is only in the rela- 
 tions of the two that a knowledge of either is possible. The sal- 
 vation of the human race for this world or the next, will come, 
 not thru revelations from the Gods, but thru philosophy, and it 
 will not be the academic philosophy now taught in our schools 
 and churches. It goes without saying that what the world needs 
 now more than anything else is a true Philosophy of Things. It 
 is the only means of uniting and proving the truth of all the 
 sciences, and hence all knowledge. It is the only foundation in 
 truth for any form of Government, Religion, Spiritualism or 
 Ethics. That wisdom or philosophy of the far east, of which we 
 hear so much and which is continually being foisted into our 
 western life by the superstitious folk, is not philosophy, because 
 it does not explain things. It is really nothing but a higher de- 
 velopment of the power of imagination enforced by a strong 
 will. Imagination can create things unreal, but it cannot learn 
 the truth about real things. The fruits of imagination have no 
 permanent intellectual value for society because they are the 
 creations of an undeveloped mind. The fruits of reason have a 
 permanent intellectual value for society because reason can on- 
 ly proceed on real knowledge of real things, which things are 
 permanent. Imagination can cure disease, it can make a man 
 contented and happy, it can even create for him a spirit world 
 here on earth, but it can do nothing for his intellectual devel- 
 opment. It is not here assumed that the creations of imagina- 
 tion are not in themselves real. They are not only real things, 
 (mental forms) in the brain of man, but they can be external- 
 ized or duplicated in the surroundings of the man. They are 
 false only in so far as they fail to represent the truth about the 
 external reality. In book 2 it will be shown how all objects in 
 the future life are created by that power of mind, which, in one 
 of its forms we call imagination. 
 
 The present life is the exercise of the individual mind un- 
 der necessary physical conditions; which conditions are in fact 
 indispensable to its higher development. All life may be made 
 better or worse by the right or wrong use of mind. This seems 
 a wise dispensation on which rests the great law of Mental Ev- 
 olution, to be considered in book 2. In the evolutionary stages 
 of mental development knowledge of truth has an indispensable 
 practical value, because it is one of the necessary means to the 
 good things of life. But good things must be mingled with bad 
 things, and truth with error, and we must be liable to mis- 
 takes for we must learn by actual experience, to distinguish the 
 good from the bad and the true from the false. We are here to 
 learn by sense experience, not to be instructed by some super- 
 
—6 — 
 human intelligence. The end of evolution is the perfection of 
 the intellect, the goal of all life; and so the individual comes in- 
 to harmony with the Supreme, in the perfect life, in which all 
 that is, is good because it is necessary to the perfect whole. 
 
 The problem which is no doubt the greatest of all problems 
 is now fairly before us. If the salvation of man must depend on 
 philosophy, the future course of human progress cannot be mis- 
 understood. It is simply a question of man's relations to the 
 Universe of things, in particular his origin and destiny. We 
 must now recognize the true relations of man to the lower ani- 
 mals, and we cannot rest our distinctions on purely anatomical 
 or bodily differences. It is strictly a case of mental develop- 
 ment, in which the mind of the man gradually grows out of the 
 mind of the animal. At the beginning of the 19th century (1801) 
 Lamarck first published his conclusions on the origin of man, 
 and the work attracted much attention. He upheld the doctrine 
 that all species or living things, including man, are descended 
 from other species, and hence the generic relationship of all life. 
 At that time many persons began to realize the high probabil- 
 ity that all changes in both the organic and inorganic worlds 
 are a result of natural law and not of miraculous creation. But 
 to Charles Darwin more than to any other person we are in- 
 debted for the complete settlement of this question. He clearly 
 foresaw the revolution which was to take place in natural his- 
 tory. The naturalist can now pursue his work without any troub- 
 lesome questions as to what species any plant or animal may 
 belong, for there are no clearly marked lines between the spe- 
 cies, not excluding man. The evidence of the inhumanity of man 
 is perhaps most conspicuous in his mental peculiarities. The real 
 human quality in the mind of the average man shows itself for 
 the most part in his intellectual and moral attainments, also in 
 that high regard for the value of this life, in self and others, 
 as a result of a comprehensive understanding of it and a very 
 earnest desire to make the best possible use of it. The fighting 
 and killing propensity is not human. It comes from a deficiency 
 of mental development more or less conspicuous in all animals, 
 and it will disappear as fast as the higher human qualities can 
 be made to take its place. He who kills for spite, or sport, or 
 any selfish motive, is not a Christian, no matter what he kills. 
 The only human excuse for taking the life of any creature is in 
 the defence of self or society. Tho necessary in the evolution 
 of life in its stages lower than man, the desire to kill is an ani- 
 mal characteristic which must be eliminated in the humanization 
 of man. The lower animals do not deliberate these questions 
 because they are not far enough advanced mentally. But they 
 live under the physical conditions which are well calculated to 
 help them, and which were no doubt prescribed for them under 
 
— 7— 
 the general law of mental evolution, hence they must obey the 
 law and live a selfish, fighting life in the conflict of which only 
 the best fighters can survive. To a great extent the same is true 
 of man. Animal or man, we are all in the service of God and he 
 who has been most successful in the battle of life has rendered 
 the best service. But we of the more human kind can serve God 
 in more ways than one and it is for us to decide which way is 
 best. It is a simple question of difference between man and an- 
 imal mentally considered. All that makes a man immoral or sel- 
 fish, all the varied forms of human depravity without exception, 
 are traits of the animal handed down from the remote past and 
 to get rid of them is to cultivate the human traits. Men in fu- 
 ture will cease to act like animals and strive to emulate the 
 higher human qualities, and so the blood thirsty brute will go 
 out and a purely human stock will gradually come in. 
 
 Any religion which does not teach this doctrine, or to be 
 more precise, any religion which does not teach the whole truth 
 about man, has missed its high office just that much. It is not 
 enough for a man to be a strictly moral person. Knowledge and 
 intellect are equally necessary. The worship of an unknown 
 God supposed to live somewhere above the clouds is no better 
 than the worship of a shape carved in wood or stone. Convince 
 a man that he has the elements of the brute in his mental make 
 up and if there is a small spark of humanity in him it will be 
 fanned into the blaze of self respect which will regenerate the 
 man quicker than all the common pulpet thunder that you can 
 fire at him. The religion of the emotional kind is going out of 
 fashion. Thinking men do not howl like dogs when the cathe- 
 dral bells begin their solemn racket. 
 
 No doubt there are many who will admit the soundness of 
 the theory that knowledge of real things and their relations is 
 of first importance in life, and yet will contend that they are 
 doing the right thing. They admit the need of progress in every 
 thing but their established religion; but it must be admitted 
 that all religions, all forms of government or movements for 
 man's amelioration, have been reproached for being out of har- 
 mony with the advance of general knowledge. The truth is, the 
 world of progress has been slowly emerging from its animal ig- 
 norance into the light of science, and now more than ever before 
 it needs a true philosophy to guide it to victory. Science has al- 
 ready done more for true religion then all the prophets, saints 
 or priests, andphilosophy is simply an application of the scien- 
 tific method to ultimate things. It has been said that the rules 
 of philosophizing have never been laid down with sufficient pre- 
 cision to be of much service. It seems that no one heretofore 
 has known just how to make a start. The method of analysis 
 and synthesis (§3), as used in speculative thought, seems to 
 
—8 — 
 me to be the only means possible, but I do not know of one case 
 of its successful application to fundamental truths. By analy- 
 sis, we get things separated down to their utmost parts, and 
 distinguished by simple difference. By synthesis, and in view 
 of general laws, we discover the systematic relations of things 
 as appears in the harmony of our common sense ideas of them. 
 This method has been well tried and never found deficient in 
 scientific research. What would be the result if we apply it to 
 philosophy? What is a thing; and why, or how, does it exist? 
 Why is it possible for a mind to ask such questions? Have we 
 any ideas about things, and if so how did we get them? I have 
 been asking such questions for half a century and I am still at 
 it, but I am not able to think myself away from those simple 
 inborn ideas which every man has and must have if he thinks 
 at all. No matter how I think, I must think of something, as be- 
 ing in some way related to myself; then I have two things, self 
 and the other thing, and I must think of these things as being 
 somewhere in space and as having some duration in time. I can- 
 not think or know, without something to think about or know 
 of, and the things must be in time and space with myself, and 
 I must distinguish the things, one from another and from time 
 and space, by their difference. These, for me, are the only con- 
 ditions of thought, or even existence. Without difference, there 
 are no things, no relations, no thought, no knowledge, no mind 
 or life; nothing but empty space or nothing. 
 
 This I venture to call the common sense view of the world. 
 If we apply this simple idea (definition of things and knowledge 
 p. 3,) to our common ideas of Time, Space, Matter, Motion, Mind, 
 the result is surprising indeed, and highly gratifying. Time is 
 only an object of thought; and only as related to that which has 
 a continued existence. In itself it is not a thing. It is the name 
 we have given to the duration or past, present and future, of 
 existing things; and without which there would be no time. And 
 so with space. In itself, space is nothing. In its relation to that 
 which occupies space it is a necessary object of thought. But 
 what is that thing which must occupy space and time in order 
 to be something and which is so necessary to the objective real- 
 ity of both? Long ago the common sense of mankind forced him 
 to recognize this collective entity and he has called it Matter; 
 and the name sticks in spite of that premature spiritual phase 
 of thought which tries to shake it off. It is a noteworthy fact 
 that those persons who deny the reality of matter admit the 
 same thing under a different name, more mysterious and hence 
 more delusive; indeed they cannot think without it, but being 
 totally ignorant of the conditions of thought they can rest con- 
 tented in their delusion. A good dose of reason to clean out and 
 regulate their system of ideas might help them. Matter is a 
 
-9 — 
 thing because it differs from time and space and the other ulti- 
 maces. It is also a thing because of its own peculiar relations to 
 the five other ultimates, and in this respect it stands absolutely 
 alone. Motion is another distinct thing because it is not like mat- 
 ter. The difference here is conspicuous, and no man of ordinary 
 gumption ever gets these two things mixed. It is only the phi- 
 losopher and the high flying ecclesiastic who fail to see the dif- 
 ference. Mind is another distinct thing simply because it is not 
 matter or motion; neither is it time, or space, or anything but 
 mind. Here we have five ultimate objects of thought which we 
 have called time, space, matter, motion, mind. That all these 
 are distinguished and known by their difference, and that they 
 bear certain well marked and necessary relations to one another, 
 seems beyond any possible dispute. Matter is the one thing at 
 the bottom of all other things, simply because it is the only 
 space occupant. Since there is mothing outside of matter but 
 empty space, motion and mind must be of matter. Matter, mo- 
 tion and mind are things because they are something. Space and 
 time are not things because, in themselves they are nothing. 
 
 Now, if this view is right then we are confronted by a most 
 astounding truth. Ever since men have been able to think like 
 human beings these five simple objects have been known to him. 
 He has known them all the time and he knows them now, but 
 he don't know it. And what have the philosophers done to help 
 him to his own? Worse than nothing. They have labored inces- 
 santly to befog, bewilder and degrade human understanding on 
 this subject; and all the time they thought they were doing the 
 best that could be done, and who can blame them? But they de- 
 serve the severes censure and in the next section I have given 
 these philosophers special attention. 
 
 It is my object herein to try to make it clear that these five 
 simple objects or things, when viewed in their true and clearly 
 necessary relationship, are indispensable to the very conditions 
 under which conscious life or anything else is possible. To right- 
 ly understand these five objects is to make the first step in phi- 
 losophy. More would be unnecessary and less would be fatal to 
 the existing order and to all life. In these we can find and solve 
 the 'Riddle of the Universe. ' Matter is the universal substratum 
 in which it is necessary to create difference in order to create 
 all things. Under the motion of inert matter we can unite and 
 explain everything in the Physical Universe. Under the motion 
 of conscious matter we can unite and explain everything in the 
 Mental Universe. When matter is conscious it is not inert and 
 so may control the direction of its own motion as in ordinary con- 
 duct. The only power, force or energy, in the universe is in the 
 conscious mind, and it appears in all life from the lowest plant 
 up to man and on up to the Supreme Mind. 
 
-10— 
 Let us realize the possible truth that the God of Nature, in 
 His great wisdom and goodness, has prescribed a perfect course, 
 in the material conditions of this life, for the growth and matu- 
 rity of the faculty of Rational Thought in men. Physical nature 
 with her Material forms and Mechanical Laws has deen consti- 
 tuted just as we find it for the implied purpose of affording to 
 Mind an objective reality of Things and Nothing, upon which it 
 can exercise itself and develop thru sense experience as required 
 under the law of Mental Evolution. The forms of matter and 
 motion must serve as original patterns for mental things; but 
 the mental things may be changed and improved upon by a free 
 mind. The life of every thing that lives is made by its progen- 
 itors and itself under these indispensable physical conditions. 
 For the making of our future life, either Heaven or Hell, we 
 must have just such a world as the present to begin with, and 
 then to make the first right step toward the higher spiritual life 
 we must understand this world of matter and motion. For a 
 true Philosophy of Things there is no object more worthy. 
 
 2. Sophisticated Philosophy. — When the mind of man is 
 fresh and buoyant, but not tempered by the judgment which 
 can only proceed on real knowledge of real things, it is apt to 
 confound truth and fancy and thus build airy systems of ideas 
 which its native vanity mistakes for truth, and by which self 
 and others are misled. The fighting spirit and the love for con- 
 quest has led a number of writers to find in this an attractive 
 field for exercise. Such persons are rightly called sophists; art- 
 ful reasoners who adulterate and debase any subject that hap- 
 pens to take their fancy. But all such persons are playing a 
 necessary part in the evolution of right thinking. 
 
 The field of philosophy has not been neglected by the soph- 
 ister. From the literature of the subject it seems that we can 
 place all the philosophers, past and present, in two classes, (1) 
 those who have recognized the real questions involved, and have 
 done much commendable work toward clearing the way to a so- 
 lution of them; (2) those who have labored to establish their 
 sophisticated notion that such questions cannot be answered. 
 The first named have left the problem open and encouraging to 
 the outlook of future knowledge, and they deserve the highest 
 regard of posterity. The last named have done Mttle or nothing 
 but obstruct and discourage human effort in this direction, and 
 their influence has been felt in all circles. Hence it is that phi- 
 losophy has been, and still is, for the average reader, the most 
 confounding and aggravating subject in all literature. If the 
 word stands for real knowledge, it has been misused more than 
 any other word in our language. Just as soon as we begin to 
 see things right we make the discovery that the great majority 
 
-11- 
 
 of such persons are a lot of incapables who have been educated 
 out of that natural sense judgment which is the inheritance of 
 everything in human shape. It is a clear case of incompetency 
 and hence bad treatment of the subject on the part of the so 
 called philosopher; his wretched deficiency of common sense as 
 shown in his inability to see the meaning of general truths, 
 even the simplest and best known truths of mind and matter, 
 and apply them in the same way we do in the common affairs 
 of life; his emotional and affected show of great learning, and 
 to the reader who wants to know the truth his most painful 
 obscurity of meaning. It is certanly not true that very many of 
 those who have entered this field of labor, have proved them- 
 selves worthy of the honorable title of lover of knowledge' 
 by facing the questions of philosophy with the spirit that never 
 plays quit. The quitter in this field of human effort is just as 
 unworthy of our respect as he is in any other, and when he 
 succeeds in fooling so many of those good people who cannot 
 think for themselves, it is high time for somebody to get after 
 him and just knock the stuffing of sophistry out of him. It is 
 a fact well known that many of those who have attracted public 
 attention by being boosted by publishers and others in high 
 places, have strenuously labored to prove to the world that a 
 knowledge of ultimate truths is unattainable. Their long argu- 
 ments have appeared regularly to this end, which might have 
 been given to a better cause. Each new philosopher of the dis- 
 paragement class has come out with a new version of the same 
 old question, but instead of answering it or even allowing that 
 some one else may be able to answer it, he carefully draws the 
 line which defines his ideas about the necessary limit of human 
 knowledge and capacity, and he always makes his line to corre- 
 spond exactly with his own ignorance and inability to master 
 the problem. This idea of an "Unknowable Adsolute" has now 
 come to be so common that we seldom hear of any one who has 
 not accepted it, and it is often urged that philosophy is an un- 
 profitable study which should have no place in the pursuit of 
 knowledge. It seems now that the only excuse for the philoso- 
 pher is to be engaged in this everlasting pursuit of something 
 which can never be attained. The chase is more to be desired 
 than the object pursued because in the attainment of the object 
 philosophy would have to close up shop. It is claimed that the 
 cultivation of philosophy is not knowledge but mental discipline. 
 We are supposed to get the training which fits us for the com- 
 mon occupations of life. But this is surely a mistake. To think 
 like some of these philosophers, would be to ruin that common 
 judgment faculty which every man needs so much, and to which 
 the future hope of philosophy and religion must look. In books 
 on the subject we often meet with passages like the following: 
 
-12— 
 "If I held truth captive in my hand I should open my hand and 
 let it fly in order that I might again pursue and capture it." 
 Or this: "Did the Almighty, holding in his right hand truth, 
 and in his left hand, search for truth, offer the one to me which 
 I preferred, in all humiliation but without hesitation I should 
 accept the latter." Of course it is an honor to search for truth 
 if only for the prize of truth, and no doubt it is most pleasing 
 to the Almighty, but if for the mere pleasure of the search it is 
 to make a farce of the best of all pursuits. It is a reproach to 
 the philosophy which seeks truth for its own sake and the true 
 philosopher finds no pleasure in ignorance. 
 
 The education of the present day never makes a philosopher 
 and it is liable to spoil the born philosopher. I mean of course 
 those forms of Positivism or Idealism now taught by the college 
 and the church. The ordinary man thinks with the ideas he gets 
 directly from the things which he can see, hear, taste, smell 
 and touch, and so his ideas which are the components of his phi- 
 losophy are thus steeped in the very nature of things, in the es- 
 sential conditions of all life and he has got to have such ideas 
 in order to live. His education is that of sense experience, prop- 
 erly called common sense But personally he never thinks he is 
 a philosopher; while the other fellow, the self-ordained philoso- 
 pher, can hardly think of anything else. His philosophy is an 
 important part of his education, it has come from the highest 
 authority and he has laborsd hard to get it. But it makes him 
 think only in the words and ideas gathered from his books and 
 what do they contain? Sophistry! But he has so much respect 
 for his delusive authority, and so little innate capacity for orig- 
 inality, that he can only imitate; and so he comes to be a mere 
 ape-like man, less worthy of our respect than the man-like ape 
 because he has failed to take hold of the opportunities of life. 
 
 For millions of generations we have been gathering and 
 handing down our common ideas of things, until now we have 
 them well soaked in and about the best way to get rid of them 
 is to go to college and try to be a philosopher. The very thing 
 best calculated to kill the embryo of a real philosopher, and the 
 one thing necessary to make a counterfeit. When a man gets 
 this infection he starts in for the education which he thinks is 
 necessary to his making. He studies everything from Plato to 
 William James and so fills his head with all kinds of ideas that 
 real philosophy never had any use for. Then he is able to see 
 things in empty space and sometimes he is not able to see any- 
 thing in real things. Then he begins to write books, and what 
 is the result? His ideas don't fit together and they refuse to har- 
 monize with the little common sense left in him. But he has 
 faith in his fine education and his prodigious collection of book 
 ideas. They are his only hope. Common sense is too common. 
 
-13- 
 So what can the poor sap-head do? Stick to his ideas and work 
 with wonderful persistence and patience, until he has forced 
 them into something like a system; then rest in the delusion 
 that he has reached the limit of human achivement, and thus 
 he settles the great question for all the world. 
 
 Undoubtedly that class of literature, which has flourished 
 under the honorable name of philosophy to the detriment of 
 knowledge, and has been successful only in revealing the vanity 
 of the writer and sorely taxing the patience of the reader who 
 wants to know the truth, will cease to take the attention of 
 the student, if philosophy should gain its object. So let us 
 help it along if we can. But we may find some good in the er- 
 udite philosopher if we look at him in the light which reveals 
 some good in everything. In the confusion which he has wrou- 
 ght we are made to feel the need of order. It is through the 
 mistakes of self and others that we learn wisdom, Truth must 
 be judged by knowing its true relations to fallacy and to man- 
 kind as a whole. The wrong going of the philosophers of each 
 generation has stimulated others coming after them, into new 
 lines of thought, and so the mental range has grown wider until 
 it has covered nearly all questions; and it is still growing. But 
 the leaders in new lines are few when compared to the great 
 number who follow them. To imitate, is the animal way; to o^ 
 riginate, and to move for better things, is the human way. If 
 the bell-sheep jumps over the highest part of the fence the rest 
 of the flock will follow him, even when there is a wide open 
 gap just to the right or left. The philosophers of the past and 
 present have been lacking in originality. We have now had 
 enough of the animal philosophy. But the new philosophy will be 
 nothing new in thought. It will be a revival of common sense, 
 and a restoration of it to its right place in philosophy. 
 
 The above remarks should be justified by a few examples, 
 and first let us notice the two classes of philosophers called the 
 Realists and the Idealists. The first named, so far as they have 
 ventured, are on the safe ground of truth as I understand it; 
 and the second have departed most from the truth. Realism 
 contends for the reality of a world of matter and motion, ex- 
 ternal to mind, and which we perceive directly. The realist 
 does not assume that we know all about this external world, 
 but this much we do know, and it may be possible to know 
 more. It is simply a question of the further progress of know- 
 ledge, and since all scientific knowledge has steadily advanced 
 in this one direction and since it is in perfect harmony with the 
 universal common sense of mankind, the outlook for realism is 
 certainly not bad. The realist maintains that we cannot know 
 the qualities or properties of matter without knowing matter 
 itself, and he freely admits that some of the apparent qualities 
 
-14- 
 of matter, (as color, taste, smell, heat etc) , may not be in the 
 substance, but only in the mind. So far as we know they may 
 be creations of the mind itself —forms of memory which have 
 been associated with certain forms of motion in matter, and by 
 which motion they are revived into consciousness; and so take 
 part in our perceptions of external physical things. And this is 
 most likely what they will prove to be when our philosophy is 
 complete. Realism is the philosophy of common sense, and it is 
 what I am fighting for in this book. 
 
 The assumption of Idealism is, that since some of our sense 
 perceptions must be at least partly confined to the mind itself, 
 all may be so, and hence we cannot know material things. The 
 thing which we call matter is first of all an idea; but whether 
 it represents anything else not of mind, we do not know, and 
 from the nature of mind it is supposed that we never can know. 
 And so the Idealist cuts this gross material world from his un- 
 bending mind and joins his little band of book-gleaned ideas. 
 He thinks only the little thinks which revolve in his little head, 
 and never a think does he ever think as to how or why he 
 thinks. Not being able to think of anything in this vast physical 
 world, nothing new ever gets into his philosophy but a name or 
 a shape. There are many forms of Idealism too numerous to 
 mention in detail here; in fact any system of philosophy which 
 cannot accept the sensible forms of matter and motion as the 
 original patterns of its ideas, must depend on pure mind made 
 ideas, which may not represent anything but themselves. Skep- 
 ticism is necessarally a form of Idealism because its principle 
 argument rests on exactly the same foundation. If our senses 
 fail to tell us the truth in some cases they are not to be trusted 
 in any case. The conspicuous truth that the physical sense may 
 be so thoroughly trained that it can be depended upon in all 
 cases, is not considered. And so with all the many forms of 
 Spiritualism; even Materialism and Agnosticism, the one re- 
 garding mind as a mere result of material changes having no 
 control over them, and the other believing that nothing can be 
 known beyond the sphere of the physical sense, must be inclu- 
 ded in this category. They are all limited and onesided views of 
 the Universe in which the general harmony of common ideas is 
 conspicuously absent. The logic which prompts a man to affirm 
 that we cannot know matter, should also prompt him to affirm 
 that we cannot know mind or spirit, for in this life we know 
 the mind or spirit of another person only through the move- 
 ments of his body and the movements of the body are those of 
 matter. And so the logic of all such thinkers is turned against 
 them. If we cannot know the spirit of our neighbor how can 
 we ever know the spirit of God? If the Idealist will push his 
 logic to its legitimate end he will find himself shut in a small 
 
-15- 
 mental world, created by his own imagination and limited by 
 his own skin. The great world outside of his skin is nothing to 
 him but an everlasting riddle. He has no God, no fellowship 
 with men and a more complete state of ignorance could hardly 
 be imagined. This would be just the thing for all those persons 
 to whom ignorance is bliss. So much for the logic of Idealism. 
 But if all knowledge can be nothing in itself but a system 
 of ideas in the mind, then what is Realism but a system of ide- 
 alism? This is exactly what it is, and the question for us to de- 
 cide is, what is the true Idealism? That Realism, Science and 
 Common Sense, are now steadily, but too slowly, moving tow- 
 ard the true Ideal-realistic-philosophy, is not doubtful to me. It 
 is simply that system of ideas which accept the forms of mat- 
 ter and motion, governed by physical laws, (described in this 
 book) as the original and necessary patterns of the ideas which 
 every man must have if he lives at all and which we know be- 
 fore we know anything else. The external world is a material 
 reality, made not by us but for us, out of existing material and 
 by the Mind that moves worlds as we move atoms; eternal in 
 time and space and absolutely necessary to the beginning of 
 planetary life. To live at all, we must begin life under physi- 
 cal conditions, and we must have ideas, and to live the perfect 
 life, or as near to it as we can, we must have true ideas. Each 
 idea is necessarily a mental representation of something true 
 or not true To know whether the represented thing is real 
 or not, we must try to make it fit into our most general system 
 of things. If it will not fit we must bounce it at once; provided 
 that we can feel assured that our system is the most complete. 
 This most general fitness of common things is the sure test for 
 all philosophy, If in building our system of ideas we find it 
 necessary to retain our common ideas of matter and motion, 
 then for truth's sake let us hold on to them. It is on these that 
 the entire structure of the Physical Universe must rest. 
 
 The trouble with Realism at present is, that it cannot prove 
 its position, hence it is open to the continuous attack of the Ide- 
 alist. This warfare has been going on for two thousand years 
 and no let up in sight; in fact the Idealists are getting more 
 numerous and rampant. Let us take a brief survey of the his- 
 tory of the two. So far as known to me Realism commenced 
 with the Greeks in the doctrine of atoms. The atomic theory 
 was first proposed by Lucippus and later developed by Democ- 
 ritus and Epicurus. Democritus, who lived about 460 B. C. en- 
 tertained ideas about the atoms and the ultimate nature of 
 things, which are remarkable for their simplicity; and which, 
 it seems to me, should never be overlooked by the student. My 
 reading is not the most extensive, but so far as it goes and if 
 my understanding is right, this philosopher has clearly recog- 
 
-16- 
 nized what I would regard as the most important distinction 
 in philosophy; properly called the Space - Matter relation. We 
 might also call it the Nothing- Something relation, Democritus 
 taught that all things may be found in the Plenum and the 
 Void. The word plenum was from the Latin and it originally 
 ment that state in which space is completely filled with matter. 
 The word Void, is also Latin and it means deprived, unoccupied. 
 As an Englsh adjective it means empty; not containing mat- 
 ter; not occupied; unfilled; vacant. Thus according to Democ- 
 ritus, Being or Existence, occupies space and is contained ex- 
 clusively in matter, while non-being or nothing is the void or 
 empty space. He belived that all material things are composed 
 of ultimate atoms; insensible particles of real substance, unde- 
 rived and imperishable. They differed in size and shape, poss- 
 essed weight and motion, and in their combinations and separa- 
 tions he proposed to account for all things both organic and in- 
 organic. He recognized two primary properties in matter; ex- 
 tension and resistence; but mind was not a secondary property. 
 In his religious teaching he opposed the then popular theology, 
 His moral doctrine was cheerfulness and square dealing. 
 
 Now the thing which takes our attention most in this phil- 
 osophy, is its wonderful simplicity, with the fact that it goes 
 to the bottum of all things. The primary properties of matter 
 known to the Greeks, are still recognized as the most conspicu- 
 ous of material facts; and we have only added to them. In the 
 course of this work it will appear that every thing in mind is a 
 secondary property of matter; and the same is true of Inertia, 
 which governs all physical activities. The resistence of matter 
 known to the Greeks, is very likely what we now call inertia. 
 This simple philosophy is conspicuous in the common sense of 
 the common people to day and it has been so in all past ages. 
 Think of this. In the common sense view of the Greeks, more 
 than two thousand years ago, we find clearly express, the very 
 foundation principles of the only possible system of philosophy; 
 lacking only in that further development which would have 
 made it the greatest boon to the human race; which would have 
 made impossible all those pernicious systems of Agnosticism, 
 Materialism, Atheism, Mysticism or in one word Idealism. 
 This, at least, is the view that I must take after a hasty read- 
 ing of the subject, and if true it is a noteworthy fact in view 
 of what follows. 
 
 The common sense of the Greeks was not allowed to flour- 
 ish without opposition. The sophisticated Idealist was as pug- 
 nacious then as he is to day, and his principal excuse, then, as 
 now, was that most unreasonable fear that the admission of 
 the theory of atoms, would lead to that narrow materialistic a- 
 theism which denies the Deity. Of all the senseless delusions 
 
-17- 
 that ever hampered human progress this takes the lead. There 
 is absolutely no reason for the idea that the belief in material 
 things is not in harmony with the belief in spiritual things. It 
 fails to satisfy reason and it supports the argument for soph- 
 istry. A sophist in the modern sense is a clever disputant who 
 seems to care more for the point than be does for the truth. 
 Socrates and Plato were prominent among the Greek opponents 
 of the atomic philosophy. The great pleasure of Socrates was 
 to meet the men of his time who thought they knew something 
 about this external world, and get them into an argument; then 
 he would sail in with his sceathing logic and make them look 
 cheap. When hard pressed he could always take refuge in his" 
 aircastle of Idealism. "The only thing I really know is myself" 
 Plato became prominent for his theory of * 'Eternal Self-exist- 
 ent Ideas or Forms of Mind" He also made improvements in 
 the Gods, introducing a supreme God to take care of the small- 
 er Gods. It is said that in all his writing there is nothing like 
 a connected system. G. H. Lewes, in his history of philosophy, 
 says of Plato. "I come to the conclusion that he never syste- 
 matized his thoughts but allowed free play to skepticism, tak- 
 ing opposite sides in every debate, because he had' no steady 
 convictions to guide him; unsaying today what he had said yes- 
 terday, satisfied to show the weakness of an opponent". Plato 
 belived in a Supreme God and in the immortality of the human 
 soul, but it does not appear that he offered any evidence for 
 his beliefs. Like all or most of the Greek philosopher he was a 
 double materialist; believeing in a mind substance, as distinct 
 from ordinary matter. With all the Greeks there is more or less 
 confusion of ideas. All have made the mistake of regarding 
 mind and matter as two substances, and all but the atomists, 
 have failed to recognize the first and most necessary distinction 
 in philosophy; that of space and matter. 
 
 Platonic philosophy has met with favor among the Idealists 
 in all ages and its advocates to day are well known teachers of 
 philosophy in the Colleges. In modern times the most disting- 
 uished philosophers in nearly all the civilized countries have 
 been Idealists of one type or another, and here it will be well 
 to mention the views of a few of them regarding the ultimate. 
 
 Emanuel Kant the greatest of the German philosophers, 
 believed that space and time, with all their vast distances and 
 periods of duration, were not outside of a man's mind, but in- 
 side of it. What we call space and time are only ideas; at least 
 this is all we can know about it. Since we must keep all our 
 ideas in our heads, we cannot expect to have any space or time 
 outside of us. The common sense man will be sorely puzzled to 
 know how we manage to move about without any space to 
 move in; but then, common sense is not Idealistic philosophy. 
 
-18- 
 
 George Berkeley the greatest of the Irish philosophers and 
 a distinguished Bishop besides, took a directly opposite view. 
 He contended that space and time, with all their great bodies 
 of matter, are not in a man's head, but outside of it; and what's 
 more, the outside world is not what we think it is— a world of 
 material bodies— but a world of pure mind; composed of ideas 
 alone, and the very same ideas too which the man thinks he is 
 carrying around in his own head. Here is where the common 
 sense man gets a jog which makes him think the world is on a 
 jag. More remarkable is the fact that learned men have argu- 
 ed that Berkeley's Idealism is in perfect harmony with reason. 
 
 Next comes Sir William Hamilton the most distinguished 
 of the Scotch philosophers, with his positive dictum, that we 
 know nothing and never can know anything about either time, 
 space, matter, motion or mind, in their ultimate nature. "Our 
 knowledge' he says, 'whether of mind or matter, can be noth- 
 ing more than a knowledge of the relative manifestations of 
 an existence, which, in itself, it is our highest wisdom to recog- 
 nize as beyond the reach of philosophy." In other places he 
 includes time, space and motion or energy, in his category of 
 unknowables. This I would regard as a clear case of failure to 
 grasp the full meaning of the law of Relativity. In the above 
 quotation he ought to have said, the relative manifestations 
 of existence - nonexistence. He failed to recognize that 
 most necessary space - matter distinction clearly made by the 
 Greeks long before. The prestige of this philosopher has done 
 much to give currency to the doctrine of an unknowable some- 
 thing, which others have labored to promulgate under different 
 names or forms. 
 
 Next to be mentioned is August Comte the most eminent 
 of the French philosophers. Like the others he prescribes a 
 limited sphere of knowledge which even seems more limited. He 
 starts with the Cartesian idea that sense experience is the only 
 inlet for knowledge, and so far he is right. Whatever sense re- 
 ports to us is something and our business is to give it careful 
 attention by the use of sense and judgment. What we can 
 learn in this way, is real knowledge. But here he gracefully 
 falls into the metaphysical trap which has caught so many oth- 
 ers. This, he says, is the only possible knowledge. All attemp- 
 ts to account for things; all conjecture about orginal causes 
 or possible effects; all speculations as to the relations of the 
 things of sense to things beyond sense, are vain and profitless. 
 Human knowledge can be nothing but applied science. There is 
 no such thing as theory or theoretical science, and hence noth- 
 ing that can be properly called philosophy or religion, in the 
 sense that these departments of knowledge relate to things 
 beyond the range of experience. The philosophy of Comte con- 
 
-19- 
 sists wholly in his co-ordination and classification of all the 
 applied sciences, into one great applied science; and this is his 
 Positive Philosophy. His religion is the practical application of 
 his philosophy to humanity; what we know and can use in the 
 present life for the good o#self and others. 
 
 Next in line comes Herbert Spencer, who is now regarded 
 by the learned world as the first of philosophers. He has built 
 up a complete system, and though not the first to make the at- 
 tempt, it is believed that he is the first to succeed. I have a 
 brief review of the system of Spencer in my chapter on evolu- 
 tion, book 2. Here I would like to show the effect of his teach- 
 ing on myself years ago while engaged in this work, 
 
 If my memory is correct it was in the year 1860 that I com- 
 menced to think about the nature of things. Most people think 
 about things when they are not dreaming, but it is not every- 
 body that wants to know why a thing is a thing. This was one 
 of my troubles. Well I finally got it fixed up in my head that 
 everything that exists must exist in time and space; must take 
 some time in which to exist and must be somewhere in space. 
 This idea struck me kindah natural and I thought it was all 
 right. Later on the idea of difference as necessary to the exis- 
 tence of a variety of things, worked its way into my uppermost 
 parts, and then came the idea of the relation of things. Final- 
 ly I adopted the idea of matter with its motion, its inertia, its 
 conscious and its unconscious states, as the one thing which oc- 
 cupies time and space, and in which it was necessary to create 
 difference in order to create all things. I got some good ideas 
 about the inertia of matter and the mechanics of motion from 
 the two well known school books on Natural Philosophy by 
 David A. Wells and G. P. Quackenbos. All these ideas, (for 
 which I gladly acknowledge my indebtedness to the good books) 
 seemed to me to come nicely together and I have found them 
 indispensable to my system. I then thought that I knew what 
 time and space, or matter and motion are, just as any common 
 sense man always thinks. I did not know any better and now 
 it seems that my ignorance saved my system. It was in 1881, 
 after perfecting my system as far as it then seemed possible, 
 that I was advised to get a copy of Spencer's First Principles, 
 and so I did. He was recommended as the highest modern au- 
 thority on the subject and of course my expectations were con- 
 siderably worked up. In the reading of this book I got along 
 fairly well until I struck Chapter 3 on Ultimate Scientific 
 Ideas. Here I was knocked into the worst bedlam of bewilder- 
 ment I ever experienced. For months I could do hardly any- 
 thing but ask myself; what is the matter of my mind? Is this 
 philosophy? It was my first dip into the literature of general 
 philosophy, and I read this chapter again and again, and tried 
 
-20- 
 my best to make out some conclusion about it. What hit me the 
 hardest of all, was the fact that, in this chapter, not only time 
 and space, but matter, motion, mind and force, in themselves, 
 are all declared to be, now and for ever incomprehensible. And 
 this was first principles from the highest known authority. But 
 how could a first principle be known as such and yet be totally 
 unknowable in itself? How could a great publishing house and 
 so many well known scientists and preachers indorse such teach- 
 ing if it is not true? Such questions made havoc in my brain 
 and of course I was confounded and laid up for a long time. To 
 make the situation worse I was often reminded by well mean- 
 ing friends that such an undertaking can only end in failure. It 
 had required just such a man as Spencer, with his encyclopedic 
 knowledge and his profoundly analytical mind, to realize the 
 truth of the utter impossibility of ever reaching an answer to 
 such questions. But my first born and favorite ideas had taken 
 deep root in my brain, and in them I could seem to find a way 
 out of the difficulty. I must see what this chap is driveing at, 
 I thought, because if I can understand him perhaps I can see 
 whether he is right or wrong. So I kept on reading and went 
 clean through his 24 elaborate chapters on the Laws of the 
 Knowable. In 11 of these chapters he has reviewed all of the 
 known facts of physical science, and arranged them under 
 what he calls the ' 'law of the continuous redistribution of mat- 
 ter and motion" This is as far as he gets toward revealing the 
 first principal of the Physical Universe, and what has he got? 
 When I had followed him this far I felt convinced that I could 
 see his mistake. This continuous redistribution of matter and 
 motion, is very far from being the most fundamental principle. 
 Long before this I had learned from those old school books, the 
 general truth of the Inertia of Matter, and this was one of the 
 good ideas that stayed with me. Her is the first passage I ever 
 read in which this idea is clearly expressed:— 
 
 * 'Inertia signifies the total absence in a body of all power to 
 change its state. If a body is at rest, it can not of itself com- 
 mence moving; and if a body be in motion, it can not of itself 
 stop, or come to rest." (Well's Natural Philosophy; p. 16.) 
 
 This, I would call the First Principle of the Physical Uni- 
 verse, and on it I have built my system. Here it is worth while 
 to remark that the word inertia occurs but once in the First 
 Principles, by Herbert Spencer; and strange to relate, its imp- 
 ortance as a first principle, is duly recognized. Here it is:— 
 
 "In the case of matter moving through space, this principle 
 is expressed in the law of inertia— a law on which the calcula- 
 tions of physical astronomy are wholly based." (p. 226.) 
 
 But he certainly did not make use of this principle in his 
 generalizations. This law is not only the basis of Astronomical 
 
-21- 
 calculations, but also those of Physics and Chemistry; in short 
 the entire Physical side of the Universe. So I was beginning to 
 catch on. This continuous redistribution &c. is no principle at 
 all. Make of it what you will, it is nothing but a general state- 
 ment—and an exceedingly artificial, overworked, bewildering 
 and unnecessary one at that— of a series of physical changes 
 going on in matter. The underlyeing principle was not so much 
 as favored by a glimpse from this philosopher. To say that 
 matter moves continuously, is not to explain why it moves. 
 
 Now let us return to Chap. 3 of Mr Spencer's work. The 
 very first sentence in this chapter contains a brazen fallacy 
 which any common person cannot fail to see, He first asks:— 
 
 "What are Space and Time? Two hypotheses are current 
 respecting them; the one that they are objective, the other that 
 they are subjective. Let us see what becomes of these hypothe- 
 ses under anlysis." 
 
 Then he begins to analyze, and in what follows we are sup- 
 posed to have an example of the analytical powers of a master. 
 
 "To say that space and time exist objectively, is to say 
 that they are entities. ' ' 
 
 Now, is this true? We will refer the matter to the best 
 English Dictionary. : — 
 
 * 'Entity is the quality or condition of something which re- 
 ally exists; being; existence; essence. Fortune is not real enti- 
 ty nor physical essence, but a mere relative signification." 
 
 But a fortune may be an object of thought, in fact there 
 are many people who think very little of anything else. Very 
 many objects of thought might be named, which exist only 
 because of their relation to other and real things. Any real 
 thing may be an object of thought, but all objects of thought 
 are not real things, (sec. 8 ) . An entity is a time and space oc- 
 cupyeing thing just as matter is, or as motion is, or as mind is. 
 But are time and space, time and space occupyeing things in 
 the same sense? Of-course not, and no one thinks so. We 
 can think of sound and we can think of the absence of sound, 
 and both are objects of thought, but sound and silence are not 
 both things in the same sense; in fact, silence is nothing in its- 
 elf; it comes to be an object only in its relation to sound. And 
 so with time and space on the one side, and the Universe of 
 things on the other; both are objects of thought but both are 
 not real things in the same sense of the word. The analytical 
 argument of Mr Spencer, commenced as above, continues thru 
 many pages of print and not one of his conclusions are justified 
 by fact or reason. All of them may be shown to be untenable 
 but it would be out of place to attempt it here. I will mention 
 only his conclusion regarding time and space. He says:— 
 
 "Thus as space and time can be neither non-entities nor 
 
-22 — 
 the attributes of entities, we are compelled to consider them as 
 entities." Under this wrong assumption he gives them a very 
 elaborate consideration, which brings him to the result below. 
 
 "It results therefore that space and time are wholly incom- 
 prehensible. The immediate knowledge which we seem to have 
 of them proves, when examined, to be total ignorance." 
 
 And so with all the ultimate objects or things. This long 
 argument to prove our total ignorance of time and space is ap- 
 plied the same to matter motion and mind. If any reasonable 
 person will carefully examine this argument, he will be lead to 
 suspect that Mr Spencer has played false with his own reason. 
 He sees that time and space are objects, but he cannot see that 
 nothing is an object in exactly the same sense. It is an object 
 only in is relation to matter, or something in matter. He sees, 
 or pretends to see, that time and space, being objects, must 
 be regarded as entities, or real things like matter; and he fails 
 to see that they may be objects as related to matter, while in 
 themselves they are nothing. He sees absurdity in calling them 
 nothing, because he thinks we would then have two kinds of 
 nothing; and he fails to see that if they were nothing, both 
 would be the same object. In short he sees anything that will 
 help him to make his point, while he overlooks everything that 
 might lead him to the truth. For me it is all pure sophistry. 
 
 But Mr. Spencer worked hard all his life to gain his object, 
 which was that of the true philosopher; the synthesis of know- 
 ledge. We ought to judge him fairly, now that he has gone to 
 his reward, and give him credit for all he is worth. There are 
 others now living and well able to take care of themselves, who 
 should have some attention here. So far as known to me the 
 chief promoters of philosophy at the present time are Idealists, 
 and they are also College men. Prominent among these may be 
 mentioned William James, Harvard College; Borden P.Bowne, 
 Boston University; John Dewey, Chicago Univercity; Joseph 
 Royce, Harvard; F. C. S. Schiller, Oxford England; Fredric 
 Harrison, London England, and Mrs. M. G. B. Eddy, with her 
 numerous followers who call themselves Christian Scientists, 
 and who also have a system of Idealism. All of these persons 
 have written books on this subject, which are shaping public 
 opinion. Some of their sayings on the space matter relation, 
 should be noticed here. Prof. James, in his late book 'The Will 
 To Believe' offers the following:— 
 
 "Consider for example, space. It is a unit. No power can 
 in any way break, wound or tear it. It has no points between 
 which you can pass your amputating knife, for it penetrates 
 the knife and is not split. To make a hole you must drive some 
 other thing through. But what can you drive through space ex- 
 cept what is itself spatial?" 
 
—23 — 
 
 If the above had been written for a joke we might find a 
 good laugh in it, but it gives us a tinge of sadness; he really 
 means what he says. If we ask the common clodhopper why it 
 is that we cannot bore holes in space, he promptly replies. * ' Y, 
 when we bore holes, wev got to have somethin to bore em in." 
 To him, space is nothing, and he thinks so because of his long 
 experience with material things, which he knows by their dif- 
 ferences and relations. It is the same experience that enables 
 him to drive a nail into a board. He can see the difference be- 
 tween the nail and the board, and he knows that both are real 
 things. For this simple reason he never tries to drive nails into 
 empty space. I am not able to see it in any other way. 
 
 Prof. James does not agree with the English philosopher. 
 On the contrary, space and time are real things which we do 
 know with complete unmistakableness. Read what he says:— 
 
 "Thus with space our intelligence is absolutely intimate; it 
 is rationally and transparently incarnate. The same may be said 
 of the ego and of time, But if for simplicityes sake we ignord 
 them we may truly say that when we desiderate rational kno- 
 wledge of the world, the standard set up by our knowledge of 
 space is what governs our desire. Cannot the breaks, the jolts, 
 the margin of f oreignness, be exorsized from other things and 
 leave them united like the space they fill? Could this be done 
 the philosophical kingdom of heaven would be at hand. But the 
 moment we turn to the material qualities of being we find the 
 continuity ruptured on every side. A fearful jolting begins. 
 Even if we simplify the world by reducing it to atoms and their 
 motion, the discontinuity is bad enough." 
 
 Well, I am sure I never can comprehend that knowledge of 
 space which would make it a standard for judging the world. 
 Perhaps this is an example of that higher intelligence which 
 these philosophers claim to have developed. For me it is just 
 these breaks and jolts that we must have to secure the differ- 
 ences and relations which are necessary to things. A world 
 without things, would be, what? Surely nothing to jar the ten- 
 der mind of this learned professor. When we compare the view 
 of this man with that of Herbert Spencer, the difference is 
 somewhat striking, The one is England's greatest, the other is 
 America's greatest. The one declares that we know absolutely 
 nothing about time and space and the ego; and the other de- 
 clares that our intelligence regarding all three, is absolutely in- 
 timate. Which is right? Most likely both are wrong. 
 
 Within the last f ew years another new form of Idealism 
 has got a start in the minds of several of those above mention- 
 ed. Prof. Bowne calls it Personalism, Prof. James calls it 
 Pragmatism and Prof. Schiller calls it Humanism. This new 
 philosophy teaches that real things are true ideas. We know 
 
— 24 — 
 they are true because we can digest them and assimilate them. 
 They answer for every purpose in life and the knowledge of 
 this fact is our guarantee of their truth. So far as these people 
 admit the necessity of the harmony of ideas, they are right, but 
 it seems to me that their ideas do not harmonize. They admit 
 common sense as a factor in thought but they have placed it on 
 the lowest level of inteligence. Critical philosophy and Divine 
 Inspiration, (the high intelligence) have got ahead of common 
 sense. Read what Prof. Bowne says:— 
 
 "Science discovers, describes, registers the facts; Philosophy 
 interprets them. Common Sense does not distinguish the ques- 
 tion at all. It believes in causality but finds it in sense objects 
 and there is no mystery about them. When this view is carried 
 out it gives us the familiar materialistic and atheistic thought." 
 
 Wrong. When this view is, carried out, it will give us the 
 TRUE spiritualism. The final verdict of this professor of philos- 
 phy appears in the following passage: — 
 
 "From common sense the world of things is something 
 which, for the present at least, exists by itself without any as- 
 sistance from intelligence. But upon reflection it appears that 
 this world is a function of intelligence in such a way that apart 
 from intelligence it has neither existence nor even meaning. 
 Space and time existence and self-conscious existence exaust the 
 possibilities for us. Any other conception is purely verbal and 
 without any corresponding thought. But space and time exist- 
 ence is phenomenal only, existing only for and through intelli- 
 gence. Thus the claim of Personalism is being established." 
 
 When we get to be well fed on the wisdom of such teachers 
 perhaps we will be intelligent enough to see that the world has 
 a meaning for us. From Prof, Schiller's Humanism we get the 
 new philosophy in somewhat better shape:— 
 
 "Truth may be called an ultimate function of our intellect- 
 ual activity; as regards the objects value as true. Truth is that 
 manipulation of them which turns out upon trial to be useful, 
 primarially for any human end but ultimately for that perfect 
 harmony of our whole life which forms our final aspiration." 
 
 The above passage, conveys to some extent, my own views 
 on the harmony of ideas, (sec. 1.) Prof. James in his Pragma- 
 tism presents the new view in similar meaning:— 
 
 ' 'True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, cor- 
 roberate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot." 
 
 Prof. Royce puts the problem in these words:— 
 
 "I am one of those who hold that when you ask what is an 
 idea and how can ideas stand in any true relation to reality, 
 you attack the world knot in the way that promises most for 
 the untying of it." Prof. Dewey seems to hit the mark in the 
 following: — "The essential business of logic is, henseforth, to 
 
—25- 
 discuss the relation of thought as such, to the reality as such. 
 What we have to reckon with is not the problem of, how can I 
 think? but how shall I think right, here and now? Not what is 
 the test of thought at large, but what validates and confirms 
 this thought." Mr. Fredric Harrison devotes his philosophical 
 mind to the spread of the Positivism of August Comte, which 
 means that we cannot know anything beyond the range of the 
 physical sense. Mrs. M. B. G. Eddy has given us a curious re- 
 vival of Christian Mysticism and Witchcraft, which claims that 
 the power of mentally influencing others through the spirit 
 sense channel, (book 2, chap. 5,) is strictly and exclusively 
 Divine, when practised by her faithful followers, but the work 
 of the Devil if practiced by anybody else. But it is the philoso- 
 phy of Eddyism which concerns us here and this is amply set 
 forth in the words, "Mind is all, and Matter is naught." This 
 is perhaps the best known example of an unthinkable Idealism. 
 
 Now perhaps the reader will be able to form a correct con- 
 ception of present day philosophy, from the above quotations. 
 All of the College men above mentioned seem to recognize a re- 
 ality beyond or apart from the conscious person, and that this 
 reality may be truly or falsely represented by our ideas. Prof. 
 Bowne regards this reality as phenomenal only; an appearance 
 resulting from the higher development of our intelligence. Prof. 
 James thinks that time and space, also mind, are clearly known 
 but the rest of the external world is still a mystery, and as to 
 the possibility of knowing more, he finds it in Pragmatism. He 
 thinks that "the difference between Pragmatism and Rational- 
 ism is, that for Rationalism reality is ready-made and complete 
 from all eternity, while for Pragmatism it is still in the making 
 and awates part of its complexion from the future." Pragma- 
 tism is therefore a higher development of the intellect along 
 with which goes a corresponding change in the external reality, 
 hence its cloce similarity to Prof. Bowne' s Personalism. Prof. 
 Schiller's Humanism is very much the same. As to the nature 
 of the external reality or the possibility of knowing it, Schiller 
 offers the following:— "It appears that, strictly speaking, all 
 we know about a thing is its accidents, and that we cannot 
 comprehend how even its most essential properties inhere in its 
 substance. The substance thus becomes either a needless nullity 
 or an unknowable and can neither be experienced nor examined 
 In this form therefore, the conception of substance has no val- 
 ue for any purpose what so ever, either philosophically or sci- 
 entifically. The truth therefore is that the activity is the sub- 
 stance. A thing is, only in so far as active." 
 
 The necessity of the harmony of ideas is clearly recognized 
 by these people, yet it seems certain to me that their ideas do 
 not harmonize at all. Think of the idea that a thing is, only so 
 
-26- 
 f ar as active. Can we distinguish between matter and motion? 
 I think we can and I must confess that I cannot understand 
 how a human being, living under present physical conditions, 
 which are indispensable to the development of a thinking mind, 
 can get such ideas unless he is to some extent insane. But they 
 are no worse than that modern Fad properly called Eddyism, 
 and which assumes that the reality is nothing but Immortal 
 mind; and that all who think of material things or mechanical 
 laws; of sin, sickness or death; are thinking of nothing real. 
 The truth is, philosophy has made no advance in two thousand 
 years. It is the same old story about the world beyond sense, 
 handed down in ever changing form. Many people think they 
 know all about it for they have got it direct from the Supreme. 
 Others declare that we know nothing, nor can we ever know 
 anything about it. Others again, are hoping, and some are act- 
 ually looking for a final solution of the problem. These last 
 named are the Apostles of Realism, Rationalism and Common 
 Sense, and we will now consider their view of the situation. 
 
 3. Common Sense Philosophy:— Let us start with a clear 
 understanding of what we mean by common sense. To my notion 
 it is that native judgment faculty, possessed to some extent 
 by all men, and which has grown up thru the long continued 
 past experience of man, in and thru the direct contact of his 
 mind, with this world of matter and motion; and which has 
 been permitted to develop and mature itself under physical con- 
 ditions alone. It is that horse sense which gets into a man thru 
 his most intimate experience with the real nature of things, in 
 the world about, and which has not been educated out of him 
 before he has learned its use. The man of common sense does 
 not set up any standard of thought for the world at large. The 
 question with him is, how shall I think right, here and now. It 
 is the very essence of common sense to be alive to the present 
 needs or wants. If experience in physical life can teach us any- 
 thing it must be this: be careful; see what you are doing; think 
 right, here and now. All accidents or mistakes are a constant 
 monition to common sense, and in this experience we learn its 
 value as a safeguard. It seems to me utterly impossible that 
 a mind could think right, or be a guide to right conduct, unless 
 it were possible to think wrong. It is only in the experience of 
 both right and wrong that we learn the right. And whence or 
 why is that something which we call right, and which is so nec- 
 essary to our happiness? Of course it is the external reality; 
 and to assume that it was not made for us, that it has no ex- 
 istence independent of us and that it is a mere result of the gro- 
 wth of our intelligence, is to make an assumption very little 
 short of ridiculous. The practical thought of every man every 
 
-27- 
 day of his life is the thought that brings success, no matter 
 what he does, or when or where on earth he lives; and this is 
 common sense. Education, if of the right kind, may help us to 
 use this faculty, but it can never give us anything better, and 
 the reason is, as we shall see, simply the truth that the exter- 
 nal reality is a predetermined arrangement of an everlasting 
 material, expressly for our good. (sec. 51.) 
 
 Let us take the widest and deepest view we can of this 
 question. Between the mind within the brain and the world of 
 things without, there is the one and only avenue of sense called 
 the physical. Thru this sense we learn all truths about things 
 and their relations; which we call the mechanical and mental 
 properties of matter. We also learn, or obtain, all our false 
 ideas from the same source. On these true or false ideas we 
 build all our philosophies, all our social ideals or religions, each 
 and every concept that can be imagined or reasoned out, good 
 or bad, true or false. No matter what we build it must rest on 
 this foundation of Materialism; for there is nothing else but 
 empty space. The utility and truth of what we build will de- 
 pend on how we build; how we begin the work or what we se- 
 lect for its foundation. And all this selection and orderly ar- 
 rangement will depend on how we think; in other words, how 
 or whether we select and combine our ideas of things with a 
 view to that harmony and consistency which does not ignore 
 the great world of physical fact. Every builder in brick, stone 
 or wood, knows how necessary it is to make sure of a good sol- 
 id foundation by getting the right material in the right place, 
 and above all to secure exact conformity to mechanical laws 
 thruought the finished structure. But not so with the builder 
 of the philosophical, social or religious edifice thus far in the 
 worlds history. He does not seem to know that a foundation is 
 necessary, nor does he seem to entertain even a thin suspicion 
 that all his Jofty aircastles of Idealism must go down in ruin 
 because they are not solidly based on the universal mechanical 
 1 aws which are necessary to life. 
 
 The truth is, all these builders of world conceptions have 
 built on this foundation of materialism without knowing it, and 
 they have got things mixed. Let me show just how this is. In 
 all business pursuits common sense is indispensable for the sim- 
 ple reason that all lines of business are so intimately connected 
 with material things, so purely physical thruought, that it is 
 next to impossible to succeed in any business without such kno- 
 wledge. The succesful man of busines is always one who has 
 worked his way up thru actual sense experience, either direct- 
 ly with material things or with their representaton in figures. 
 When we speak of business pursuits in the widest sense we are 
 covering the whole sphere of human occupation in physical life. 
 
— 28 — 
 It is everybody's business to enjoy life and to be engaged in 
 something which contributes to such enjoyment. When we can- 
 vas the whole ground of human occupation in physical life, we 
 find absolutely nothing which does not belong either to the 
 physical world without, or the mental world within; which men- 
 tal world includes all mind. It is plainly obvious that this men- 
 tal world has been created in the experience of past and pres- 
 ent life, and thru its direct contact with the surrounding world 
 of matter and motion. To say it was given to us by the Creator 
 does not explain its origin unless we suppose that God has placed 
 before us a world of forms of matter and motion as original 
 patterns for the making of our ideas of things. This, so far as 
 it goes, is the most satisfactory explanation from the common 
 sense way of looking at things. It seems impossible to avoid 
 seeing how completely dependent the mind is, for all its objec- 
 tive forms, on just such a world. The careful student of phys- 
 ical science will not fail to see this. 
 
 Now, so far as careful sense experience is concerned, our 
 mental world may be an exact copy of so much of the physical 
 world as comes within the range of the physical sense. This is 
 the proper sphere of physical fact upon which all sound judg- 
 ment proceeds, and the fact that there is such a thing as sound 
 judgment helps to prove that there is such a thing as an exter- 
 nal physical world which is just what it appears to be. The ex- 
 ercise of such judgment is simple common sense. Now, these 
 same physical facts, derived from the same material objects in 
 the same sense experience, may be combined by the individual 
 mind itself, into the most fanciful or impossible systems that 
 the wildest imagination can suggest. Thus the same sphere of 
 physical fact is the necessary foundation for not only the most 
 thorough going reason, but the most groundless imagination. 
 And so we have the evidence of the materialistic origin of not 
 only all the conceptions of Realism or common sense, but also 
 all the false conceptions of Idealism or Religion. From this point 
 of view, whatever is false in Idealism or Religion is simply a 
 departure more or less, from common sense. 
 
 We begin our speculations regarding the unknown in com- 
 mon sense, in fact we cannot even begin to live without it, be- 
 cause all life must begin its independent existence with some 
 real knowledge of the external world. The further development 
 of common sense gives us Applied Science. From applied sci- 
 ence we gradually pass into Theoretical Science, and this leads 
 directly into the true Philosophy; on which we can base all 
 higher developments of Sociology and Religion. All these are 
 only different names for the different stages in the development 
 of common sense; in fact, it is common sense all the way thru. 
 It is a plain, straight road which leads to the goal of a perfect 
 
—29- 
 theory of life and any one may follow it if they are careful to 
 keep on the bridges which span the numerous pitfalls. 
 
 In books on logic we are told that the three primary prin- 
 ciples of logic are, (1) , the principle of Concistence or Neces- 
 sary Truth; (2), the principle of Deduction; (3) the principle 
 of Induction. If we mean by consistency or necessity, the prac- 
 tical value and need of truth, as we find it in life and as prese- 
 nted to us in our true ideas of things, then for a fact concis- 
 tency is the one jewel in the crown of a true science of logic, 
 and it must be indispensable in the pursuit of real knowledge. 
 An what is this but common sense? The practical good sense 
 which everybody knows to be good, because in the practice of 
 it we always get along the best, and which is obtained only in 
 the experience of physical life, is what we mean by this word. 
 And that consistency runs thru it all, is evident at every turn. 
 We see it everywhere in the necessary relations of mind to the 
 external world. And seeing the ultimate possibility of the har- 
 mony of all things which secures the greatest good to all, 
 there is no question about the validity of a philosophy which 
 rests and builds upon common sense alone. To seek for a more 
 promising outlook than this seems unnecessary. 
 
 If we take this for our meaning of the words consistence 
 or necessary truth, it seems that this meaning would not exist 
 without a mind to be aware of it. One thing may be consistent 
 or necessary to another, and that to another, and so on until 
 we reach the universe of things complete and perfect in itself; 
 but it would not be complete and perfect in itself without a 
 mind to contemplate its completeness and perfection, and of 
 which it is a necessary part. There is nothing needful or neces- 
 sary without a sentient being to which it is needful and neces- 
 sary. The physical world in itself, no matter how complete, 
 perfect, consistent or necessary, from our point of view, would 
 be very far from such completeness without our point of view; 
 and from a higher point of view it might be still more so. 
 
 The words Consistency, Necessary Truth, Agreement Dis- 
 agreement, Order Confusion, Harmony Discord, Existence, 
 Non-existence, Conditioned Unconditioned, Difference, Similar- 
 ity, Transformation, Uniformity, Relation or Relativity, Time 
 and Space, Matter, Motion, Mind, seem to be sufficient to con- 
 vey all that we can have any use for in thought, science, phi- 
 losophy or general Knowledge; and all of this is more or less 
 under the words Consistency Inconsistency. The socalled princi- 
 ples of Deduction and Induction are different forms of inference 
 from the known to the unknown, as concerned in speculative 
 thought The socalled principles of Identity, Contradiction and 
 Excluded middle; the Cyllogism and its numerous forms, canons 
 and rules; are all seemingly unnecessary discriminations in the 
 
—30 — 
 innumerable forms of thought. A man may be a thoroughly 
 educated logician and yet totally incapable of approaching the 
 question of ultimate truths. In the common experience of phys- 
 ical life we are able to get all the logic we can ever have any 
 use for in this world, and we run no risque of getting our heads 
 filled with a lot of inharmonious ideas. But we must have some 
 method or rule of procedure to guide us in our first philosophiz- 
 ing steps. We must (1), realize that there is some real truth to 
 be learned; (2), that we learn by inference or judgment from 
 past experience with things already known; (3), that our judg- 
 ment must proceed in accord with recognized method, in har- 
 mony with common sense and have the guarantee of a general 
 law the truth of which is to some extent known or assumed. 
 Now it is generally admitted, or should be, that the method 
 of modern theoretical or applied science, is also the method of 
 philosophy. This method is called Analysis and Synthesis. By 
 what we might call Objective or Sensible Analysis, we are 
 able to resolve any sensible object into its smallest sensible 
 parts. But we are never able to carry this process beyond the 
 point where the parts cease to be distinguishable by the use of 
 the physical sense. When the object does not admit of further 
 analysis or resolution, we are supposed to have reached the lim- 
 it, not of the process, but of our sensibility to distinguish the 
 smallest parts. By what we might call Subjective or Insensible 
 Analyses, we are able to carry this process of subdivision far 
 beyond the limits of the physical sense. But in this venture be- 
 yond sense we must depend entirely on sense experience and the 
 judgment which proceeds thereon for results. It is simply a pro- 
 cess of inference from sensible things to things beyond sense. 
 By this meams we are supposed to be able to reach a knowledge 
 of the ultimates, or of a system of things which may exist be- 
 yond sense. These insensibles are properly called things the 
 same as sensible things, but they are individually too small to 
 be distinguished by the physical sense. Together they may be 
 the essential elemets of sensible things or they may make up the 
 more or less unnecessary parts of sensible things. All sensible 
 things are composed of insensible things. In these two classes 
 of things, the sensible and the insensible, and in all their prop- 
 erties, relations and activities, we may find all degrees of order 
 and confusion, in fact all phenomena mental and physical; and 
 this is the legitimate sphere of philosophy, science and ordinary 
 knowledge. 
 
 By the method of Objective or Sensible Synthesis, we are 
 able to put together sensible things, or their sensible compo- 
 nents, and discover their true relations, their forms, properties, 
 activities and effects upon one another, upon sensible objects 
 and upon the conscious mind. But, as in the method of analysis, 
 
—31 — 
 we are unable to carry this proces beyond the range of the 
 physical sense. We may however, as in the case of analysis, 
 proceed beyond sense by the use of the subjective or insensible 
 synthesis, which is purely speculative or theoretical regarding 
 the ultra-sense world. Here as in the analytical process we de- 
 pend entirely on common sense; that careful judgment which 
 can only proceed on real knowledge of sensible things. This 
 method of knowledge is therefore both analytic and synthetic. It 
 separates the components of a thing so far as it can distinguish 
 them, then it puts them together systematically and in conform- 
 ity to general law, so far as it is able to discover their true re- 
 lations. In this way we can hope to be able to obtain reliable 
 knowledge of the great world supposed to exist beyond the reach 
 of the physical sense. The value of such knowledge may be 
 measured by the way it is based on the facts of sense, by its 
 depth and thoroughness, and by its getting down among the 
 real ultimates and out beyond the range of sense so far as to 
 comprehend the universal order, which must be the test for its 
 truth and value. The object of such knowledge is to compre- 
 hend the universal harmony, consistency or necessity as inferred 
 from that part of it which comes within the sphere of sense. 
 The truth of such knowledge is to be found in the full realiza- 
 tion of the universal order wherein all things have a place and 
 a necessary part to play in the perfectionment of the whole. 
 The attainment of such knowledge is necessarily the work of 
 human judgment as described; and for the simple reason that 
 our senses are limited and we cannot get beyond this limit in 
 any other way. This is the road to the ultimate and to philoso- 
 phy, and if we are not satisfied with it we must fall back on 
 theology or be contented with our ignorance. 
 
 This method was known to the ancients and it is well known 
 and in constant use to day, and it may be applied to both mind 
 and the external world. We see its application in Astronomy, 
 Physics and Chemistry, thus showing its availability from the 
 smallest sensible thing to the entire Universe. In its applica- 
 tion to the common things of life, into which it does not go 
 very deep, it is called ordinary knowledge. In its application 
 to the larger divisions of things it is called Science. In its ap- 
 plication to the entire Universe it is properly called Philosophy. 
 At least this is the sense in which I propose to use the word. 
 In my view there is but one philosophy. All divisions in philoso- 
 phy are correctly called sciences. Under the combined use of 
 analysis and synthesis, sensible and insensible, we have a clear 
 view of the object of philosophy; which is, to discover and de- 
 fine the general laws under which all things are harmonized. 
 In science and common knowledge we not only aim to separate 
 and combine things according to their true differences and rela- 
 
-32 — 
 
 tions, but we aim to discover the general laws under which they 
 most perfectly combine, This is called in logic the method of 
 Induction; which starts with some individual truth most certan- 
 ly known and proceeds by inference to harmonize other truths 
 under it until we are able to announce the discovery of a gen- 
 eral law. 
 
 It may be seen from the above that all possible knowledge 
 must lie between two extremes of thought; that which is most 
 particular and that which is most general. The first named is 
 that which concerns the minute details in any particular thing 
 or affair and the last named include all that knowledge which 
 is of thing supposed to exist outside the sphere of sense. The 
 first is always the most thorough, or may be so, because it 
 has the direct and constant use of the physical sense the percep- 
 tions in which, being often repeated and compared, and final- 
 ly combined into ideas and confirmed by further experience un- 
 til they become permanent parts of the mental organism. Here 
 is something we should never forget. These permanent parts 
 (in-born ideas) of our mental make up, in so far as they have 
 been derived directly from the external world by long and care- 
 ful sense experience, are true ideas. And their truth is demon- 
 strated in and by the fact that they can all be reduced to a 
 most perfect system; as shown in this work. 
 
 Between these two extremes of knowledge we can draw 
 the line very plain which seperates the world of sense from the 
 great world beyond, and it is not difficult to see which side of 
 the fence we are on and which side philosophy is on, and how 
 dependent we are on science and common sense for our knowl- 
 edge of the things of philosophy. For a long time science has 
 been getting on the philosophy side of the fence. All our mod- 
 ern theories of light, heat, electricity, etc, are theories which 
 rest wholly on the assumption of an ether medium possessing 
 the mechanical properties of ordinary matter. This encroach- 
 ment of science upon the territory of philosophy is a significant 
 fact. How can the sciences advance if they do not move to- 
 ward the unity of all knowledge? Any scientific theory which 
 goes beyond the range of sense experience, is necessarally an 
 approach toward the fundamental basis of all things; and this 
 of course is not a thing of direct sense experience. 
 
 We can fairly conclude that there is one common method 
 for the attainment of any or all knowledge, whether special 
 or general, common everyday information, science or philosophy. 
 We can call this method by any new name but it is the same 
 old common sense, which must always be just what it is, by 
 reason of the necessary conditions under which mental action is 
 possible. It is not inherited genius or any special gift which 
 falls to the few, for it is universal. It is simply that common 
 
—33- 
 perception of real things and their true relations, with the nec- 
 essary judgment which follows. It has been soaking into the 
 human mind for millions of past generations and without which 
 there would be no life. Its universality is plainly shown in the 
 fact that all the animals have it in its lowest stages of develop- 
 ment. It is a noteworthy fact that the philosophers in all ages 
 of human history have more or less justly recognized common 
 sense as an important factor in thought. Perhaps those of Scot- 
 land in recent times have given it more attention than those of 
 other countries. Lord Shaftesbury has the credit of being the 
 first to use the words now used and he also called it * 'natural 
 knowledge or fundamental reason. ' ' Francis Hutcheson regard- 
 ed common sense ideas as "self-evident axioms," by which we 
 perceive at once the agreement or disagreement among things; 
 but he denied that they are inherited. Thomas Reid went fur- 
 ther than those preceding him. He maintained, in opposition 
 to the skepticism of David Hume and others, that we perceive 
 matter and its quality, cause and effect, moral good and evil, 
 and he insisted that common sense is in the very nature of the 
 mind of man, calling it an "original natural principle of our 
 mental constitution, given to us by nature." He was certainly 
 right. Dugald Stewart recognized such ideas as natural and 
 original, and he called them "Fundamental Laws of human be- 
 lief." Thomas Brown held a similar view, calling them princi- 
 ples of thought; primary, universal intuitions of direct belief. 
 Sir W. Hamilton went very thoroughly into the matter and he 
 specified many of its prominent characteristics. He made the 
 point that the argument from common sense is strictly scientific 
 and rational, and he produced testimonials from the writers of 
 all ages in behalf of its true importance. Dr. James McCosh, 
 late president of Princeton College, is the most modern of the 
 well known writers on this line and he has contributed a large 
 volume on the subject entitled "First and Fundamental Truths. " 
 He makes a resolute stand for this doctrine and calls it Realis- 
 tic Philosophy. Among the Germans, Kant recognized the prin- 
 ciple of common sense as innate and necessary to thought. Of 
 our intuitions of space he says: "It must be already apriori in 
 the mind, i. e. before there is any perception of objects." Of the 
 French philosophers M. Cousin has offered a good statement of 
 one factor of this truth: "Reason looks at truths universal, eter- 
 nal and absolute; truths not of the individual or the race, but 
 of all intelligence and therefore necessary." Berkeley attempt- 
 ed to reconcile his system of immaterialism with common sense. 
 He was afraid the common people would not understand him. 
 The modern Idealists have shown a little respect for common 
 sense but they place it on the lowest level of intelligence, and 
 it seems clear to me that they have failed to understand it. 
 
— 34 — 
 
 4. Political Philosophy. — That the cure for all political 
 or social evils, is conspicuous and open to the common sense of 
 all men, seems as clear to me as any other question in this prob- 
 lem of life. Like all questions, this is a question of philosophy; 
 and a complete solution of it may be found in a complete Phi- 
 losophy of Things. Here I shall only call attention to one funda- 
 mental truth of all social phenomena; leaving the rest for book 2. 
 
 Not only every thing that lives, from the simplest up to 
 man, but Sociity itself, in all its aggregates so far as they con- 
 form to the law of association or mutual dependence, is a Men- 
 tal Organism. The plan and ultimate aim of this organization, is 
 the same for animal, man or society. A comparison of the social 
 organism with the mind and body of man, has been attempted 
 before. It appears in Plato's model Republic, in the Leviathan 
 of Hobbes, and Spencer has given it some attention. But the 
 mental organism which I shall offer here is different. It is pure- 
 ly a mental organism in itself, in its relations to the body and 
 to the physical world, also in its governing laws. It is nothing 
 but mind. The physical organism or body, (which is composed 
 exclusively of forms of matter, the activities of which are forms 
 of motion, which, when not governed by a free mind are gov- 
 erned by the laws of motion which we derive from the inertia 
 of matter, chapter 3) is not a part of this mental organism be- 
 cause it is not mind. This distinction between the mental and 
 physical worlds, so far as I know, has never been made before. 
 
 In chapters 2, 3 and 4, book 2, is described a theory of the 
 form and mode of operation of the human mental organism; also 
 a theory of its origin under physical conditions, which latter, is 
 to some extent an advance upon the Darwinian theory of de- 
 scent. Both of these theories apply not only to all living things, 
 but to all forms of the social organism, which have for their 
 object the happiness of all the individuals. According to the 
 first named theory every individual mind must have a center of 
 self consciousness in which all the elements of the complete 
 individual are united. Under this higher center are a number of 
 similar but subordinate centers, and under these again a larger 
 number of still lower subordinates, and so on down to the sim- 
 plest units of life. These smallest units of life as well as all the 
 higher aggregates of them, are not biological units in the ordi- 
 nary sense of that word, but psychological units in the sense 
 that each one of them is a combination of mental elements, to 
 some extent free to control the motion of conscious matter and 
 so to act independent of physical laws. In book 2, it has been 
 explained how the conscious individual mind is able to control 
 the motion of the conscious matter of the brain and higher cen- 
 ters, as in ordinary conduct. Thus every thing that lives, from 
 the smallest body cell or independent germ, to the most highly 
 
—35 — 
 developed human personality, is a mental organism possessing 
 a limited degree of mental freedom or power to control the mo- 
 tion of its own substance. In the normal, healthy and well bal- 
 anced mind all the subordinates are in their proper place, each 
 lives its own active life and performs its work for self and the 
 others. Mutual dependence is so true of the community, that 
 the active life of any part would be impossible without the act- 
 ive life of all the other parts. It is a simple case of the associ- 
 ation and cooperation of the individual units which make up the 
 mental organism of a man or a dog; and upon which depends 
 the life of the whole or of any part. Almost exactly the same 
 may be said of the social mental organism. No man can live or 
 even begin life wholly independent of some form of society. 
 
 A few of the points of similarity between the person and 
 the society are the following: (1), Each part of the mental or- 
 ganism must occupy a definite body or portion of matter, over 
 the motion of which it must have some control, in both the per- 
 son and the society. (2) , Each lower part must be to some ex- 
 tent under the control of a distinct higher part, and so on to the 
 highest, in both the person and the society. (3) , Each part must 
 be connected with all the other parts so that there may be a 
 free communicaton from one to another thruout the community, 
 in both the person and the society. (4), Each part must be ca- 
 pable of performing a different and necessary part of the work, 
 in both the person and the society. (5), All the parts must be 
 more or less closely united under one highest, controlling, self- 
 conscious, and to some extent self -controlling part, which is the 
 outward manifestation of the complete individuality of either 
 the person or the society. (6) , The sole purpose of this associ- 
 ation of parts or mental elements, under one control, is to se- 
 cure the highest possible state of agreement conductive to life 
 and happiness for every part, in both the person and the society. 
 
 Thus the parallelism between the person or individual and 
 the society on six points seems conspicuous. But there are some 
 differences between the two, which however, signify nothing 
 so far as political philosophy is concerned, but they are inter- 
 esting as truths of mind. Both the individual and the society 
 must occupy definite bodies of organic matter which are subject 
 to physical laws in so far as they are not controlled by mind, and 
 which bodies are divided into parts; but the parts of the indi- 
 vidual are more closely united and less capable of independent 
 life than those of the society. Being more simple and less de- 
 veloped, the former are less able to perform the great variety 
 of activities peculiar to the parts of the society. In the society 
 the parts, or individuals as social units, may be completely de- 
 tached from the social body without destroying their life, but 
 not so with the parts of the individual. The parts of the indi- 
 
— 36 — 
 vidual are united through the spirit or purely mental sense 
 (book 2) , while the parts or individual units of the society are 
 united through the ordinary physical sense, which employs 
 matter and motion for its medium of communication. 
 
 These seem to be the principal points of difference between 
 the individual and the society. The parts of the individual all 
 inhabit one body, the parts of which are closely united yet 
 distinct, while the society is simply an aggregate of the same 
 individuals not so closely united, but to a great extent mutual- 
 ly dependent. The parts of the individual live in a small spirit 
 world limited to the size of the material body and in which 
 they are governed by the mental law of association, while the 
 units of the society live in a much larger physical world in 
 which they are subject to physical conditions. The thinking 
 and acting center in the individual is not only a controlling cen- 
 ter but a necessary point of union of all the subordinate parts, 
 and its existence is absolutely necessary to the existence of a 
 mental organism; and without which life is impossible even for 
 the simplest thing that lives. 
 
 Now, in the social organism this highest controlling part 
 which thinks and acts, is just as necessary as it is in the indi- 
 vidual. But in the society it must be an individual, — one or 
 more, — instead of a part of an individual. This social head we 
 call the President, the Governor or the Boss, according to the 
 extent and nature of his dominion. He is the chief magistrate 
 at the head of the government, which government is necessary 
 to maintain the social unity and harmony. In the individual the 
 governing element always contains two parts, the thinking 
 part and the acting part. In the society the governing head 
 also contains two parts, the legislative and the executive. But 
 in the social head these two functions are not vested in one in- 
 dividual. The governor of a state or the president of the Unit- 
 ed States is the executive head while a number of other learned 
 men form the legislative body. The legislators are supposed 
 to make the laws and the chief executive is supposed to enforce 
 them. The object of the law is to secure good government; 
 which the majoriy of the people are supposed to want. 
 
 But what is good government? We can find the answer at 
 once in that knowledge of self and the world which will enable 
 a man to maintain health and happiness under physical condi- 
 tions. Such knowledge with self-control is all we need. 
 
 The laws which govern the relations of the parts of the 
 social mental organism are precisely the same as those of the 
 individual. But in the society they are more simple, more con- 
 spicuous and much easier to understand; — so much so in fact 
 that in our study of mind we are greatly aided by our study of 
 social phenomena. It is not necessary for us to wait a 
 
— 37 — 
 thousand years, or even one year, for mental evolution to bring 
 us to the scratch from which we can understand these laws. 
 The common sense of this age can understand them now and we 
 must understand them in order to know what good government 
 is. The mental and physical laws which have brought about 
 the present association of the parts of the individual mind have 
 also brought about the present association of the parts of the 
 social mind. The whole problem has its proper place, both 
 evolutionary and as it now stands, under the mental laws of 
 Association, Activity, Agreement. Everyone knows that 
 our present and most desirable associations, physical or mental, 
 are those which contribute most to our happiness on the one 
 hand, and those which enable us to avoid pain on the other. 
 In the individual the capacity of each part to perform the work 
 and live the life which promotes the highest state of agreement 
 among all the parts, means health and harmony within the body, 
 and this is the association of parts which long ages of natural 
 selection and survival of the fittest has brought about. In the 
 society the capacity of each person to preform the work and 
 live the life which promotes the highest state of agreement 
 among all the people means health and harmony within the 
 social body, and this is the association of the people which 
 through ages of selection and survival has given us all that's 
 good in our government. 
 
 There is nothing more simple than this principle of govern- 
 ment or social relations, and perhaps there is nothing about 
 governments better known and yet more ignored or overlooked 
 than this principle. It will be seen that this form of society 
 rests upon an inexorable law of the human mind; in fact all 
 mind. It has come into being through the life experience of 
 ages past under the necessary physical conditions prescribed 
 in the principle of Mental Evolution and it has raised human 
 society from the lowest levels to its present higher level. It 
 is still at work for the good of mankind and it is a good thing 
 for us to understand it. 
 
 A good government, therefore, is simply that social state 
 in which each person gives to society, with good intent, all he 
 is worth to society, and receives in exchange a just compen- 
 sation. 
 
 In the administration of this form of government it will 
 only be necessary to determine who is able to work, what the 
 work of each person is worth to society and what shall be a 
 just compensation. Paupers, lunatics and aged persons who 
 are not able to work will be cared for by relatives or by the 
 state. The state is the government and every person is a part 
 of the state. The state owns everything within its boundary 
 lines and every person works for the state. The private own- 
 
-38 — 
 ership of anything of value to the state will be limited to what 
 a person can earn lawfully during life. When the person de- 
 parts this life his or her estate will revert to the state except 
 such articles as are valuable as heirlooms, keepsakes, etc., 
 which may be willed to relatives. Since the wage scale is 
 determined entirely by the value of the work to the state, the 
 millionaire will not exist, because no person will be worth that 
 much to society. The person who gets the best wages will be 
 the efficient executive, legislator, manager, and above all, the 
 person who possesses the creative talent which enables one to 
 produce something of great and lasting value to the world. 
 If a person can paint a picture worth a hundred thousand dol- 
 lars, that sum will be his to use for life, and so in all depart- 
 ments of skilled labor. The person who creates will be reward- 
 ed; the person who accumulates by cunning business methods 
 will have no opportunity to thrive. The able bodied person 
 who refuses to do any kind of work will be permitted to starve. 
 This is a co-operative system throughout, and it is exclusively 
 voluntary. There is no compulsion in it. Going back to the 
 foundation of all life we find that everything that lives must 
 do something, and must know how to do it, in order to live. 
 The man who would rather be dead than alive might call this 
 fundamental law of life compulsion; but the great majority of 
 those who want to live would call it voluntary. 
 
 Taking this view of the matter the next question is, are 
 we now living under a good government? It seems impossible 
 that any intelligent honest person can say yes, in answer to 
 this question. Human history contains no record of a single 
 example of good government on a national scale and after the 
 above model. In view of the wonderful simplicity of the 
 problem this is a significant fact, and why is it so? There are 
 several reasons, primary and secondary, or necessary and un- 
 necessary, as follows: 
 
 A primary and necessary condition of all social life, is, 
 that it must contain evil during its evolutionary stages, in 
 order that good may triumph in the end. In all the struggles 
 of life the good things are gained through experience of the 
 bad, and we must have this experience in order to learn. In 
 this life money represents the value of nearly every good 
 thing. Perhaps the only exceptions are intelligence, moral 
 character and the air we breathe; but even these must be ob- 
 tained through some experience and sometimes the experience 
 is costly. For the air we breathe it is only necessary to work 
 our air pumps, and perhaps this is the cheapest thing in life. 
 The representative value of money has made it not only the 
 means to all the good, but the root of nearly all the evils of 
 society; certainly all the practical evils. Everybody wants it 
 
-39— 
 and must have it to maintain life and happiness, and it is in the 
 practice of getting money that every man shows his character. 
 The line which separates the honest from the dishonest prac- 
 tice, is very plain to all men; at least in the common affairs of 
 life. But it really seems that the great majority of men the 
 world over and in all ages, do not understand that there is a 
 moral limit to the attainment of wealth. For all who rightly 
 view the facts there cannot be the slightest doubt but that the 
 possession of too much money is a crime against the laws of 
 God; for it encourages men to live in that inhuman way which 
 thwarts the plan of Evolution. The man of great wealth never 
 takes kindly to the doctrine of Social Evolution, perhaps be- 
 cause it threatens the end of the present system of government 
 under which he has gained and now holds his wealth. He is apt 
 to regard himself as superior to the common people and worthy 
 of a higher place in society. But no man has ever made a great- 
 er mistake. Of all the traits of men, there are none that prove 
 his animal origin more decisively, than his inordinate craving 
 for money; and what is it good for? Apart from its purchasing 
 power money has no value and even thru its purchasing power 
 what can it do for us but provide the few things we need in this 
 life. It gives us no special faculty nor anything whatever which 
 makes for higher intellectual attainment. It is the chief incen- 
 tive to everything base and mean in the character of men. As 
 an inheritance it is more dangerous than a bad disposition, be- 
 cause it often makes a fool and a criminal of a man by depriv- 
 ing him of the discipline of a natural life, which is only possible 
 without it. He fails to learn that the only praiseworthy ambi- 
 tion in this life, is that of service to God and Man; and that the 
 only deserved compensation, must be that for faithful service 
 rendered. That the bad examples set by the richest men of the 
 United States has had a demoralizing effect upon society, no one 
 can seriously doubt. Their methods are known and practiced eve- 
 rywhere by all who want to get there as they did. If such a 
 man could purchase everything he needs in this world for a dol- 
 lar he would have no use for another dollar, but would he be sat- 
 isfied? Not much. If some one else had two dollars he would 
 want three, and he would go to the extreme of miserly mean- 
 ness to get it. These people work and cringe to their god of 
 mammon, accumulating dollars on dollars, soaring high into the 
 hundreds of millioins, far more than the most extravagant man 
 could spend in a thousand years, laying elaborate plans for the 
 future in costly mansions and furnishings, all for themselve, 
 just as tho they expected to live right here always, and then 
 they die; almost before the begin to live and certainly before 
 they begin to understand what this life really means. It is sad 
 to think that all these millionaire mammonites will be dead in a 
 
— 40- 
 few years and remembered by a greater humanity only to be 
 pitied as unfortunate beasts whose swinish habits got the best 
 of them and made them miss the only road to real achievement. 
 And it is more sad to think of them hoboing around in the next 
 world without a cent; God-forsaken and wretched. 
 
 This is one, and perhaps the principal one of the primary 
 and necessary evils of society. But the evil is not in the money 
 nor is it in the things for which the money is the medium of ex- 
 change. It is all in the ignorance and moral depravity of the 
 social body. A striking trait of all animals and to a great ex- 
 tent of men, is self-interest as against the interests of society. 
 Society has always been divided into two great classes. On the 
 one side is the Aristocracy, the Hamiltonians, the worshipers 
 of Mammon, the social Parasites who produce little or nothing 
 for society. On the other side we have the Common People, the 
 Jeffersonians, the Working People, the real Producers. Conflict 
 between these classes has never abated for a single hour in all 
 the history of mankind. It is an astounding fact that we have 
 always lived in an atmosphere of agitation and strife over the 
 question of an equitable division of the things which all men 
 must have to sustain life, and this too in the face of the truth 
 that God has given us a world which might support ten times 
 its present population and no one need suffer for anything actu- 
 ally needed. But more astonishing than all this is the fact that 
 the remedy for all social evils, the true principle of all govern- 
 ments, is now known to the world and has been known and in 
 constant use ever since man appeared on this planet. It is even 
 known and practiced to some extent by the animals. 
 
 The word ORGANIZATION, conveys this most indispens- 
 able principle of life, better than any single word known to me. 
 It is the arrangement of the parts or departments of an aggre- 
 gate or body of individuals, for that form of work which aims 
 for a definite object. Political or Social Philosophy rests on the 
 fundamental truth that Society or Life, is, and must be, a Mental 
 Organism; a combination of mental elements or individuals, or- 
 ganized and active under the three secondary laws as follows: 
 
 1. Association: Any conscious state, in man or animal, is 
 possible only in the union of a number of mental elements which 
 cannot exist alone. For the same reason no man or animal can 
 live absolutelyalone, not even in a world of abundance like this. 
 He must have the help and the society of others of his kind. 
 
 2. Activity: Every mental element in the combination upon 
 which consciousness depends, must have an independent activity 
 of its own, and this activity or consciousness must be directed 
 to a single external object thru a self-conscious center, which 
 center is the point of union of all the elements of the conscious 
 individual. This is the mental organism in its simplest form and 
 
-41- 
 it must be present in every thing that lives. For the same reason 
 every man or animal must be active in some way in order to 
 maintain life and happiness. This activity and consciousness is 
 always directed to a single external object thru a self-conscious 
 center, which center is the point of union of all the elements of 
 personality. It is thru this center that the self-controling and 
 energy directing faculties of the person or animal are exercised, 
 and in this exercise we have an example on a small scale, of 
 the principle of organic government in actual operation. All men 
 who are not incapable of action must do something; not for self 
 only, but also for the great social body of which they are a de- 
 pendent part and without which they could not exist. To do for 
 society is to deserve the help of society, and every man's capac- 
 ity to do, is the measure of his reward. Decency asks no more. 
 
 3. Agreement: The mental elements of any state of con- 
 sciousness, in order to give rise to an agreeable, happy or sat- 
 isfactory state of mind, must act together in harmony. When 
 there is discord among them the state of mind is not pleasant 
 tho consciousness may be just as vivid or even more so. When 
 there is work to do the mental elements must act together as 
 above shown, but in this case there is less spontaneous activity 
 in them; hence they must be influenced and controled by certain 
 higher elements or faculties called judgment, self-control, will, 
 etc. These faculties or powers of mind constitute the adminis- 
 trative function of the government which presides within the 
 individual man or animal. It will be seen that such governing 
 power can be exercised only thru a center which brings togeth- 
 er all the units of the individual, and that this is, strictly speak- 
 ing, a self-governing mental organism, which aims for the har- 
 monious activity of all its units, cannot be doubted. Now these 
 same individuals, men or animals, are the necessary units of 
 the social organism; which, in itself is also a mental organism, 
 governed by exactly the same laws and for exactly the same 
 purpose: agreeable relations. 
 
 This principle of organization has been thoroughly discussed 
 and amply justified in book two. I would regard it as the true 
 foundation of any system of government or religion which aims 
 for universal agreement among men. 
 
 5. Religious Philosophy. — True religion, says the modern 
 church, rests on "divine faith". Divine faith is the undoubting 
 assent which we give to revealed truths; not because of the evi- 
 dence for them, but because they are revealed by God. The 
 church is the infalliblble means of knowing what these truths 
 are which God hath revealed. True religion says modern philos- 
 ophy rests on an unknowable absolute. "The power which the 
 universe manifests to us is inscrutable", and this is our God. 
 
— 42 — 
 
 True religion says Common Sense begins here on earth, not 
 as a revelation from God, but in a knowledge of the true Ma- 
 terialism. We must know Matter before we can know Spirit 
 and each one must know Self in his true relations to the Uni- 
 verse as a whole, before he can know God. 
 
 In every act of faith some object of belief is implied. To 
 be faithful to a pledge or duty, is to believe in the reality of 
 the object of faith; or to give undoubting assent to what is 
 stated or put forward by another, is to believe in the truth of 
 the object implied. There never was and never can be a grain 
 of faith in human thought, without some object which is be- 
 lieved in as real or possible. The dependence of belief on 
 evidence or reason is equally conspicuous. There never was 
 and never can be a grain of belief about anything divine or 
 human, which has no object nor any reason or evidence for the 
 belief. There is no faith without belief, nor belief without 
 evidence of some kind as necessary to the faith; and any as- 
 sumption to the contrary has no warrant in human experience. 
 All faiths or beliefs and all evidence in support of them, are the 
 proper subject of knowledge and judgment. 
 
 The great question at the bottom of all the religions of the 
 world, past, present or future, is a simple question of know- 
 ledge and judgment. Every man's judgment must depend on 
 his knowledge of things and his ability to judge rightly; and 
 every man's religion must depend on his judgment. 
 
 The fallibility of human judgment is a conspicuous truth of 
 all history not excepting the history of religion. The same com- 
 plaint against the most of the philosophers may be urged against 
 the majority of the makers of religion. From the beginning 
 very many of the founders of religion were also philosophers; 
 but they were supposed to be of a select clan endowed by the 
 God's with special powers and gifts, and they got their inform- 
 ation about the world and the destiny of man direct from head- 
 quarters and so were spared the task of working their minds to 
 get it. For more than six thousand years these self-appointed 
 agents of heaven have been laying off the boundary lines of 
 human knowledge in this direction, and pointing out the only 
 roads to God. And like the would-be philosophers they have 
 always made their limits to ultimate knowledge, and their 
 highways to God, to correspond exactly with their own ignor- 
 ance of the world and their bigoted views of life. The history 
 of both philosophy and religion is now of more value to the 
 student than any one system of either that might be named. 
 We can learn from it the strong probability that all these sys- 
 tems are the work of men, and we can learn to a certainty that 
 the human mind as a unit, has never been able to accept a 
 Bingle one of them. We can learn the truth of this greatest 
 
—43 — 
 of human aspirations for the truth, and best of all we can 
 learn to distinguish between the two roads in philosophy— the 
 one which leads by patient human effort to the truth, however 
 little at a time, and which makes a real philosopher of the 
 man; and the other, which jumps at conclusions here and there, 
 wildly floundering in the air, building castles of ideas fair, and 
 which makes an educated ass of the man. 
 
 There has always been an open rebellion against the dic- 
 tum of philosophy and religion and there are millions in the 
 world all the time who are ready to break down old lines simp- 
 ly because their good sense tells them that not one of the 
 present systems give them promise of complete satisfaction to 
 all classes of men. It is now very generally admitted that the 
 world needs a new and all-satisfying religion and that the 
 universal religion must rest and build upon a finished philoso- 
 phy which can furnish a satisfactory solution of ultimate 
 problems. This work will gain its object if it succeeds in 
 laying the foundation for a future religion that all may accept. 
 The first step in the better way will be to cease to make as- 
 sumptions about 'that of which we know nothing, and to pay 
 attention to common sense and to the things which we know 
 something about. Next, we will draw the line clear and sharp 
 between the true Materialism on the one side, and the true 
 Spiritualism on the other; and make it plain that a knowl- 
 edge of both is indispensable to a knowledge of either, and 
 that the modern church in its ignorance of both, and in its 
 inexcusable indifference to this most necessary knowledge, has 
 become a gross and corpulent body of inert and one-sided 
 materialism; and this too without knowing it. But some one 
 will ask: How can we destroy this modern monster which con- 
 tinually thwarts the progress of rational religion? The answer 
 is as easy as can be. Simply realize that the God of Nature has 
 prescribed a most perfect course, in the material conditions of 
 this life, for the growth and maturity of the faculty of Ration- 
 al thought in man; that Physical Nature with her Material 
 Forms and Mechanical Laws, has been constituted just as we 
 find it for the express purpose of affording to Mind an object- 
 ive reality of Things, upon which it can exercise itself and 
 develop through sense experience, as required under the law of 
 Mental Evolution, and that this most needed course is constant- 
 ly being hampered by so much of that one sided spiritualism 
 which is proclaimed as the word of God. 
 
 One of the unmistakable signs of physical life is this: — 
 God has never intended to reveal his Creative Plan, or anything 
 else, to us. To do this would be to oppose the very object of 
 His plan, which object is plainly manifested in the order of the 
 World; and he who looks for it may see it. And even if He 
 
— 44 — 
 had, we should expect Him to have given it to us in a more in- 
 telligible shape. The truth is, we are here to find this out, 
 every man for himself and by the use of his own common sense. 
 We have got the faculty by the wise administration of Him 
 who does things well, and now let us use it. This is by all 
 odds the most reasonable view when we consider the facts. 
 How could we reason if there was nothing to reason about? 
 We can only admit at the most, that God may have given us a 
 hint here and there, just to stimulate our curiosity and make 
 us reach for more knowledge. To reveal all the secrets of 
 Nature at once would be to take away our job and leave us in 
 idleness, and idleness means degeneration and death. 
 
 Another unmistable sign is this: — Man was not brought 
 into this world for the sole purpose of worshipping a God. 
 This idea of worship belongs to the early ages and lower stages 
 of mental growth and has now outlived its usefulness. Our 
 worship should be that of practical service, and we can serve 
 the Supreme in a thousand ways more becoming and helpful 
 to us and no doubt more pleasing to Him, because it seems 
 certain that His will is human progress. We all want the 
 blessings of life, and we pray, and fuss, and make a great 
 noise, trusting in Him to grant our desires and not forget good 
 measure; and all this time we are forgetting that He has placed 
 us here to work for these things, to carve out our own true 
 philosophy, our religion, our theory of life; in short to discover 
 the whole truth and do it by intellectual effort alone: and when 
 once we have the truth to make the best possible use of it. 
 What profit is there in thought, and how did we get this habit of 
 thinking? Undoubtedly the best way to make a man think is 
 to give him something to think about and place him where he 
 will want the thing he is thinking about and will have to think 
 in order to get it. It is the thinking that makes the man and 
 this no doubt is God's way of making men. 
 
 No one will find it difficult to understand that peculiar sen- 
 timent of the religious mind which prompts men to inscribe on 
 their altars of worship, the words: — "to the unknown and un- 
 knowable God;" or the words: — "a God understood would be no 
 God at all, and to think that God is, as we can think him to be, 
 is blasphemy." This is undoubtedly that miserable credulity 
 or blind veneration for an object, which object can be nothing 
 but a creation of the undeveloped and scared mind of the child- 
 man who ought to be dead long ago. It is faith in something 
 admitted to be unknown, assumed to be unknowable, and con- 
 cerning which knowledge is not even desireable. If there is 
 any thing that deserves to be called insane superstition it must 
 be this. Now the foremost philosopher of modern times has de- 
 clared that this degrading superstition is the vital element in 
 
-45— 
 all religions. It is the soul of truth which begins in the most 
 ancient, survives all changes and grows more distinct the more 
 highly the religion is developed. "It pervades all the cultivated 
 theology of the present day" says Spencer; and he ends his 
 remarkable chapter on "Ultimate Religious Ideas" with the 
 following passage: — 
 
 "Here then is a truth in which religions in general agree 
 with one another and with a philosophy antagonistic to their 
 special dogmas. If Religion and Science are to be reconciled, 
 the basis of reconcilation must be this deepest, widest and most 
 certain of all facts — that the Power which the Universe mani- 
 fests to us is inscrutable." 
 
 Spencer did not recognize this common element of supersti- 
 tion in religions generally. He has done a great service to 
 philosophy in pointing it out and showing it to be a like truth 
 of religion, science and philosophy — a perennial truth which is 
 passed on from generation to generation. He distinguished it 
 as the "soul of truth" in all human beliefs— the Power which 
 the Universe manifests to us, and this is all he says about it. 
 Now it is well known that while science and philosophy both 
 recognize this power as an object of profound interest and 
 study, neither one have ever regarded it as an object of worship. 
 To do this would be to make an assumption directly antagon- 
 istic to one of the oldest of scientific precepts, and right here is 
 where all the religions differ from science and philosophy. The 
 soul of truth in religion, therefore, is not the same as that in 
 scientific philosophy. It may be the same thing, but it is not 
 regarded in the same sense. To the one it is an object of wor- 
 ship, veneration, superstition, an excuse for all forms of dog- 
 matic assumption. To the other it is an object of great 
 mystery— something for human investigation and possible 
 knowledge. 
 
 By taking this view of the matter we can readily disting- 
 uish between what is science and what is religion. Scientific 
 beliefs must rest on evidence of the most undubitable charac- 
 ter. If they are not supported by such evidence they are not 
 science, and any philosophy which is not wholly made up of the 
 truths of science is not philosophy. Religious beliefs, so far in 
 human history have rested on various assumptions about this 
 unknown Power which the Universe manifests to us, and in so 
 far as this power is regarded as an object of worship, the 
 superstitious character of such worship or religion, must be 
 admitted, simply because it is the worship of an object, of 
 which we know nothing but the fact of its existence. 
 
 The fact that the religions of the world have assumed so 
 many differet forms and that there is much disagreement among 
 them, proves that all are not right. It seems clear to me that 
 
—46 — 
 when we have found all the points of agreement among religions 
 generally, we shall then no doubt have, from common sense, a 
 clue to all that's true and good in religion. All seem to recog- 
 nize the unknown power which the universe manifests to us. 
 But not all and most likely not any, of the churches today, can 
 admit this element of superstition which is almost the*only foun- 
 dation of their faith. A groundless belief in supernatural agen- 
 cies which are known to be wholly beyond the pale of science, 
 is enough to satisfy the highest aspiratins of the average Chris- 
 tian. This is not true Cristianity. We cannot accept as true any 
 statement in the Bible until it has been proved by accredited 
 science. It is my object in this work to make it plain that there 
 is a true Christianity, clearly set forth in the Christian Gospel, 
 and that the truth of which can be demonstrated by science. 
 
 The Christian churches generally assent to the truth and ne- 
 cessity of the moral law as set forth in the first commandments. 
 But in the present state of our knowledge of God, is there one 
 man in the world today who can keep these commandments? It 
 is possible no doubt, that any person, in whom imagination is 
 the ruling element, can love and worship a self-created image, 
 supposed to reside somewhere above the clouds. But is this God? 
 No; it is nothing but a modern form of idolatry, and not only hu- 
 man reason but even the Bible has condemned it. Far back in 
 Jewish history, in the "Third Book of Moses." we read: 
 
 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear 
 you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of 
 stone in your land, to bow unto it: for I am the Lord your God. " 
 
 But the Christian world is still making and worshiping im- 
 ages of God, and since they do not know Him what else can they 
 do? It seem certain to me that there was but one man so far 
 mentioned in world history, who really possessed a knowledge 
 of God, and this one was Jesus the Christ; the first born of the 
 Spirit of God, and who lived in the flesh in Galilee, in the first 
 years of the Christian era. I quote his words: 
 
 "1 and my Father are one. * I know him: for I am from him 
 and he hath sent me. * If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: 
 it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is 
 your God. Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if 
 I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but 
 I know him and keep his saying." 
 
 An unknown God is not, and never can be, an object of love. 
 To love Him in the true sense of the word, is to know Him and 
 all things. To love thy neighbor as thyself is to know the whole 
 truth about man and life. "Know the truth, and the truth shall 
 make you free." If it be denied that these sayings are true it is 
 still possible to prove their truth by a last resort to generally 
 recognized methods of Science and Philosophy. 
 
CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 THE EXTERNAL WORLD. 
 
 6. The First Thing Known.— In Chapter I, we have 
 reviewed the principal characteristics of philosophy under five 
 heads, and in view of its utility as a means to knowledge. In 
 this chapter we are to take the next step towards the object of 
 this work, which is a knowledge of fundamental truths. 
 
 What do we know with the highest degree of certainty? 
 It seems that the philosophers have already answered this 
 question, to some extent at least, and so far I must agree with 
 them. My own state of consciousness, in which I am awake 
 and thinking about something, are to me the most real and 
 best known of all the things of which my knowledge consists. 
 When in this conscious state if any one should undertake to 
 convince me that I am not conscious, it would be necessary to 
 make me think that I am not thinking; and if they should suc- 
 ceed, then of course, I would be a fit subject to think or believe 
 anything; and totally unfit to think with common judgment 
 about anything. 
 
 But if I know that I exist, then what else do I know? or, do 
 I really know anything else? This is the next question and it 
 seems that right here is where all the philosophers have met 
 their fate. They have either failed to answer it or they have 
 declared it to be unanswerable. The history of philosophy re- 
 minds one of a little child learning to walk. The child is first 
 able to stand alone; but when it tries to make the first step it 
 falls down. So with the philosophers past and present. They all 
 know that they exist, and on this they are able to stand alone; 
 but when they make the first step toward more knowledge they 
 invariably fall down. "The only thing I know is this thing I 
 call self." This was a wise saying of Socrates, and it has been 
 a leading string in the banjo philosophical to the present day. 
 We suspect that there is a vein of vanity in such ideas when 
 we consider that vanity takes any direction which makes it 
 noticeable. We are vain of our ignorance; we are vain of our 
 knowledge; we are vain of our nice clothes and manners and 
 good looks, and sometimes we are even vain of our meanness. 
 The professional hobo will often take great pains with his 
 toilet in order to make more conspicuous his filthy rags and 
 vagabond appearance. 
 
-48 — 
 
 Now, I firmly believe that this first step has already been 
 made by millions of common sense people in all ages of human 
 history. They have known the truth all the time, but they did 
 not know that they knew, and they don't know it yet. We 
 must know how we know, in order to know that we do know. 
 Before I was fifteen years old I was sure that I knew the whole 
 truth, but wanting to be a little more sure it took me a long 
 time to find out just how. Even the philosophers have all had 
 glimpses of the truth, but the moment they see it they tumble 
 into one of them kerniptions from which they never recover. 
 Emanuel Kant saw more clearly and explained more fully than 
 any one ever before, that our ideas of time and space are a 
 prior principle of thought, always in the mind and without 
 which any thought of any thing is impossible. He simply 
 meant that we cannot think about any thing, not even self, 
 without thinking of it as being in time and space, and I cannot 
 imagine how anyone can fail to see the truth of this proposition. 
 But it seems that Kant could not see that our ideas of time and 
 space are representatives of an external reality, and here he 
 fell into that state of confusion of ideas which has been the 
 fate of so many others. He thought that there is no external 
 time and space related to existing things as they appear to be. 
 
 It is conspicuously true that we cannot think at all without 
 thinking of things, and the things must be thought of as exist- 
 ing in time, or as having some duration in a past, present and 
 possible future, and as existing somewhere in space. When I 
 think of myself I am obliged to think of at least three things 
 all at once, and these are time, space and self. The moment I 
 ignore either one of these I fail to have a clear idea of myself, 
 Now, I am not time; neither am I space; hence I must be 
 something, that occupies time and space. The only idea I can 
 have about any time and space occupant is that common idea 
 which everybody has about matter or substance. But I cannot 
 think that there is nothing in me but substance. This body or 
 brain of mine can think and feel and this is my mind and mind 
 is not matter. I can also see very plainly that in order to think 
 I must act. This body of mine moves and its movements are 
 necessary to my life, and I know that motion is neither matter 
 nor mind. Here I have five things or objects of thought, and 
 in order to have a clear idea of myself I must have some idea 
 of all of these at once. They are Time, Space, Matter, Motion, 
 Mind. If I ignore a single one of these I fail to understand 
 how or why I exist. It is simply a question of clear distinc- 
 tions and relations, and when we realize this, and recognize the 
 five truths above mentioned, we then know the very conditions 
 under which existence is possible. 
 
 So the first thing truly known in this world is self in its 
 
-49— 
 necessary relation to time, space, matter and motion. When 
 we know these simple things and their relations, and when we 
 can see the absolute necessity of all of them, then we do know 
 that we know something, because we are beginning to see a 
 reason for our knowledge. But this is only a beginning. It is 
 thus far a self-evident truth which can be accepted as a trust- 
 worthy basis for further research in philosophy awaiting com- 
 plete verification in a complete theory of the Universe. This, 
 if anything, is our starting point for a right induction which 
 may lead us to something which deserves the name of philoso- 
 phy. It is a plain case of necessity that knowledge and happi- 
 ness, here and hereafter, must depend on starting right in our 
 quest for the unknown. It is not only necessary to know that we 
 are conscious, but how and why we are conscious — all the nec- 
 essary conditions under which consciousness is possible. 
 
 Now, I am perfectly aware of the fact that perhaps two- 
 thirds of the people who read the above, in particular the 
 educated philosophers, will not accept it as the foundation 
 truth upon which to build our Temple of Knowledge. So I 
 am prepared with a long and thourough argument, the result 
 of many years of hard thinking, which, it seems to me, ought 
 to convince any ordinary person if he is in his right mind. 
 
 7. The Law of Things.— So far I can feel perfectly safe 
 in the belief that I do exist and that I could not exist without 
 being a body of matter occupying time and space, and able to 
 move and think. But I cannot believe that I am the only thing 
 in existence. I seem to be keeping company with many other 
 things, hence I am disposed to ask, what are things? To be 
 conscious at all I must be conscious of things, and it seems cer- 
 tain that, to know one thing from another, I must distinguish 
 the one from the other. That which makes it possible to dis- 
 tinguish things is always present in every state of conscious- 
 ness. First and always, it must be present between self and 
 something else, and second, it must be present among all the 
 objects of which self is conscious. Careful analysis will always 
 reveal the fact that this most necessary element upon which all 
 distinctions rest, is nothing but the ordinary difference which 
 we always perceive among things. 
 
 I have tried to give special emphasis to the last statement 
 above, because I believe it to be an apropriate presentiment in 
 words, of the deepest and widest truth in philosophy; and be- 
 cause I am afraid that perhaps nine-tenths of the people will 
 not see anything in it. The philosophers have never seemed to 
 have any use for this word except as it happens to appear in 
 ordinary discourse. To my knowledge it has never been recog- 
 nized as the proper name of the primary law of being. Every- 
 
— 50- 
 body seems to think that there is something more in the nature 
 of things which we cannot distinguish and know by a sense of 
 difference. Well, if there is, how can we know it if we are 
 not able to distinguish it from other things; and on what can a 
 distinction depend if not on difference? Speaking for myself, I 
 am not able to think of anything which can be in anything, and 
 yet not be the thing itself, unless it be that something in which 
 it is necessary to create difference in order to create things. 
 This view of the matter can be illustrated in several ways and 
 here is one. When we consider the origin of human language, 
 we find that all language has come into existence as a conse- 
 quence of the existence of things, and as a necessary means of 
 conveying information about the things. Necessity is conspic- 
 uous here. To have minds one must think, and to think we 
 must have things to think about. We also find that all lang- 
 uage consists in sounds or words which we distinguish by 
 difference of form. Each word is a name or a form of sound 
 which is intended to convey a particular part of the meaning 
 of a sentence or a discourse. Thus we have a great number of 
 words and each word as used in common speech is the expres- 
 sion of a thing and a number of such things together form the 
 necessary parts of a conversation about the affairs of life. We 
 use these words to talk with and of course, we must have a 
 number of things to talk about, to make it interesting. Now, 
 if the things did not exist we would have no use for our lang- 
 uage; in fact, our language would not exist at all; and so it 
 seems clear that the existence of things proves to be necessary 
 to the existence of language, and the existence of language 
 proves the existence of things. It is simply another case of 
 necessity like that of self and something else; and though 
 things might exist without mind, but if they did it would be a 
 very inconsistent and purposeless state of existence. But are 
 the things all that exists? or is there any thing which is not a 
 thing? 
 
 In the English language the word things is at least one of 
 the widest and it seems ample enough in scope to apply as a 
 general term to everything. The only exclusion to the applica- 
 tion of this word is nothing, and even here it applies in a 
 certain sense. Placing these two words together as in nothing- 
 things, or nothing-something, we are able to construct a sen- 
 tence which certainly seems broad enough to cover all exist- 
 ence. I am not able to conceive of anything which I cannot 
 call a thing, aud which cannot be expressed by some word or 
 sound of voice, appropriate to our language, unless it be noth- 
 ing. Now, I am perfectly able to think of nothing; in fact, 
 I find it just as easy to think of nothing as it is to think of 
 something. But at the same time I must regard nothing, in 
 
—51- 
 a certain sense, as something; for the simple reason that I can 
 think of it. And when I inquire why it is that I can think of 
 nothing, I invariably come to the conclusion that it is by reason 
 of the difference of the two nothing-something. This is all I 
 can see in it — simply difference. So we have it as plain as any 
 one could wish that, between the two extremes of nothing and 
 all things, our language has encompassed the whole of exist- 
 ence, and it is all included and fairly expressed in the simple 
 words things and nothing. And the thing which makes things 
 and nothing is difference. 
 
 But, although we have covered the whole thing and defined 
 its limits, we have not yet grasped the important details with- 
 in these limits, and which are essentials to knowledge. The 
 question still remains, what are things and nothing? If we can 
 find something in them which we cannot distinguish by differ- 
 ence we shall then have a good excuse for our theory of the 
 unknowable. The answer to this question ought to tell us plain- 
 ly what existence is in itself and in all its details, and such an 
 answer must include a clear definition of the law of existence. 
 
 8. The Law of Existence.— We are now getting close to 
 the final solution of the great question; but don't let us be to 
 sure, we haven't got it cornered yet. 
 
 In the making of our language we often find it necessary 
 to coin a new word as a name for some newly discovered dis- 
 tinction among things. In the construction of the new word 
 we simply change the sound of the voice; thus articulating a 
 different word. The new word must have some difference in it 
 so that we can distinguish it from other words, just as we 
 must distinguish the new thing from other things. This differ- 
 ence of form in words is a necessary truth of all language. To 
 me it is impossible to understand how we can have a plurality 
 of words without making them different, and it is just as im- 
 possible to see that there is anything in this difference but a 
 change of form in the voice. It is the same voice used in the 
 pronounciation of thousands of words, and there is really no- 
 thing in it but sound and difference, when considered in itself 
 and apart from its meaning. The meaning is the associations 
 which we give it to make it available in our language. With- 
 out the sound there would be no difference and hence no words 
 and this would be nothing so far as language is concerned. 
 Without the difference in the sound there might be sound, but 
 words would not exist. Hence it is plain that words are made 
 out of sound and that in the making we simply make difference 
 in the sound. While I am listening for sounds if I hear no- 
 thing, I can truthfully say that I hear nothing; or in other words 
 I hear the total absence of sound which we call perfect silence, 
 
-52 — 
 and I am able to do this solely because of the difference be- 
 tween sound and silence. Perhaps it is not correct to say that 
 we can hear silence; but it is correct to say that we can be aware 
 of a state of silence. So it is evident that I can and do, know 
 both sound and silence, in fact it is impossible to understand 
 how I could know either without knowing both, and it is as 
 plain as the nose on my face that I know both by their differ- 
 ence. 
 
 Now for the same reason I am led directly to the idea that 
 things are caused in the same way. Every word is not only a 
 word, but it is a part of that something called sound and in 
 which some difference is necessary in order to produce the 
 word. So every thing is not only a thing, but it is a part of 
 something in which some difference is necessary in order to 
 produce the thing. Now, if this something in which it is nec- 
 essary to create difference in order to create things, did not ex- 
 ist, there would certainly be no things; and I can think of the 
 absence of this something — which of course would be nothing 
 so far as things are concerned — just as easy as I can think of 
 silence or the absence of sound. So it is evident that I can, and 
 do, know both things and nothing; in fact it is impossible to 
 understand how I could know either without knowing both, and 
 it is very plain that I know both things and nothing in the same 
 way that I know words and silence — by their difference. 
 
 For these reasons I am convinced that difference is abso- 
 lutely necessary to the existence of both things and nothing, 
 and that the difference must be in something which is common 
 to all things, and in which any particular thing, in order to exist, 
 must differ from other things while all together must differ from 
 nothing. This simple word difference, one of the most used and 
 most useful in our language, and which has its equivalent in all 
 other languages, is therefore one of the most necessary factors 
 in the Law of Existence. This law, which will be fully ex- 
 plained as we proceed, may be regarded as The First Principle, 
 because no other principle can preceed it and because it pre- 
 scribes the very conditions under which existence is possible. 
 But difference is not the only important factor in the law of 
 existence. As is well known the character of a thing is often, 
 if not always, determined by its relations to other things. In 
 the many possible relations of things, beginning with their dif- 
 ference, it seems that we can account for all the most minute 
 peculiarities of things in their most obscure relations. But 
 difference must be regarded as fundamental to all relations. 
 We cannot expect relations without things, and things must de- 
 pend on difference in something as a fundamental substratum 
 of existence. What this something is, will be considered in the 
 next section. 
 
— 53— 
 
 If difference is the first essential to the existence of things, 
 it must be also a first condition to sense experience and know- 
 ledge, and this it certainly is. Mind can know only things and 
 nothing, and each thing in order to be known, must be disting- 
 uished from nothing and from other things, through a sense of 
 their difference and relations as prescribed by the law. 
 
 This, in brief, is the Law of Existence, or it may be pro- 
 perly called Universal Relativity. Under the name of Relativ- 
 ity or Relations this principle has been recognised by others in 
 different forms. Among those known to me may be mentioned, 
 Hobbs, Hamilton, Mansel, Bain, Spencer, Condillact and at the 
 present time, Lodge, Fisk and Burroughs. It seems that 
 Prof. Bain has given the most complete account of this law in 
 his Logic. But so far as I can learn no one heretofore has ap- 
 plied it as far as it seems to me possible; hence my object here 
 is to push its application much farther, if not to the limits, I 
 would regard it as the law of all laws because I believe it pre- 
 ceeds and includes all things and nothing. Feeling convinced 
 that this is the primary law, that there is nothing deeper and 
 that there is no limit to its application until we reach the limits 
 of the universe, I have accepted it as my chief guide through- 
 out this work. It is the key to all knowledge of present exist- 
 ence. To define anything is to distinguish and describe (1), all 
 its differences from other things and nothing, and (2) all its 
 relations to other things and nothing. When we have done this, 
 we then know what that thing is to the utmost extent of pos- 
 sible knowledge. But it is not assumed here that any one per- 
 son can encompass the utmost extent of possible knowledge. 
 This is the law which may at least guide us far beyond the 
 present limits. But there is much more to be said in order to 
 establish this law as an unquestionable truth, — to appear in 
 the following sections. 
 
 9. What Existence is.— Up to this point it seems certain 
 that we are on the safe ground of truth. It is clear to me at 
 least that the whole of existence is at least things and nothing, 
 and that I am one of the things, and that I and the other 
 things can exist only as required by the law of difference and 
 relation or Universal Relativity. But now we have reached 
 the point where it is evident that if we make another step for- 
 ward we must answer the question, what is that ultimate 
 something, in which it is necessary to make difference in order 
 to make things. 
 
 For me it is impossible to think of an ultimate something 
 unless I think of it in the nothing- something relation. This is 
 that simple relation of difference which is in constant use by 
 everybody, even the animals. When the teacher sketches the 
 
— 54 — 
 form of a horse on the black board the usual ideas of a horse 
 are at once aroused in the minds of the scholars. But few, if 
 any, of them ever think of the fact that their perception of the 
 sketch had its origin in a mental act which was simply a sense 
 of the difference between the white lines of chalk and the black 
 surface of the board; and which mental act is properly 
 called a sensation. The difference on the board is out of mind, 
 a part of the not-self and it has nothing to do with the sensa- 
 tion but to serve as its object. The scholars think of the horse 
 more than they do of the board and chalk lines, because the 
 horse is the principal object of their attention; just as we do 
 when reading a book that holds our attention to the subject of 
 the book and so prevents our attention to the white paper and 
 black letters. But the scholars must have some degree of 
 sense perception of every line of chalk on the board and we 
 must perceive every letter in the line of printed words our eyes 
 are following, else there is no perception at all. This is proved 
 by the fact that the same chalk lines on a white board or the 
 black letters on black paper would not be perceived at all, and 
 the reason is, first of all, the difference. It is this difference 
 of effect in the sense organ due to the contrast of black and 
 white, that we first perceive in all such cases, which we can 
 readily prove by close attention to the contrast; but what 
 immediately follows, may be an idea or a string of them wholly 
 unlike the perception of black and white, and which ideas are 
 called up through a previous association in the mind with the 
 thing immediately perceived. It is thus evident that our per- 
 ceptions in their immediate sensation parts are often overlook- 
 ed by us because our attention is taken at once by the domi- 
 nant idea or memory already in the mind and which is revived 
 into consciousness by previous association, with the external 
 thing immediately perceived in the sensation or through it. It 
 is right here that education interferes with common sense; 
 often so far as to ruin its practical value. Common sense looks 
 directly at things as they are perceived directly through sense 
 experience; while education looks directly at the ideas or mem- 
 ories which have been previously associated with sense percep- 
 tions as a result of the education. 
 
 Now, if we stick to our common sense and ignore our 
 education of high-flying ideas, we are bound to see that the 
 true idea of existence involves an idea of non-existence, and 
 that to think of either is to think of both. If the children at 
 school were asked to explain why they are able to see the picture 
 of the horse on the black board, perhaps some of them might be 
 led to see that the picture is a result of the difference between 
 black and white. This, so far as it goes, would be a correct 
 explanation, but it could not be arrived at without close atten- 
 
— 55— 
 tion to the sensation end of the perception; and this is what 
 we do when we exercise common sense. But a complete ex- 
 planation of all that takes place in any ordinary case of sensa- 
 tion would involve a complete theory of sense perception; and 
 as will appear later, this may be obtained in the same way, by 
 the careful use of common sense. 
 
 In exactly the same way we must look at this problem of 
 ultimate being. So I will offer the following as a simple in- 
 duction from a few facts of sense experience, and which seems 
 to lead to a very important general truth. What I offer below 
 was written nearly forty years ago, before I had read any thing 
 on the subject of philosophy and when my common school edu- 
 cation did not extend beyond reading and writing. At that 
 time I had nothing to guide me but common sense, and to this 
 day I have never been able to see that I am possessed of any 
 greater share of this valuable inheritence than the average of 
 men. In all my business ventures I have failed and this fact 
 has led me to suspect that my common sense is certainly not 
 above the average and most likely not equal to it. 
 
 "Suppose I have before me a vessel filled with water. If I 
 pour the water out, the vessel is then said to be empty; but 
 strictly speaking, it is not entirely empty, since it contains the 
 air and other gases which are always present. Now if I could 
 remove all substance from within the walls of the vessel, it 
 would then be empty in the strictest sense of the word; it 
 would contain nothing. In this way, and with entire conform- 
 ity to the principle of relativity, we can think of the vessel as 
 containing nothing, or we can think of it as containing some- 
 thing. Here is an important consideration. When we think of 
 the vessel as containing nothing we are obliged to think of it 
 as containing space; or, when we think of it as containing some- 
 thing, the same space is present, and not by any mental effort 
 can it be reasoned away. I feel convinced that no rational 
 mind will ever question the validity of this way of thinking. 
 Call it old, commonplace, vulgar or what you will, it is none 
 the less legitimate. ' ' 
 
 "Space is everywhere and always present, both within and 
 without the walls of the vessel, whether it contains something 
 or nothing. What is space? We can by legitimate thought 
 remove everything from within the vessel, but we cannot re- 
 move space; hence space is not something, and if not some- 
 thing, it must be nothing. Since we are permitted to think of 
 but one kind of nothing, it appears conclusive that space and 
 nothing are identical, and that this is the same nothing which 
 our scheme of relative thought requires. From this conception 
 of space it follows that when we attempt to think of anything 
 which is not space or nothing, we must think of something; 
 
— 56- 
 and when we attempt to think of something in any possible 
 sense, we must regard it either as a substance which occupies 
 space, or as some property, form, state, kind, quantity, num- 
 ber, condition, mode of existence or activity of this substance. 
 Any idea of anything is inseparable from the idea of a sub- 
 stance which occupies space, for the conspicuous reason that such 
 an idea cannot be otherwise distinguished from the conception 
 of space which this law requires; and is therefore unthinkable. 
 This space occupant has received the general name matter." 
 
 The above has been copied word for word from the old 
 manuscript written some time between 1870 and 1875 (date not 
 preserved.) It answers my purpose here as well as anything I 
 could say at present. From the Idealistic point of view it is 
 not philosophy, but I am convinced that it is the ordinary com- 
 mon sense which we find more or less in every body. Further 
 on in the same original manuscript I have a definition of space 
 in these words : — 
 
 "Without matter or mind, space would be nothing in the 
 most absolute sense. In the presence of mind and of the 
 changing forms of matter, it is an object of consciousness." 
 
 The above is the first form of my definition of space and 
 it was published in 1895 and had a circulation of about seventy- 
 five copies. This definition will show plainly that I have never 
 committed myself to the absurdity of assuming that space is 
 both nothing and something at the same time. As will appear 
 later, time and space may both be regarded in two different 
 ways, both of which ways are in harmony with the law of ex- 
 istence, and both are correct as defined above. 
 
 So far it seems that we are in actual sight of that ultimate 
 something in which it is necessary to create difference in order 
 to create things. Matter must be divided into parts and dif- 
 fused in space in such forms, and with such movements as will 
 enable us to account for all the differences, similarities, trans- 
 formations and uniformities which we constantly perceive in 
 the surrounding physical world. All matter formed as a single 
 homogeneous mass of vast extent and having no parts or space 
 unoccupied within its limits, would present to the mind but one 
 thing; the difference of space-matter, and in the presence of 
 but one thing, consciousness would be out of the question. 
 Hence it is that the very existence of things and thought must 
 depend on the division and diffusion of matter in space. While 
 this looks like placing a limit to all further knowledge it is at 
 most only a limit to the proper sphere of knowledge. It would 
 be nothing but rebellion against common sense to assume that 
 space can be limited, or that anything can exist and not be 
 either a space occupant or something that belongs to a space 
 occupant; and any possible space occupant may be properly 
 
-57 — 
 called matter. The uuiverse of things, if it is something, must 
 be first of all a material universe, and for the same reason that 
 space is unlimited this material universe must be limited in 
 space. This is the Finite; and within its limited sphere we may 
 look for Mind, Spirit, Life, here and hereafter, and all things 
 known or unknown. Here we can hope to find God and all His 
 works and all the proofs of His great wisdom. And this is not 
 a closed system, which forbids the further advance of our 
 knowledge. We have no business with that infinite god who is 
 created by the mistakes of men, and who is supposed to stay 
 around somewhere outside of the universe and in that limitless 
 infinite of misguided imagination. 
 
 I am not troubled with any fear that the common people 
 will fail to understand or accept this conception of the ultimate. 
 But the philosopher will no doubt cast it aside, and he will 
 find many reasons for so doing. It is the old view of the 
 Greeks before the time of Plato; besides it is too simple to be 
 true. We cannot account for all things as a mere result of 
 difference in one universal substance. There is something 
 more in things than what we distinguish by sense of difference. 
 For these reasons I must offer more convincing support for 
 this conclusion. A generalizing principle must prove its effici- 
 ency in its general application, and this is attempted in the 
 following chapters after we have reached a complete definition 
 of the principle. 
 
 10. Conditions of Existence.— This is only another name 
 for the law of existence, which I have called the key to all 
 knowledge. We ought to decide once for all, upon a full and 
 clear definition of it, hence a little farther consideration seems 
 necessary. Evidently its first and most necessary application 
 must be to the as yet undefined relations of time, space, matter, 
 motion, mind. 
 
 As shown in (§ 8), this law of difference, relations, or 
 universal relativity, distinctly affirms that things are things 
 only by reason of their differences and relations, and that 
 nothing, though not a thing in itself, is, and must be, an 
 object of thought. As a test for the truth of the principle, let 
 us carefully proceed on it in its application to the ultimate 
 truth. From this law, as here defined it follows that time and 
 space are something, because they differ from matter or from 
 that ultimate something which in order to exist must occupy 
 time and space. It also follows from the same law— but in a 
 different sense — that time and space are nothing, because of 
 this peculiar relation to matter. So it may be objected to that 
 the law contradicts itself, and hence it is not a law of Nature, 
 because it makes a thing both something and nothing at the 
 
-58- 
 same time. In the differences of time, space and matter, time 
 and space are something; in the relations of time, space and 
 matter, time and space are nothing. The definition must in- 
 clude both differences and relations in order to make it cover 
 all objects of thought to which we have given names and 
 places in our language; hence the seeming contradiction. But 
 it is only a false appearance. In another sense — and a strictly 
 proper and necessary sense — a thing may be both something 
 and nothing at the same time; dependent on the relations 
 in which we view the thing. The human mind would never 
 have any idea of nothing, and hence no such word, if there was 
 no object in human experience necessary to give rise to the 
 idea. The object necessary to give rise to the idea is always 
 a result of the relations of things. When I look at an empty 
 basket, I get the idea that there is nothing in it, yet farther 
 examination will convince me that the basket always contains 
 the air and other gases. But farther consideration will con- 
 vince me that if I could remove all substance from within the 
 basket, then it would certainly contain nothing and so my idea 
 of nothing is a direct result of experience and legitimate infer- 
 ence from such experience. The object necessary to give rise 
 to the idea of nothing must in itself be nothing in one or the 
 other of two senses: (1), as not being something sensible or 
 expected, and (2) , as being out of all relation to other things. 
 In the first sense nothing is an object, because it is the absence 
 of some particular thing in the place of which there may be 
 other things; in the second sense nothing is an object, because 
 it is the absence of all things — a complete void. But in either 
 sense; in order to be known as nothing, it must be known in its 
 necessary relation to something, then it becomes an object of 
 thought and to this extent, and only to this extent it is some- 
 thing. In other words, the human mind would never be able 
 to know nothing if it were not something in this particular 
 sense. But it is something only in its relation to that some- 
 thing which it is not, and this is so for the simple reason that 
 knowledge implies things or objects known, and they are 
 known only by their differences and relations. 
 
 Human thought is therefore in perfect harmony with our 
 definition of the law of existence. Nothing is something, 
 because it differs from existing things when viewed in relation 
 to them, and at the same time it is nothing when viewed in 
 itself and out of all relation to existing things. But it is not 
 something in the same sense that we regard existing things. 
 Nothing in itself can be thought of as an universal possibility, 
 but not as actual. 
 
 Now, it must be evident that time and space are the only 
 objects in human thought which can be made to fit with per- 
 
—59- 
 fect harmony, or even to enter at all, into this definition of the 
 law of existence. They are something, because they differ 
 from the things which occupy time and space, and they are 
 nothing when considered in themselves and out of relation to 
 such things, and also because they are not something in the 
 same sense that we regard the things which occupy time and 
 space. 
 
 But if time and space are nothing in themselves, then how 
 have we come to distinguish them and give them different 
 names, since it is not lawful to have two kinds of nothing. To 
 settle this question from common sense let us consider them 
 separately. The common idea of time belongs exclusively to 
 mind, but in some minds it is clearer and less adulterated with 
 fallacy. We have got this idea during long ages of experience 
 in an external world of realities and it must represent one of 
 the external realities. Like all true ideas, the idea of time 
 must represent a real tangable object, for if it did not we 
 would never be able to account for it. In all human thought 
 there is nothing more simple or better known than these com- 
 mon ideas of time and space. We understand (1) that this idea 
 of time in itself is real; we know (2) that this real idea of time 
 is not time itself. Any one who knows the use of a watch can 
 see that his idea of time may not correspond with a correct 
 measure of time. Time is said to be either absolute or relative. 
 It is absolute, eternal or all time, when consideaed in itself and 
 without relation to the things which exist in time. If there 
 were no things there would be no time, either absolute or rel- 
 ative, hence even absolute time is a relative object because it 
 is nothing but the absolute duration of things, and without 
 which there would be no time. Relative time is supposed to be 
 time in its relations to that which exists. This is the true idea 
 of time. The divisions in time are all in relative time because 
 they are inseparably concerned with the things which exist in 
 time as in the relations of past, present and future. That 
 which has duration in itself yet which is continually changing 
 its forms, takes time, or rather the time is the enduring quality 
 of the thing itself. 
 
 Almost the same definition may be applied to space that 
 we have applied to time. Absolute space like absolute time, 
 is space in itself. It has no differences, no relation of parts, 
 no parts and no things, and hence, nothing which can be relat- 
 ed to space or even to time. So far time and space are the 
 same object, for there is no difference between them on which 
 to base a distinction, and this agrees with the idea that both 
 are nothing when considered apart from that which exists in 
 time and space. It is only when we come to compare relative 
 time and relative space that we are able to distinguish the two. 
 
— 60— 
 Relative space like relative time, is always and necessarily 
 related to things which exist in time and space; but they differ 
 in the fact that while time provides all the relations of succes- 
 sion or duration of the things which exist or occur in time, 
 space provides all the relations of co-existence and position 
 among things in space. In time we have the relations of 
 change, succession, duration past, present and future; in 
 space, the relations of position, forms, co-existence, dimen- 
 sions, distance, etc. It seems clear that these are the prin- 
 ciple, if not the only reasons by which the two have been 
 distinguished and so have come to be known as necessary parts 
 of our thinking equipment, and all of these exist only as related 
 to that which occupies time and space. 
 
 11. What the Philosophers Say of Time and Space.— 
 During the present year (1908), I have read nearly everything 
 I could find in the Denver Public Library on this subject of the 
 ultimate, or of the relations of space and matter, for the pur- 
 pose of making sure that my definition of the law of existence 
 described in preceeding sections, is original; also to learn if 
 this general theory is new to any extent, and if so, how much 
 so. So far as I have been able to go into the literature of the 
 subject, this theory of the universe is not only fundamentally 
 new, but to a very great extent new in details. All the writers 
 now known to me, who have offered an opinion or a definition, 
 on the ultimate nature of being, or the relationship of time, 
 space, matter, motion, mind, agree with me only in one re- 
 spect. To show how perfectly we all agree in this one particu- 
 lar, I have quoted the exact words of twenty different writers 
 who are among the best known and most authoritative of the 
 philosophers and scientists of all ages. Just how far we agree 
 will appear at the end of this section. It will also appear at 
 least possible that the difference between myself and the 
 others, is simply due to the fact that the others have failed to 
 work out the true solution of the problem; and so have been 
 compelled to give it up; or recognize nothing in it but a pro- 
 found mystery. As to whether I am right or not, will depend 
 on the common judgment in which I have perfect faith. 
 
 In Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, 
 space is defined as: — "The abstraction of the mutual externali- 
 ty of objects actually perceived or thought as co-existing in 
 possible experience, and represented as a continuous homo- 
 genous magnitude of three dimensions, infinitely divisible and 
 limitless in extent. The philosophy of space treats of the 
 logical and real nature of that which is so represented." 
 
 Notice here that space is something more than what I have 
 made it, in fact, it might be regarded as a substantial entity, 
 
— 61- 
 as much so even as matter, because it has three dimensions 
 and is infinitely divisible and limitless in extent, yet it does 
 not occupy space. This Dictionary is now regarded as a high 
 modern authority. 
 
 From the same authority, also from Dr. Erdman's history 
 of philosophy, I have obtained the following from the philoso- 
 phy of the Ancient Greeks, but I have not quoted the exact 
 words of these writers. 
 
 Plato (429 B. C.) was the first to attempt a definition of 
 space for the benefit of posterity, but with him it was only an 
 idea. Like Socrates, he thought that our sense perceptions of 
 the material world are unreliable. Our senses were not given 
 us to instruct, but only to pursuade. The mind is nourished by 
 ideas which come to it direct, not through sense experience. 
 
 Aristotal (385 B. C.) in his sixth book takes up the subject 
 of Ontology — the question of what existence is. With him the 
 first question is, what do we mean by first principles? His 
 answer is worthy of notice here. He finds it in the usage of 
 language as given in the past history of thought. The physi- 
 ologers (philosophers previous to his time) attempted to ex- 
 plain being as a material substance, but they did not agree on 
 the relations of space and substance. It seems that there was 
 general agreement between ideas and sense experience, (and 
 it is the same to this day) , but they could not agree as to the 
 true relations of their ideas, or rather of the things represent- 
 ed by their ideas; and this is also true of the modern philoso- 
 phers. To the time of Aristotle the question of dispute was, 
 the existence or non-existence of empty space. The atomists, 
 among whom were Lucippus, Empedocles, Anaxagous and 
 Democritus, believed that empty space was necessary to ac- 
 count for the motion of matter. The followers of Phythagoras 
 contended that space is a real substance, a kind of thin air 
 which is unlimited in extent, and surrounds this world and 
 which is inhaled by it. Aristotle himself was very clear in 
 his conjectures about space. He believed it to be distinct from 
 matter, as proved by the fact that different bodies successive- 
 ly occupy the same space. It also has its independent charac- 
 ter, he thought, as shown in the fixed relations of up and 
 down or right and left. But this is only true of relative space, 
 He asks: "What is space; what is its genius? It cannot be a 
 body, for then two bodies would be in the same space. Neith- 
 er can it be a pure object of thought; for such objects have no 
 magnitude. Nor is it any of the four causes; it is neither the 
 matter of which anything is composed, nor its determinating 
 form, nor its efficient cause, nor its end. Again, if it exists, 
 what is it? as Zeno so effectually asked." The problem was 
 thus regarded as a very difficult one, but it was generally 
 
— 62 — 
 agreed ''that space was something objectively real and not 
 merely relative to thought.' ' 
 
 In the middle age the philosophers were occupied mostly 
 with questions of religion and the subjects of time, space or 
 matter were neglected. Hence, there was little or no progress 
 beyond the then prevailing theological wisdom. In fact, in 
 many quarters it was considered a sin to speculate on questions 
 of philosophy, and no philosopher was welcomed who did not 
 support some so-called revelation of theology. 
 
 Modern philosophy begins with Rena Descartes (1592). 
 He was a mathematician who believed that a combination of 
 logic and mathematics would prove helpful to all branches of 
 knowledge. But unfortunately he did not accept sense experi- 
 ence as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Mathematics is 
 undoubtedly a branch of the universal law of relations. 
 
 Nicholas Malebranch (1638) another French philosopher, 
 held similar views to those of Descartes. The senses have 
 been given to us to preserve life, but they do not give us full 
 information as to the inner nature of things. 
 
 Baruch De Spinoza (1632) believed firmly in the reality of 
 matter. Only one substance exists, he said, and all things, 
 including God, are to be found in it. But the publication of 
 his books was forbidden by church and state, and he was de- 
 nounced and excommunicated by his church with the following 
 anathema: "With the judgment of the angels and of the 
 saints we excommunicate, and obscure, and anathematize 
 Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of the elders and of all 
 this holy congregation, in the presence of the holy books, by 
 the 613 precepts which are written therein, with the anethema 
 wherewith Joshua cursed Jerico, with the curse which Elisha 
 laid upon the children, and with all the curses which are writ- 
 ten in the law." In addition to this awful curse, not half of 
 which is quoted here; his life was secretly attempted and he was 
 obliged to flee from Amsterdam, his native city. All accounts 
 agree that he led the life of a "righteous man, who gave up all 
 else that he might seek the truth for its own sake." The 
 authority of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, had little weight 
 with him, but he was a close follower of Democritus and the 
 Greek Atomists, also Lucretius. 
 
 The skeptics of this period held that the senses and reason 
 are uncertain sources of knowledge and that we must depend 
 on faith in divine revelations. The mystics at this time held 
 similar views. They reproached the mind for its ignorance of 
 the world and helplessness, and so encouraged supernaturalism. 
 John Locke(1632). To discover how the mind gets its ideas, 
 should be the first step towards ultimate knowledge, says Lock; 
 and this seems to me exactly right. Our perception of extern- 
 
— 63- 
 al objects, according to him, are properly called sensations. 
 Our perceptions of memories (recollections) are called reflec- 
 tions, and both are passive. Out of these the active mind 
 forms its ideas. If in these ideas there is agreement, then we 
 understand; if not, then we don't understand, and understand- 
 ing is knowledge. This seems a very good account of the right 
 mental process to start with and perhaps if it had been pushed 
 further it might have reached the goal of knowledge. 
 
 Leibnitz (1647) believed in ultimate atoms or nomads pos- 
 sessing self-active powers, and a correct knowledge of which 
 is the key to philosophy. Speculation took two principle 
 branches soon after this period, which have held their own to 
 the present day; that of Materialism and that of Idealism. 
 Materialism was advocated by Diderot, and others in France, 
 Germany and England, and according to which nothing exists 
 but matter and motion, which latter is inseparable from matter 
 and not communicated to it from without. The sum of exist- 
 ence is Nature, and in nature there is neither purpose nor 
 order, but simple necessity. 
 
 George Berkeley (1712) was an Idealist of great distinction 
 in his day, and is so even to the present day. According to his 
 philosophy: "Matter — the material thing which we call sub- 
 stance — is a phenomenon; instead of being, as was previously 
 supposed, something entirely unphenomenal and inaccessable 
 to the senses." In another place: "It is not something invisi- 
 ble, intangible, inferred from what we see and feel, but it is 
 itself the very thing which we see and feel. A phenomenon or 
 an idea can be round and big, and as hard and as heavy as a 
 millstone. The mind is not within the head or brain, but on 
 the contrary the head, being a sensable object, is within the 
 jmind, with all the sensable objects and spaces and vast distanc- 
 es that constitute its contents. For this reason, to be within 
 the mind and to be within the sensable universe [or the uni- 
 verse of ideas] means the same thing; as also to be outside or 
 external to the mind, and to be outside or external to the sens- 
 able universe means here the same thing. The sensable 
 universe, though within the mind, is not within the small por- 
 tion of itself which is called the head, but outside and around 
 the head at all its vast distances. Mind or spirit, is exempt 
 from space as well as from any other sensable quality, and 
 this being so, it cannot occupy space nor exist in it; that on 
 the contrary, all space and its contents exist in spirit, and 
 cannot but so exist." 
 
 The above account of Berkeley's philosophy is from an 
 English book by Collyns Simon, L. L. D. In his summary he 
 says of it: "We so far have Berkeley's own grand proposition 
 and doctrine, that matter is a mental thing and the material 
 
—64 — 
 universe a mental universe— that the physical substance of 
 Nature is essentially a phenomenon. There is no substance 
 but Spirit." 
 
 I have quoted considerable from this author in order to 
 make it certain that I do not misrepresent him. Without 
 attempting to criticise this theory in detail, I will only remark 
 that in one respect it is in perfect harmony with common sense, 
 while in another respect it is about the best example of a bad 
 use of common sense I ever met with. It is certainly true 
 that we do perceive things directly and immediately by our 
 senses; in particular, the primary qualities of matter. In my 
 theory of sense perception (book 2) , I will try to demonstrate 
 the fact that the human mind is always in direct contact with 
 that thing which we call matter. But it is certainly not true 
 that mind and matter are the same thing. The distinction of 
 mind and matter is just as clear to common sense as the dis- 
 tinction of motion and matter. When we look at a swinging 
 pendulum, we do not have to think very hard in order to know 
 that the swing of the pendulum (motion) and the substance of 
 the pendulum (matter) are two things; to which we have given 
 the two names motion and matter. We can prove this by 
 taking all the relative motion out of the pendulum without 
 reducing its weight one grain. When we look at a body of 
 living matter we do not have to think very hard in order to 
 know that the life or mind of the body (which is plainly shown 
 by the sensability of the body as appears in certain well known 
 movements) and the substance of the body (matter) are two 
 things; to which we have given the two names mind and mat- 
 ter. We can prove this by taking all the sensability out of 
 the body without reducing its weight one grain. We disting- 
 uish between mind and matter in exactly the same way that 
 we do between motion and matter; by their difference. The 
 law under which all things must exist is very clear on this 
 point, and Berkeley has evidently overlooked one of the most 
 important distinctions in philosophy. This doctrine has given a 
 strong impetus to modern Idealism; and it has also served as 
 the initiative of a good deal of modern Skepticism. 
 
 David Hume (1711). Prof. Huxley in his Life of Hume, 
 says: "The final result of Hume's reasoning comes to this — 
 As we use the name of body for the sum of the phenomena 
 which makes up our corporeal existence, so we employ the 
 name of soul for the sum of the phenomena which constitutes 
 our mental existence; and we have no more reason in the latter 
 case than in the former, to suppose that there is anything 
 beyond the phenomena which answers to the name. In the 
 case of the soul, as in that of the body, the idea of substance 
 is a mere fiction of the imagination. This conclusion is nothing 
 
—65 — 
 but a rigorous application of Berkeley's reasoning concerning 
 matter to mind, and it is fully adopted by Kant." 
 
 All such reasoning looks like a cheap and dubious make- 
 shift for a deficiency of understanding. All these men, and none 
 more so than Huxley himself, (who held to similar views) had 
 all our common sense ideas, which every man must have in order 
 to live, but it seems that none of them possessed the construc- 
 tive ability which would enable them to systematize their ideas 
 in the way that might reveal the absolute certainty of the ex- 
 ternal reality of matter. When this is done by the simple meth- 
 od of analysis and synthesis, (§3) by which we separate our rep- 
 resentative ideas from the external things represented, and by 
 which we are able to put the represented things into a consist- 
 ent and necessary system, then we have in unmistakable plain- 
 ness something beyond our phenomenal ideas which may answer 
 to the names, matter or substance. 
 
 Dr. Thomas Reid (1710). Here is something on the space 
 matter relation which we ought to remember; for it is more 
 like a return to the common sense of the Greeks before Plato, 
 than anything that has appeared in the interval of 2000 years. 
 "There are determinations concerning matter which I think are 
 not solely founded upon the testimony of sense: Such as, that 
 it is impossible that two bodies should occupy the same place 
 at the same time; or that the same body should be in different 
 places at the same time; or that a body can be moved from one 
 place to another without passing through the intermediate place. 
 These appear to be necessary truths and therefore cannot be 
 conclusions of our senses; for our senses testify only to what 
 is, not to what necessarily must be." These are undoubtedly 
 necessary truths; necessary in the very conditions under which 
 the existence of things is possible. To be readily apprehensive 
 of necessary truths is the true function of common sense. In the 
 above passage Dr. Reid speaks of our innate ideas of the pri- 
 mary forms of matter and their relations, which are necessary 
 to the existence of both things and thought, as tho they were 
 not acquired thru sense experience. In my view the yare already 
 in the mind of the man of average intelligence, but they have 
 been acquired in the past experience of the race. Regarding 
 space he says: "It may be observed, that although space be not 
 perceived by any of our senses when all matter is removed, yet 
 when we perceive any of the primary qualities of matter, space 
 presents itself as a necessary concomitant. For there can neither 
 be extension, nor motion, nor figure, nor division, nor cohesion 
 of parts without space." Which means that matter is in space 
 otherwise empty, and must be divided into parts differing in 
 form and size, and having motion and difference in motion, in 
 order to play its part in supplying the mind with all its great 
 
— 66- 
 variety of ideas. If we can explain all things and account for 
 all ideas, even the false ones, on the theory of one matter, one 
 motion, one mind, in which there is only difference of state, 
 form and kind, then surely we cannot dispense with matter; 
 and this is attempted in the following chapters. 
 
 Immanuel Kant (1724). In his * 'Critique of Pure Reason." 
 Kant answers the first question of philosophy as follows; which 
 I convey as nearly in the words of the writer (Dr. Erdman) as 
 I can without quoting him. Through the physical sense we 
 have immediate perceptions of external things. These things, 
 (or the sensations, or both together, it is not clear which), are 
 called empirical, because they are given to us and not determ- 
 ined by us. But in the mind they are combined into ideas by 
 the mind itself, and this process of idea making is called a 
 priori judgment, purely mental and therefore not empirical. 
 The mind unites its empiric experiences in two ways: (1), in 
 time, in which we have all our ideas of the duration of things, 
 succession of events, past, present and future, etc. ; and (2) , in 
 space, which gives us our ideas of coexistence, changes, rela- 
 tions, etc. of things, or what we call the primary qualities of 
 matter. Now, this philosopher seriously declares that time 
 and space are wholly within the mind and a necessary part of 
 its thinking faculty; and hence do not exist outside of the mind 
 associated with external objects as they appear to be. Here 
 I will quote the words of the writer to make sure of his mean- 
 ing. "That time and space are not something emipirical and 
 given to us from without, but that they are a priori, is proved 
 beforehand by their necessity, since we are not able to think 
 them away, to abstract them, from the mind, which can be 
 done with everything that is empirical. And further, they do 
 not presuppose any individuals (times, spaces) , but on the con- 
 trary, in order to think time and space, we must have beforehand 
 time and space. That finally they lie only in us, are some- 
 thing wholly subjective, is shown by the fact that mere space 
 distinctions, as that between a hand and its reflection in a 
 mirror, cannot be fixed by objective description, but only by 
 recourse to the distinction, left and right, etc., to relations 
 which refer immediately to perceptions." 
 
 Here again we have a learned philosopher, in full posses- 
 sion of his wits and all the common sense ideas about things, 
 not only those of time and space but all the primary qualities 
 of matter which must exist in time and space if they exist at 
 all; yet he deliberately proceeds to separate our ideas of things 
 from our ideas of time and space, and to graft upon our ideas 
 of time and space his own newly invented idea that time and 
 space are not external realities associated with the material 
 things as they always appear to be, but are exclusively con- 
 
— 67— 
 tained in the mind, and nothing in themselves but necessary 
 elements of the mind's idea making faculty; while the things 
 which we must have to think about are outside of us some- 
 where, yet they do not exist in time and space. No wonder 
 that so many of the common people have stumbled over this 
 philosophy-born conception. It is of course true that we combine 
 our sensations and memories in two ways; in time, which gives 
 us all our ideas of duration, succession, etc., which are mem- 
 ories, with sensations which present things external, and in 
 space which gives us our ideas of coexistence, distance, magni- 
 tudes, etc., also memories, with sense perceptions of external 
 things. There is no chance to dispute the fact that we have 
 very clear ideas about time and space, and that they are a 
 priori or inborn, having been inherited from past generations 
 and originally acquired through sense experience in a physic- 
 al world, and that we use them along with all our sense per- 
 ceptions of external things. And it is equally impossible to 
 dispute the fact that time and space are outside of us, intimate- 
 ly associated with the material things which we perceive. 
 Within the mind time and space are represented by our ideas 
 of them, which of course are indispensable to thought. But 
 outside the mind we have the real external objects, time and 
 space; and without which objects, related as they are to all 
 other objects or material things, it would be impossible for 
 the mind to have ideas of time and space; nor would it have 
 any ideas at all. Kant's mistake appears in his acceptance of 
 his ideas of time and space as the whole thing, without in- 
 quiring how he got the ideas. Whether he accounted for them 
 in any other way is not known to me. It is true that we can 
 think away any or all objects in time and space, but we cannot 
 think away time and space. This follows from the simple fact 
 that in order to think at all, we must have things, and the 
 things must have difference and relations. The first possible 
 or thinkable difference, and the first possible or thinkable rela- 
 tion, is that of nothing-something and the only thinkable 
 reality which answers to this nothing-something relation is 
 time and space on the one side and matter on the other. Now, 
 of course we can think of the absence of matter, because it is 
 something, but how can we think of the absence of nothing? 
 The only way that I can attempt to do it is to quit thinking; 
 but the moment I begin to think again I know at once that I 
 did not succeed because I cannot even begin to think without 
 thinking of something as existing independent of me and in 
 time and space. 
 
 Dugald Stewart (1753) , was a disciple of Thomas Reid, and 
 he agreed with Reid in, that philosophy should begin with 
 principles on which the certainty of truth rests and by which 
 
—68— 
 it can be known. Reid had recognized this first principle under 
 the name of common sense. Stewart objected to this name 
 and called it the "Fundamental law of human belief. " Re- 
 garding space he says: "The idea of space is manifestly 
 accompanied by an irresistable conviction that space is neces- 
 sarily existent and that its annihilation is impossible. To call 
 this proposition in question is to open a door to universal skep- 
 ticism/' 
 
 Thomas Brown (1778). A pupil of Stewart, says of space: 
 ' 'The truth of space and of the world, being in our reasoning 
 skepticism the same, we cannot deny space and admit the 
 reality of sensable objects. 
 
 Sir William Hamilton (1788). the most learned of the 
 Scotch philosophers. He was the editor of Reid's works and 
 held too much the same views of Reid and Stewart. With 
 them he upheld the doctrine of Presentationism, according to 
 which we have an immediate and intuitive knowledge of things 
 themselves, and which doctrine has since become the leading 
 tenet of Realism. This is only another name for common 
 sense. On the subject of space Sir William says: We have a 
 two-fold cognition of space; (1) an apriori or native imagina- 
 tion of it in general, as a necessary condition of the possibility 
 of thought; and (2) under that an aposterior or adventitious 
 perception of it, in particularly as contingently apprehended in 
 this or that complexus of sensations." 
 
 In the above passage we have the plain admission that 
 space is "a necessary condition of the possibility of thought," 
 and this is what it is beyond the chance of a doubt. We can 
 say the same of time. It is worthy of mention here that Ham- 
 ilton was a believer in the doctrine of Relativity and that he 
 used it successfully in bringing out a conclusion which I believe 
 to be of the greatest importance. But unfortunately he failed 
 to apply this law so far as he might have done, and he made 
 one very bad application of it. In his philosophy of the uncon- 
 ditioned he reaches substantially the following conclusion, and 
 here are his words: "The mind can conceive and consequently 
 can know, only the limited and the conditionally limited." The 
 unconditionally unlimited, or the Infinite, the unconditionally 
 limited or the Absolute cannot positively be constructed to 
 the mind; they can be conceived only by a thinking away from, 
 or abstraction of, those very conditions under which thought 
 itself is realized. * * * The consequence of this doctrine is 
 that philosophy if viewed as more than a science of the condi- 
 tioned, is impossible. Departing from the particular, we 
 admit, that we can never in our highest generalization, rise 
 above the finite; that our knowledge, whether of mind or 
 matter, can be nothing more than a knowledge of the relative 
 
— 69- 
 manifestations of an existence, which in itself it is our highest 
 wisdom to recogize as beyond the reach of philosophy. 
 
 Now, take notice: The first fifteen words in the above 
 quoted passage are intended as a definition of the limits of our 
 knowledge. If my understanding of the question is right, they 
 are true only in this sense. Whatever exists, must exist un- 
 der conditions which are limited and necessary to that which 
 exists. As shown in (§8, and later), the mind can know only 
 things and nothing, and the only things that can be known are 
 those which occupy time and space, and the only nothing that 
 can be known is time and space without anything in them. 
 This is clearly a limitation of existence, and if this is true, 
 then of course, the mind can know only that which exists 
 under the limited and necessary conditions of existence. Hence, 
 it is true that philosophy, if viewed as more than a science 
 of the conditioned, is impossible. But it is evident that Ham- 
 ilton did not see the question in this light. He thought there 
 was something beyond these limits which we can never know, 
 and his ennunciation of this belief misled many others, promi- 
 nent among them Spencer. 
 
 Sir John Herschel (1792). "The reason we conceive, why 
 we apprehend things without us, is, that they are without us. 
 We take it for granted that they exist in space, because they 
 do so exist, and because such their existence is a matter of di- 
 rect perception which can never be explained in words, nor 
 contravened in imagination, because, in short, space is a reality. 
 That which has parts, properties and susceptibility of exact 
 measurement must be a thing/ ' 
 
 The reality of space is here plainly recognized, but it is not 
 correct to say that space has parts in itself, or properties, and 
 is susceptible of measurement. 
 
 J. S. Mill (1806). "The character of space, all that be- 
 longs to it as space, is its three dimensions with all their geo- 
 metrical properties, also its character of Infinity.' - 
 
 Alexander Bain (1818). Extension belongs both to solid 
 matter and to the intervals between the masses of solid matter, 
 which intervals are measured by the same sensabilities, name- 
 ly, the muscular feeling of motion, supported by the passive 
 sensations." 
 
 Herschel, Mill and Bain, all have fallen into the same error, 
 in fact, this has been the prevailing view to the present day. 
 At the end of these quotations I will comment on this. 
 
 James McCosh (1868). "In particular, space has three 
 dimensions— length, breadth and depth — that, is, we can con- 
 template it as extending along any given line, as spreading out 
 in a surface, or as going out in all directions. 
 
 Dr. McCosh was the ablest of the modern exponents of 
 Realism, and here is his definition of it: 
 
-70 — 
 
 "Realism is that system which holds, that there are real 
 things and that man can know them; that we have no need to 
 resort to such theories as those of internal ideas or occasional 
 causes coming between the perceiving mind and the perceived 
 object; but that the mind knows directly and intuitively three 
 kinds of reality — first, matter, whether existing in the body or 
 out of the body, as external, extended and resisting; second, 
 the perceiving self as thinking or willing, a reality as certain 
 and as definite as matter, but perceived by self- consciousness 
 and not the external sense; third, the objects perceived by our 
 conscious or moral sense, the higher knowledge of voluntary 
 acts as being morally good or evil. The mind perceives matter 
 at once, but it also perceives benevolence, and perceives it to 
 be good as clearly as the eye perceives objects to be external. " 
 
 Herbert Spencer (1820). "What now are the attributes of 
 space? The only one which it is possible for a moment to 
 think of as belonging to it, is that of extension; and to credit 
 it with this implies a confusion of thought. For extension and 
 space are convertable terms; by extension as we ascribe it to 
 surrounding objects, we mean occupancy of space; and thus to 
 say that space is extended, is to say that space occupies space. 
 It results therefore, that space and time are wholly incompre- 
 hensible. The immediate knowledge which we seem to have of 
 them, proves, when examined to be total ignorance. While 
 our believe in their objective reality is unsurmountable, we are 
 unable to give any rational account of it." 
 
 Not only time and space are thus banished to the limbo of 
 Unknowableness, but matter, motion, mind, force and every- 
 thing else in its ultimate nature are disposed of in the same 
 way. 
 
 Messrs. James and Schiller's views on space and matter 
 have been given in (§ 2). 
 
 12. Comments and Conclusions. All the writers quoted 
 in the preceeding section seem to agree in one respect at least, 
 and that is, the objective reality of space. Admitting space, 
 they would all no doubt admit the reality of time, and though 
 several of them have denied the reality of matter, they have 
 all admitted something which we call matter. They have also 
 without a single exception admitted the reality of some thing 
 which we call mind, and even motion has not been ruled out in 
 any case. And I am obliged to frankly admit myself, that I 
 agree with all of them in this respect. We have all got the 
 same ideas, and this is true the same of all men, at all times 
 and in all parts of the world. Now, there must be a common 
 reason for this universal peculiarity of mind, and I firmly 
 believe that we can find it in a rational Materialism. All our 
 
—71- 
 simple and common ideas of time, space, matter, motion, mind, 
 are a pure result of the physical conditions under which we are 
 born and must live, and they are forced upon every man by his 
 inborn common sense and as a matter of necessity, whether he 
 likes it or not. These philosophers were obliged to admit their 
 ideas, but they could not understand them, and they have got 
 them so misplaced and badly mixed that no one else can under- 
 stand them. 
 
 We have got the ideas sure and it is only necessary to put 
 them together right to make them represent a system so per- 
 fect, so complete and necessary to our life; and so convincingly 
 evident of Supreme wisdom, as to astonish even a philosopher. 
 If our definition of the condition of existence (§ 10) is correct, 
 it will not be difficult to see that space and matter are related, 
 not only as objects, but in all the other great multitude of re- 
 lations in which the nothing something relation is necessary to 
 the existence of things. In the sense, that matter is only an 
 object space is also an object and both are real; but in the 
 sense that matter is something substantial and necessarily a 
 space occupant, space is nothing of the kind. A man may 
 know the difference between a horse and a cow and not know 
 anything else about either. Space and matter are both objects 
 when viewed only in the objective sense or relation, but when 
 viewed in other relations, matter at once becomes something 
 more than an object. 
 
 Philosophers have credited many things to space which be- 
 long only to matter. Space in itself has no dimensions, but the 
 material things which occupy space all have. The properties 
 of geometry and all truths of mathematics are abstract laws of 
 existence which may apply to existing things, but they are not 
 existing things. That twice two things is four things may be 
 true, whether things exist or not. If infinite space was entirely 
 empty it would still be true that something could not exist 
 without occupying space, and two things which were equal to 
 a.third, would have to be equal to each other, and so with all 
 axioms. Extension, mass, form, volume, impenetrability, soft- 
 ness, hardness, rough, smooth, brittle, plastic, susceptibility to 
 motion, heat, cold, sound, silence, light, darkness, tastes, 
 smells, pains, pleasures and all mental effects, are properties 
 of matter, which are totally absent in space and time. All 
 the harmonies and discords in sound, all the beauties in form 
 and colors, may be found in matter along with all the refined 
 sentiments and tastes, even heaven and hell must be things of 
 matter, because mind itself is a property of matter. These are 
 all truths, not of space itself, but of matter exclusively; and 
 they are known only in the peculiar relations of matter to 
 space already described (§ 10) as the necessary conditions of 
 
-72— 
 the existence of things and thought. 
 
 It is true that the distance or intervals between two or 
 more material bodies in space, may be more or less, and may 
 be accurately measured; but distance, interval or extension is 
 not space no more than matter is space. Any possible interval, 
 as distance must be defined by at least two points in space, and 
 any point in space must be something that occupies space. No 
 matter how small, it must be something, and being something 
 it is not space, but a space occupant. Now, the extension or 
 diameter or distance between two opposite sides of a mass of 
 matter, as the earth, belongs to the body of matter, not to the 
 space it occupies. For the same reason the extension or dis- 
 tance between two bodies of matter in space belongs to the 
 bodies, not to the space between them. Extension or dimen- 
 sion is therefore a space occupant just as matter is, in fact, it 
 belongs exclusively to matter. To prove this we have only to 
 remove the space occupant and to observe that the extension 
 goes with it. 
 
 It seems that Hamilton was one of the most misleading of 
 the leaders of thought in his time. None of those who come 
 after him directly on this line, have done anything but reiterate 
 his conclusions. In his principles of logic he describes the law 
 of thought which he seems to think is a justification of his 
 conclusion, in the following passage: 
 
 "All that we can positively think * * * lies between 
 two opposite poles of thought, which, as exclusive of each 
 other, cannot, on the principles of Identity and Contradiction, 
 both be true, but of which, on the principle of Excluded Mid- 
 dle, one or the other must. Let us take for example, any of 
 the general objects of our knowledge. Let us take body, or 
 rather since body as extended is included under extension, let 
 us take extension itself or space. Now, extension alone will 
 exhibit to us two pairs of contradictory inconceivables; that is, 
 in all, four incomprehensibles; but of which, though all are 
 unthinkable, we are compelled by the law of Excluded Middle, 
 to admit some two as true and necessary.*' 
 
 Which, of course, means that space and matter in them- 
 selves are unknowable, though it is admitted that one or the 
 other of these extremes of thought must reveal the truth. 
 This author applies the same rule of thought to time. He 
 says: "We can neither conceive an absolute commencement, 
 nor an infinite regress; an absolute termination, nor a duration 
 infinitely prolonged; though either the one or the other must 
 be true." 
 
 It seems that Sir William has got the law all right, and his 
 objective ideas of time, space and matter are all right; and his 
 ideas of extension could not be expressed in plainer language; 
 
— 73 — 
 but when we compare his ideas to the external reality, we see 
 at once that he simply got them misplaced; hence the con- 
 fusion. It is certainly true that any proposition regarding any 
 object of thought must be either true or false, in whole or in 
 part, and it is true that time, space and matter are real objects 
 of thought; but it is not true that extension or duration are 
 properties of space and time in themselves, neither is it true 
 that time, space and matter in themselves are inconceivable 
 from our relative point of view; on the contrary, it is perfectly 
 clear that extension belongs to matter and that the duration 
 of matter is not time in itself. The reason that we cannot 
 think of a beginning nor of an ending of time, is simply due to 
 the fact that there never was a beginning and there never can 
 be an ending; and the reason of this fact is simply the fact 
 that time in itself is nothing. How can we think of nothing as 
 having a beginning or an ending? The only things that begin 
 or end are the different forms and relations and states of mat- 
 ter, motion and mind. 
 
 Now, it seems, that others have accepted the reasoning of 
 Hamilton, and have fallen into the same confusion of ideas. 
 Dr. McCosh asks : * 'Are space and time made up of parts? ' ' To 
 this I reply, first, and decidedly, that we cannot conceive them 
 as made up of partitions or separated parts, as an apple or an 
 orange is, or as the earth is. But then, secondly, we can con- 
 ceive proportions in space and time; and if we take any of 
 thsse proportional sections and divide it into two, thought will 
 compel us to say that the two must make up the whole. If 
 the question be extended beyond this, and asked, is infinite 
 space made up of parts? I answer, that as we can have no 
 adequate motion of infinite space, so we cannot be expected to 
 answer all the questions which may be put regarding it." 
 
 This is a clear case of right thinking misapplied. All of 
 the above reasoning would apply to matter, except the ending, 
 but when applied to space or time, it does not fit, hence, the 
 breakdown. 
 
 Mr. Spencer asks: Is there an absolute space which rela- 
 tive space in some sort represents? Is space in itself a form 
 or a condition of absolute existence, producing in our minds a 
 corresponding form or condition of relative existence? These 
 are unanswerable questions. Our conception of space is pro- 
 duced by some mode of the Unknowable; and the complete 
 unchangeableness of our conception of it, simply implies a 
 complete uniformity in the effects wrought by this mode of the 
 Unknowable upon us." 
 
 This looks suspiciously like a perversion of common sense 
 merely to justify a foregone theory of the unknowable. He 
 asks the very question, the correct answer to which might have 
 
-74- 
 led to the true solution of this problem. Notice the two ques- 
 tions at the beginning of the above quoted passage. He simply 
 says: "These are unanswerable questions." It is true all the 
 same, there is an absolute space which bears a conspicuous 
 relation to relative space. Absolute space, or space in itself is 
 absolutely nothing; relative space, or space in its true relations 
 to matter, is an object of thought. Absolute space is known 
 only as possible, not as actual. Volumes might be filled with 
 such questionings and confusion of ideas, and all of which, it 
 seems has come about by overlooking the simple truth that 
 space is nothing as viewed in itself, and something only as a 
 space relation to the forms of matter. Being nothing in itself, 
 we cannot think of it as being limited in any direction, and 
 being unlimited or absolutely without boundary lines beyond 
 which there is no space, it seems, of all objects, to be the best 
 calculated to satisfy the mind which aspires to an all-absorbing 
 infinite. 
 
 Space is an object, because it stands alone as the one great 
 contrast to all existing things, and it can be known or thought 
 of only as an unlimited nothing, and only in this sense and in this 
 one instance, space with time may be regarded as something. 
 Time is an object, because it stands alone, as the one great 
 conception of the duration or continued existence of material 
 things. It is sometimes supposed that we measure the uni- 
 formities of matter by time, as if it was something in the ab- 
 stract. To consider time in itself as a fixed standard of the 
 measurement of duration, is a mistake. We cannot measure 
 time in itself by time in itself, no more than we can measure 
 a stick of cordwood by empty space. Time is only a name 
 which we have given to the uniform succession of changes 
 going on among material things. Here on earth we measure 
 these changes not by time as an absolute rule, but by the uni- 
 form motion of the earth on its axis, which in itself is uniform 
 as a direct result of the law of inertia or conservation of mo- 
 tion. Just as there is no extension, resistence or dimensions, 
 without space occupying things, so there is no time without 
 space occupying things which have uniform motion. 
 
 It is, of course, possible to think of any form or figure, or 
 any extended thing, in the abstract, that is, as separated from 
 any space occupant of similar form, and some idea of space is 
 necessary in which the objects of our thought are supposed to 
 exist; but in such thought we are not thinking of space, but 
 the things in space. To confound such objects with space, 
 would be to fail to distinguish the real differences between 
 space and the things which must occupy space, if they exist at 
 all. The only things that properly belong to space and time 
 are the names, unlimited, unconditioned, infinite, nothing, and 
 
— 75 — 
 the meaning of these words is well known. 
 
 It is also possible to think of the things which occupy time 
 and space as undergoing changes due to motion, and which 
 changes are more or less uniform. Mind is able to distinguish 
 between the uniform and the ununif orm or irregular, by their 
 difference and by the fact that these changes succeeded each 
 other. From which comes our ideas of time, and so it is that 
 if these space-occupying things did not exist, there would be 
 no such thing as time from our point of view. To prove this, 
 let any person attempt to estimate time in the abstract, that 
 is, to guess the length of one minute or one hour, and see the 
 impossibility of it. Time is measured only by a fixed unit 
 which is a real something, and something always belongs to 
 matter. 
 
 Thus, in the relative manifestation of a knowable exist- 
 tent in its necessary relations to time and space, and which is 
 no other than matter, motion mind, we must look for all things 
 of which to construct our theory of the Universe. 
 
CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 GENERAL LAWS, MATERIAL AND MENTAL. 
 
 13. Matter, Motion, Mind. — In the two preceeding chap- 
 ters we have derived matter, from the universal law of differ- 
 ence-relations, as the most fundamental and necessary of gen- 
 eral truths. It is the one thing, the only space relation, and in 
 which we are to look for the other things. Now we have a vast 
 number of other things to account for; so we must henceforth 
 regard matter as not only the one universal thing which inclu- 
 des all other things, but the very thing in which it was neces- 
 sary to create difference in order to create things. So we are 
 now at the point where only the most careful discrimination 
 and common sense judgment will save us from series mistakes. 
 The making of true fundamental distinctions in matter, in strict 
 conformity to the universal law, is highly important, because 
 on these must rest and proceed all the generalizing steps which 
 are to reveal the true system of the Universe. It is all in the 
 right combination of our common sense ideas about things, and 
 let us "don't forget it." 
 
 After long deliberation, in view of all the facts known to 
 me, it seems unnecessary to recognize more than two primary 
 truths of matter, under which all things may be accounted for 
 and arranged in the true order of nature; and which, with mat- 
 ter itself, may be regarded as the three most deep and most 
 general of universal truths They are presented below: — 
 
 !The Motion of Matter, 
 The Mind of Matter. 
 
 Matter being the only space occupant, (or whatever occu- 
 pies space being properly called matter,) it is therefore the only 
 thing that can have motion. In the same way that we account 
 for motion, we must account for mind. When we are conscious, 
 as in a state of feeling or thought, it is the substance of our 
 nervous structure that feels or thinks, and this we call mind. 
 Our innate common sense should make it impossible for us to 
 overlook the plain distinction of matter and motion, and the 
 same sense experience and judgment may lead us to see the 
 difference between mind and motion. 
 
 To avoid some imagined corruption of matter, many have 
 been prompted to ignore this conspicuous distinction, or to as- 
 sume thatthere is no such thing as matter; nothing but mind. 
 
-77- 
 
 They would make this ultimate thing (which is undoubtedly a 
 thing of physical sense experience as proved by the fact that 
 it has a prominent name in our language and a place in our dai- 
 ly experience) mind, force, spirit or any other name, but it is 
 always the same thing and to resort to such a useless device is 
 to gain nothing, while it ads to the already exasperating confu- 
 sion of ideas called philosophy. The law of relativity is very 
 clear on this point. Mind is something, as known in matter by 
 the unmistakable movements of the matter, and in particular 
 in each person by his own conscious states. Being something, 
 we are obliged to class it on the side of actual being along with 
 all the other things, and this of course must be in matter simp- 
 ly because outside of matter is empty space or nothing. To 
 know what matter is, or motion is, or mind is, is simply to no- 
 tice the difference between it and something else or nothing. 
 
 The first step towards a general knowledge of things is to 
 carefully make the primary divisions in matter, in view of all 
 the facts of direct sense experience, then see if the facts or 
 things, not only within the range of sense but beyond sense, can 
 be reduced to order under these divisions. If it seems probable 
 (and it certanly does from this point of view) that all things of 
 the physical universe may be explained and reduced to harmony 
 without the need of anything but Inert Matter in Motion; if 
 there is promise that all things of the mental universe can be 
 explained and reduced to order without the need of anything 
 but the theory that mind is a property of ordinary matter, hav- 
 ing the power when conscious, of controling the motion of its 
 own matter, then undoubtedly we have a good reason for mak- 
 ing this primary separation of all things into matter, its motion 
 and its mind. For a complete justification of this first category 
 of things we must make the generalizing steps and see the end 
 
 Matter, motion, mind, may be regarded as a first Trinity; 
 the three most fundamental of things, united in one thing. 
 Each one is a distinct thing but neither one can be known as 
 it is, without the others along with time and space. Mind 
 can know matter only in its relations to time and space and 
 through material changes due to motion. Mind can know motion 
 only as the motion of matter. Mind can know mind by the dif- 
 ference between the conscious state and the unconscious state 
 in self, and by its peculiar manifestations in the motion of mat- 
 ter, as distinguished from that motion which is governed by 
 the inertia of matter. In spirit life we can know forms of the 
 individual mind through the direct use of the spirit sense, (des- 
 cribed in book 2. ) 
 
 Matter, motion, mind, are not convertable into each other. 
 Matter cannot change into either motion or mind; motion can- 
 not change into either matter or mind, and mind cannot change 
 
-78 — 
 into either matter or motion. Not being interchangable they 
 are therefor alike uncreatable and indestructable. Matter can 
 neither be created nor destroyed; motion has had no beginning 
 nor end, and mind has existed in all past time and must contin- 
 ue so to exist in all the future. The truth of the indestructabil- 
 ity of matter and motion is now recognized by scientists every- 
 where. We cannot expect that mind could create itself out of 
 matter or motion, and there is nothing else. If mind exists now, 
 it has always existed, just as matter and motion has. 
 
 From the well known facts of mind it is evident that cons- 
 ciousness is not all that exists in it, that there must be an op- 
 posite or unconscious state. Our conscious life always contains 
 intervals of unconsciousness, and these breaks are not voids of 
 nothing; neither do they contain something which is not mind. 
 If there is nothing else to be converted into mind, then it is cer- 
 tain that all our intervals of mental inactivity or unconscious- 
 ness, must contain mind. 
 
 Matter motion mind, are therefore the three foundation 
 truths of the Universe; in which all other things are contained. 
 These three are eternal in themselves and inseparable. We can 
 think of the possibility of matter existing without mind or mo- 
 tion, but we know that this is not true at present and for this 
 reason never has been and never can be. We can think of the 
 possibility of both matter and motion existing without mind, 
 and this likewise is not the case at present and hence never has 
 been and never can be. To think of this complete and orderly 
 Universe as it is at present, and with perfect understanding, 
 we must have these three; and further insight will reveal the 
 truth that these three are all that's necessary to account for 
 everything in this world and in the world to come. 
 
 This is the common sense view of the ultimate. It seems 
 utterly impossible that any person capable of ordinary thinking 
 can fail to see the difference between matter, motion and mind, 
 and realize the truth that each one is a real thing, represented 
 in the mind by an idea which is common to all men. These sim- 
 ple ideas have long ago found their way into all human langua- 
 ge as a direct result of sense experience, and that they imqly 
 something actually known, cannot be reasonably doubted and 
 has never been disputed by any one but the philosopher. 
 
 14. Difference, Similarity, Transformation, Uniform- 
 ity. — As a first step toward a generalization of the contents 
 of matter motion and mind, it seems necessary to briefly notice 
 four natural divisions among things on the physical side, thus 
 leaving one large division of things on the mental side. Strictly 
 speaking these are not divisions among physical things. Per- 
 haps more correctly, they are laws of physical activity, neces- 
 
-79- 
 sary to the activity of mind. They are named in the above title. 
 
 It is generally understood that we know things by their 
 effects, — by the way they act upon the physical sense organs 
 as in our sensations. The known effect is always in the consci- 
 ous center of the brain where it is always perceived by self. 
 The thing which has caused the effect is supposed to be outside 
 this center and it may be outside the body or it may be within 
 the body. If outside the body it may act through one or more 
 of the physical sense organs, or it may act through some chan- 
 nel independent of the physical sense. If within the body it may 
 act through nervous matter as when coming from some domi- 
 nant idea or belief, which has been revived by some mental in- 
 fluence coming from the conscious center. As the outside thing 
 differs from other things, so it is supposed that the inside men- 
 tal effect or form of mind must differ from other mental effects. 
 But it is well known that the inside mental effects do not al- 
 ways differ in the same way in different people. One person 
 may be badly frightened at seeing a thing which would not 
 frighten another person at all, and some things may taste or 
 smell very bad to one, which would tast or smell good to anoth- 
 er. Hence it is belived that our senses are not a reliable means 
 to knowledg. Neveitheless it must be admitted that the phys- 
 ical sense is the only means we have, and to refuse to use it or 
 learn what it really is, is to accept ignorance rather than know- 
 ledge. It will appear later that the physical sense, when care- 
 fully investigated and correctly understood, may prove to be 
 perfectly reliable in all cases. In a future state and to some ex- 
 tent in this life, we are able to use the inner sense, by which 
 we perceive things directly from the center of self-conscious- 
 ness and not by the intervention of physical motion. The differ- 
 ence between the spirit sense and the physical sense, will be 
 fully explained in book 2. 
 
 The unsophisticated judgment of mankind about the things 
 of the external world, can be relied upon with entire safety. 
 Things are just what they appear to be when we are not decei- 
 ved by the appearance. The test for a true appearance is found 
 in the often repeated observations of a large number of people 
 possessed of common sense or not biased by education; and the 
 result is generally in favor of this view of the matter. This 
 view has been turned down by the philosopher who holds that 
 we do not know any thing but the effects in mind. But let us 
 keep right on until we get our system with all its harmony, 
 consistency and necessity, then it will appear that common 
 sense is right so far as it goes, and that the philosopher is not 
 in it. The necessary individuality of the conscious mind, and 
 the fact that a conscious state is possible only in the presence 
 of a plurality of things, would make it necessary that matter, 
 
-80 — 
 should exist in a condition of minute division, in order to per- 
 mit the existence of the difference upon which the existence 
 of things depends. Or in other words, it is necessary that space 
 (which must be an object of consciousness though not a thing 
 in the sense that matter is) which is everywhere and always 
 the same, should be intimately mixed, as it were, with matter, 
 so that the two, space matter, shall be always present in con- 
 trast to the reasoning mind; and also, so that matter through 
 its motion may be able to assume the great variety of forms, 
 and go through the great variety of changes, which are neces- 
 sary to the existing order of things. That this is the present 
 constitution of the physical world goes without a word, and 
 that matter and motion are capable of producing all the possi- 
 ble sense impressions in mind, simply through their different 
 and changing forms, will appear more and more as we proceed. 
 
 It is not difficult to see what would be the result if the uni- 
 verse was nothing but one great mass of matter, absolutely 
 solid throughout, or no division into parts or space unoccupied 
 within its limits. The impossibility of things; the impossibility 
 of life or of the present order, would be a conspicuous fact pro- 
 viding there is any one here to be aware of it. And that this is 
 not the present situation looks like a pointer toward the truth 
 that the universe is a construction which required the guidance 
 of a Supreme Mind. It is therefore assumed that matter, as a 
 simple space and time occupying substance, whieh may be di- 
 vided into parts and have motion and difference of motion, thus 
 assuming a variety of forms, is all that would be required for 
 the existence of a world of things like this, so far as difference 
 of form in matter and motion is concerned. It also appears that 
 the law of difference applies to mind as well as to matter and 
 motion. And here is raised a profoundly interesting question. Is 
 it true that the difference in mind (which is so necessary to its 
 very existence) is a direct result of this difference in matter and 
 motion? Or in other words, could the Mental Universe exist 
 without the present form and manner of activity of the Physi- 
 cal Universe? The answer will appear as we proceed, in fact 
 the reader no doubt will have already glimpsed the truth that 
 the variety of shapes and changes which matter assumes in its 
 free space, will be sufficient to give rise to all our ideas about 
 things, whethei true or false, and without which we could not 
 think; and that herein lies the true Materialism, which must be 
 the foundation of our Mental Universe. 
 
 The next important primary distinction among things is 
 similarity. If we look about us at any time we are apt to no- 
 tice a number of things which resemble each other more or less. 
 Most people are willing to admit that the two hands which be- 
 ong to the majority of people are verv much alike, yet there 
 
-81 — 
 is some difference, and the same is true of eyes and ears and 
 other appendages of the body. We meet a person with two ears, 
 one on each side of his head, and we say, the man has two ears 
 just alike. When we inquire into the matter more scientifically 
 we find that this is the effect which we get in our minds as a 
 result of looking at the man, «nd that the same thing happens 
 when we look at other things. Hence we infer that certain sim- 
 ilarities in the mental effects indicate a like similarity among 
 external things. This, as in the case of difference, is the old 
 fashioned common sense way of looking at things. 
 
 This similarity of things appears to be the primary truth 
 on which rests all the clasifications of things which distinguish 
 the several divisions in our knowledge called the sciences. A 
 few simple examples of the application of the law of similarity 
 to familliar things are the following. The eight fingers on our 
 hands are all called fingers because they are alike in shape, in 
 possition and in use; yet there is some difference between each 
 one of them. The thumbs are all thumbs because of their like- 
 ness and position, and for this reason they are not called fing- 
 ers. Each class is thus distinguished from other classes by rea- 
 son of their several differences, and it is a class because it is 
 collection of similar things, The same is true of many other 
 classes, in fact all classes which the observing person may be 
 able to notice. These classes are not called sciences because 
 they are among the minor divisions of familiar things and have 
 less to do with general methods of research. But they exhibit 
 the truth of the laws of difference and similarity exactly as they 
 apply ih the well known method of analysis and synthesis (§3) 
 to the larger divisions called the sciences. Things are first dis- 
 tinguished by their differences. They are then grouped into 
 classes by their similarities. Two things having an equal num- 
 ber of points of similarity are classed together if their simi- 
 larities are close enough and numerous enough to warrant a 
 class division. Two apples may be known by their difference 
 yet they are classed togethei because the number of points 
 of similarity in them is greater than in a peach and an apple. 
 
 The truth of the laws of difference and similarity may be 
 seen in two general ways; (1) in time— when we may have met 
 with an object yesterday, which looks something like an object 
 we see today, and so we notice the resemblance though the 
 two objects are far apart— and (2), in space, when we see two 
 things at the same time in which we notice more or less like- 
 ness between them. In the first case we simply notice both the 
 difference and the similarity between a mental effect or a mem- 
 ory which was acquired yesterday and retained in mind, and 
 the object perceived today. The perception of today and the 
 memory of yesterday, are brought togethei in the center of 
 
-82 — 
 self consciousness, hence the immediate sense of similarity. We 
 thus bring things in the mind and things out of mind together 
 and notice their differences and similarities. This is a sort of 
 comparison of immediate perceptions with revived memories 
 which is indispensable to thought. The well informed mind may 
 contain many thousands of such memories, representing many 
 things near and far in time and space. These memories (forms 
 of mind) may be revived in consciousness, and arranged in all 
 possible, true or false relations, (true or false as representa- 
 tives of the external reality) by self. In this way we think of 
 the past and present in all their true or possible or probable 
 relations to the present or future. These memories are first ac- 
 quired in physical life directly from the material things by the 
 physical sense, and this is the only way to get them first hand. 
 But when once acquired they are the objective foundation of 
 everything in mind, or that mind can construct, true or false, 
 right or wrong, good or bad. This is a very important truth 
 which should not be overlooked in our study of mind. As ex- 
 plained in book 2, right and wrong thinking is dependent upon 
 this freedom of thought which permits it to make a good or a 
 bad use of these primary physical concepts which are derived 
 exclusively from the primary physical qualities of matter. The 
 Materialism of Common Sense is therefore the only sound basis 
 for human reason. 
 
 The next general truth noticeable among the primary quali- 
 ties of matter is transformation. Besides the difference and 
 similarities in mental effects, which are supposed to be a re- 
 sult of a like difference and similarity among external things, 
 it also appears from the effects they produce in us, that the 
 external things are continually changing. It seems impossible 
 that any one can overlook this obvious truth or fail to see that 
 it is perfectly consistent with the idea of material things mov- 
 ing in space and time. All animals are highly sensative to the 
 slightest change in their environment, and there is a good reas- 
 on for this sensibility in the fact that danger often lurks in 
 surrounding objects which may be detected by their move- 
 ments. Transformations of some form are going on continually 
 in the living world, in the dead world and in all the doings of 
 man or animal. If we build a house or a machine or anything, 
 using the most lasting material, it immediately begins to grow 
 old and time is sure to complete its disintegration. The very 
 substance of all things seems to strive to assume the form of 
 soil and then spring into vegetable or animal life. 
 
 All our ideas of action, force or energy, are inseperable 
 from the idea of change, A complete state of no change is sim- 
 ply a state of do-nothing, and the most unlearned of people do 
 not fail to see this. As a general thing the more rapib the cha- 
 
-83- 
 nge or the greater the contrast between action and inaction, 
 the more vivid will be the mental effect. A life without action 
 would be a life of nothing doing, if life at all. 
 
 All transformations involve time, that is, they take place 
 in a seriel order, one form succeeding another and so on through 
 all changes. This series is divided into two principle streams 
 as it appears to the individual. (1), the series of effects in 
 the mind, and (2), the series of changes among things out 
 of mind. The mental series is a conscious representation of an 
 assumed or supposed outside physical series. This is the com- 
 mon idea again, which has grown up in the minds of all men 
 as a direct result of experience in this world of matter. It has 
 been called vulgar by the much learned philosopher and the 
 biblical maniac whose imagination gets ahead of his common 
 sense; but his fanatical flights have never shown him a better. 
 
 When we speak of transformations among things we are 
 simply talking adout the motion of matter. Things do change, 
 in shape and relations, and to permit this, matter must move. 
 Even the internal changes which give rise to color, taste, smell, 
 to all chemical changes, to heat, cold and the like, must be 
 due to motion; as fully explained later. But here is a question, 
 and a hard one too. What is the cause of motion, or what is it 
 that keeps up these unceasing movements in matter? If we look 
 carefully at the things we see them plain enough and just as 
 plainly we see their motion, and this is all we see. The moon 
 has been swinging around the earth with a steady pace for 
 ages past and yet no signs of slowing up, and surely it is not 
 being pushed from behind. Whatever it is that keeps it going 
 must be inside of it. The common sense man cannot see it any 
 other way because for him, there is nothing outside of matter 
 but empty space. A great deal has been written about force 
 or energy as being the power behind all physical activities; 
 but evidently this power must act upon or through matter and 
 motion, and no one has ever explained how it does so or even 
 how it can be independent of mattnr. The idea of a force, or 
 anything else, outside of matter, is revolting. We of the com- 
 mon brood seem to understand at once and without a hitch that 
 mattsr, as a space occupying moving substance, divisable into 
 parts etc, is all that the conditions under which thought and 
 things are possible, could require. But all this perfect harmony, 
 perfect as far as it goes, lacks something to make it complete; 
 and it must remain so until we find something in matter which 
 is not motion, yet which is necessary to keep motion in the 
 state of continuity so that changes among things may be un- 
 interrupted. Now we are facing the great question of 'what is 
 physical energy?' Modern science has given this questiou much 
 attention and it is not yet settled. That there is something in 
 
—84- 
 matter, which, on further investigation, may prove to be the 
 real and sufficient conserver of all physical activities, will ap- 
 pear in § 15 and § 16. 
 
 The fourth and last of the natural divisions in the primary 
 qualities of matter is uniformity. While observing the external 
 world through the physical organs of sense we notice that the 
 different effects in mind are limited to a number of regularly 
 recurring series, which indicate a corresponding routine in the 
 several lines of transformation going on in the external world. 
 This is called the Uniformity of Nature, Year after year the 
 seasons follow in the well known and never failing order. The 
 movements of the earth and the planets has been found to be 
 so uniform that when the periodic time of revolution of any of 
 these bodies has been once determined, the results can be de- 
 pended upon for all subsequent observations, if it has not been 
 interfered with by some external cause. In the sphere of me- 
 chanics this uniformity is conspicuous, and that it is limited is 
 equally apparent. A clock can be made to keep perfect time 
 with the movements of the earth, something impossible if the 
 earth's motion was not uniform. We might mention many ex- 
 amples of the truth of this law, and all of which are in perfect 
 harmony with the idea of moving matter in space otherwise 
 empty, and all of which flatly contradict the theory of an ex- 
 ternal force acting upon matter while all of which plainly indi- 
 cate the presence in matter of something which will enable us 
 to account for all that our sense experience can show us. There 
 is no place or use, in this philosophy, for an external force; 
 and the same may be said of an external God. 
 
 We notice two general departments in the uniformities of 
 nature, (1), that of the external world, which includes every- 
 thing outside of mind, and (2), that of the mental world, which 
 includes everything in mind. Examples of the first named are 
 given above; examples of the second are found by the thous- 
 ands in everybodys mind, also in the animal and vegetable di- 
 visions of living things. Both of these divisions are external to 
 the conscious center of each person and the one I have called 
 The Physical Universe, and the other The Mental Universe. So 
 far as known to me philosophers heretofore have not recog- 
 nized this division of all things into those of mind on the one 
 side and those of matter and motion on the other. But from 
 the point of view of this general theory, this division appears 
 to me to be perfectly natural and necessary. Every thing on 
 the physical side readily appears to come under well known 
 mechanical laws, described in coming chapters, while every- 
 thing on the mental side (vegetable, animal or man,) comes 
 with equal readiness, under some intelligent power, which ap- 
 pears to aim to guide them through a series of changes in wh- 
 
—85- 
 ich there is a conspicuous course of development continuing 
 through the life of both the individual and the species. 
 
 Philosophers have confused the physical and the mental 
 sides of the Universe in a way which would make the above 
 described division impossible. Not only mind but all the differ- 
 ent forms of matter and motion, in short all things, are regar- 
 ded as so many manifestations of the one universal force, wh- 
 ich is the "unknown cause of the known effects, which we call 
 phenomena." An easy way of disposing of a great mystery, but 
 not satisfying to those who want to know the whole truth. Un- 
 der this restriction the theory of Evolution has been admitted 
 as a general truth which would apply to both sidea of the Uni- 
 verse; that is, the evolution of a solar system or a planet, is 
 conducted by the same law which governs the evolution of a 
 living organism. While it must be admitted that in all this we 
 have the clearest evidence of the reign of law, we must not 
 overlook the plain probability that this law is not the same for 
 both the physical and the mental universe. It will be a part of 
 the object of this work to make it plain that the formation of 
 a planetary system or a planet, or any physical thing, is strict- 
 ly a physical or a mechanical process throughout; and that the 
 true sphere of evolution belongs to the mental side of the Uni- 
 verse: as will be fully explained in book 2. 
 
 In the midst of this uniformity in the mental world there 
 is everywhere noticed a certain amount of variation or depar- 
 ture from a strictly uniform course. All plants and animals in- 
 cluding man, vary more or less in form of body and in mental 
 peculiarities, during succeeding generations. There is a some- 
 what similar variation on the physical side. Days and years 
 in their succession are not exact duplicates of preceeding days 
 and years. But the variations on the physical side are not gov- 
 erned by the same laws as are those on the mental side. Phys- 
 ical variations, within certain limits, are perfectly uniform, but 
 mental variation have a much wider range, and on this differ- 
 ence, and on the innate freedom of mind to control the motion 
 of matter, rests the principle of Mental Evolution, (book 2.) 
 
 So far it seems perfectly clear that all our ideas of differ- 
 ence, similarity, transformation and uniformity in nature, are 
 in exact harmony with our idea of the one matter as the sub- 
 stance of all things, and of the one motion as the necessary 
 means to the changes among things, and of the one mind as 
 necessary to the contemplation of this perfection. Perfect as 
 far as it goes but not yet complete. 
 
 15. Inertia -Consciousness.— If we suspend by a cord a 
 mass of stone, metal, wood, flesh or any form of matter, and 
 give it a push, it will manifest a certain reaction or resistance 
 
-86- 
 to motion, which is always in exact proportion to the quantity 
 of matter in the mass. When in motion it will swing to and fro, 
 with a certain persistency of motion or indifference to change, 
 which is always in strict proportion to the quantity of matter 
 in the mass. This is rigidly true of all matter so far as human 
 sensibility has been able to observe it, and it has been rightly 
 called INERTIA. In the text books on physics inertia is defined 
 as a property or a law of all matter, which makes it impossible 
 for a body to put itself in motion when at rest, or stop its mo- 
 tion when in motion. When a body is at rest or in motion, and 
 no matter how slow or fast it moves, there is always noticed 
 this total inability to change of state. Careful observation al- 
 ways seems to justify the belief that when motion is imparted 
 to a body it retains the motion until it is transferred to other 
 matter by its direct contact with other bodies, and that a body 
 in motion if launched in space otherwise empty, would continue 
 to move forever in a straight line with the same motion. Great 
 consequences seem to follow inductively from this simple ob- 
 servation. We are lead by it straight to the idea that the total 
 quantity of motion in the universe, like the total quantity of 
 matter, remains constant and that motion like matter is inde- 
 structable. 
 
 Careful observation will also justify the inference that mat- 
 ter and motion, and all their possible states and forms, indeed 
 all distinctions within them, with but one exception, are known 
 in the purely objective sense; that is, as revealed in their true 
 relations to space, But inertia being the inherent of all matter 
 in all its forms, and manifesting itself not directly to the eye 
 as a form of matter or a form of motion, but indirectly through 
 its effects on matter and motion, and being in itself unchangea- 
 ble, (with perhaps one exception to appear later) it cannot be 
 regarded as a form of anything, hence cannot be known in the 
 objective sense, or as a primary quality of matter. Not being 
 known as an object, it seems necessary to class inertia as a sub- 
 jective property of matter like mind. 
 
 This is undoubtedly the proper place for inertia in the uni- 
 versal system of things which comes under the general law. 
 Mind or matter, as we shall see, is a two-sided entity or thing, 
 having a negative, static, inactive or unconscious side and a pos- 
 itive, dynamic, active or conscious side; and inertia is its nega- 
 tive side, while consciousness is its positive side. To place the 
 inertia of matter, which to all appearance is the perfect incar- 
 nation of deadness, on the mental side of the universe, will no 
 doubt seem wrong to many persons; but a seeming paradox, 
 if carefully looked into may disclose a necessary truth, In or- 
 der to work out a complete system as required by the laws an- 
 nounced in Chapter 2, it has been found necessary to regard 
 
-87 — 
 both inertia and consciousness or mind, as subjective proper- 
 ties of the one substance matter; and which properties are con- 
 vertable into each other. By convertable, I mean that matter 
 may loose its inertia when it becomes conscious, and that the 
 two are interchangeable. This seems necessary in order to ad- 
 mit the power of mind to control the direction of the motion 
 of its own matter. Thus when matter is conscious, it may con- 
 trol its own motion, and is therefore indipendent of the laws 
 of motion which we derive from the inertia of matter. (§16) 
 This is a theoretical necessity which will receive careful atten- 
 tion in book 2. 
 
 This static and dynamic side of matter corresponds exactly 
 with the physical and the mental sides of the universe. It will 
 enable us to see the great system of things in its details with 
 more harmony than any other view that seems possible. There 
 is nothing known in human experience more opposite, or more 
 unlike the active willful state of mind which we call being cons- 
 cious and fully alive to the situation, than this peculiarity of 
 matter which we call inertia. The best examples of action are 
 shown in those mental states in which we are conscious of an 
 aggressive effort in the direction of some object. Those great 
 catastrophies due to the motion and collision of great masses of 
 inert matter, are not a comparison, because they are totally 
 devoid of intellect. On the one side is an active determined or 
 resolute mind, swayed by the will of passion or by the higher 
 faculties of emotion or reason; and on the other is unconscious 
 inertia, entire inability and indifference to change. From the 
 one to the other there is a gradual transition from the most 
 powerful will through mental passivity to complete unconscious 
 inertness. Inertia and consciousness are therefore not the same 
 thing, no more than space and matter or rest and motion are 
 the same things. But it is none the less true that inertia and 
 consciousness, like space and matter or rest and motion, are 
 necessary to each other and could not be known if not so rela- 
 ted. So it appears that the principle feature of the active mind 
 is that which marks it off most completely from the inertia of 
 matter, and which is its necessary opposite. To be the opposite 
 of inertia mind must exhibit something of the nature of choice 
 or purpose, which looks to the desires of life; which desires 
 certainly do not run parallel and in harmony with physical laws. 
 The purpose of mind or life is plainly shown in all the states of 
 consciousness, and like every striking fact of the universe it 
 must be two-sided, positive and negative, to give it direction 
 as in purpose. It can be seen at once that all this is just what 
 would be required by the universal law of relations. To have 
 being, the conscious mind must act in the presence of something 
 opposite and different, and the greater the difference or contrast 
 
— 88 — 
 the greater the reality. Inert matter is dead, or as much so as 
 it is possible for matter to be dead. Conscious matter is alive, 
 and that which is alive can be so only in the contrast of the two. 
 The living world and the dead world are thus indispensable to 
 each other and the two must always be together It is not here 
 assumed that matter is dead in the full meaning of the word. 
 Matter must always contain sensability or life potential. 
 
 In §14 we drew the line between the physical and tbe men- 
 tal sides of the universe. It will now be seen that this theory of 
 the relations of inertia and consciousness is in perfect harmony 
 with that division of things. The line must be drawn within 
 matter, which contains all things both physical and mental. The 
 object of this general theory is to establish the truth that all 
 things at all times are under the dominion of laws of matter or 
 mind. In this connection it seems proper to use either of the 
 words matter or mind with the same meaning. Matter is the 
 universal substance of the universal mind; or mind is the think- 
 ing power of matter. The laws of matter and mind lie at the 
 bottom of the two sides of the universe, the physical and the 
 mental. On the physical side we have Inertia as the first prin- 
 ciple, and on the mental side we have Consciousness as a first 
 principle. From this on to the end of this book we will confine 
 our attention to the physical side, reserving the mental side for 
 the next book, "The Mental Universe." 
 
 16. Physical Energy.— When we look about us with un- 
 aided sight, or when we penetrate the depths of surrounding 
 space with our best telescopes, we see great numbers of bodies 
 of matter in a state of unceasing motion. All human experience 
 teaches and no philosopher has ever disputed the truth that all 
 sensible matter is in constant motion. In §14 it was mentioned 
 that we have convincing evidence of the existence of some- 
 thing in matter which keeps all things moving. What it can be, 
 science does not profess to know, but its presence everywhere 
 is admitted by all, and it has been dignified by the name energy 
 or force. As mentioned before, we see nothing in it or in the 
 changes going on among things but the motion of matter, and 
 since we cannot think of anything outside of matter at all, nor 
 anything in matter that could play the part of a force, unless 
 it be inertia or a conscious mind, it seems to follow as a clear 
 case of necessity, that we must look for our theory of energy 
 in these universal properties of matter which we call inertia 
 and consciousness. It is now taught in all our schools that iner- 
 tia is a property or a law of all matter, as described in the pre- 
 ceding section. Even the philosophers have admitted it as the 
 law on which the calculations of physical astronomy are wholly 
 based. We may then offer the following as a legitimate infer. 
 
-89 — 
 ence from the inertia of matter and from universal relativity. 
 
 Premise. — The only space occupant is matter; all physical 
 activities are movements of matter and all motion persists be- 
 cause matter is inert. 
 
 Conclusion. — Physical energy is nothing but the ordinary 
 motion of ordinary inert matter, and the law of its conservation 
 is the law of inertia. 
 
 As will appear later we cannot place the conscious mind 
 entirely under physical law. The physical world is a necessary 
 servant, not a master. 
 
 The earth (for an example of physical energy, if there is 
 such a thing?) is a great mass of inert matter which has been 
 moving for millions of years past, at a perfectly uniform rate, 
 and the one thing which has made it retain its motion is its in- 
 ertia. If we ask, how did the earth get its motion? the answer 
 is, from other matter in motion, and so on through all the past 
 matter has been transferring motion from body to body, by con- 
 tact, the total quantity remaining the same. This is a necessary 
 inference from the above named laws, but so far it is only a 
 general proposition which requires to be verified by some at- 
 tempt to harmonize the facts and explain the mysteries under 
 it. We must try to find whether all forms of energy are really 
 nothing but forms of motion, with inertia as their conserving 
 law, and this is our object in the following pages. 
 
 From relativity and inertia it follows that if all matter was 
 entirely without motion, the universe would be in a state of ab- 
 solute rest, and this would be a dead universe sure. If all mat- 
 ter had the same quantity and direction of motion, the universe 
 would be in a state of absolute motion, and so far as life is con- 
 cerned we would be no better off than before. This last named 
 would also be a state of relative rest. In either of these states 
 all matter might exist as a single solid mass, or it might be di- 
 vided into parts, and if so divided, these parts might or might 
 not duplicate all the existing forms of matter. But in all these 
 states this would be a dead universe, in fact it is quite easy to 
 think of many different material states, unlike the present, but 
 in which matter might possess its present sensability, and even 
 in which some form of spirit life might exist, but in which the 
 present life as we know it on this planet, would be impossible. 
 
 But if all or any large part of the universe was divided in- 
 to parts as at present, and if among these parts there was rela- 
 tive motion or difference of motion, just as we find it at pres- 
 ent, then the universe or some part of it, would be in that state 
 of relativity, directly from which comes all things, all changes, 
 and all the possibilities of life as we know it at present. It is 
 only relative motion and relative rest in the presence of such 
 motion that mind can perceive directly. But mind may know 
 
—90- 
 absolute rest, absolute motion or in fact any possible state of 
 matter, as a legitimate inference from its knowledge of rela- 
 tive motion, or rather from the effects in mind due to such mo- 
 tion. In all conceivable states of matter there is really but one 
 in which the existence of mind as we know it in physical life, 
 is possible; and this is in the relative motion of the different 
 material forms which constitute the surrounding world. If we 
 were looking for evidence in support of a theory of Design in 
 Nature, we could certainly find it here. 
 
 A true conception of motion under relativity, must include 
 our ideas of space, matter and rest; space as the object in con- 
 trast with which matter is known and through which it is sup- 
 posed to move; matter as the space occupant which moves, and 
 rest as the state opposite to motion. It has been said that there 
 is no such state as complete rest; that all matter must be in 
 constant motion. But relativity requires the possibility of a 
 state of absolute rest as the necessary correlative to motion. 
 The possibility of a state of rest admits the possibility of a 
 body having more or less motion and hence difference in motion. 
 Every possible difference in motion may be regarded as a form 
 of motion. Forms of motion are reducable to three classes; (1), 
 the movements of sensable bodies— ordinary motion; (2), wave 
 motion as in sound, heat, light, electricity etc, — insensable as 
 motion; (3), molecular motion as in heat, light, sound, electric- 
 ity, chemical changes, physical and vital etc, — insensable as 
 motion. These classes are not separated by arbitrary lines, and 
 those of insensable motion are purely theoretical. Forms of 
 motion are determined to a great extent by the forms of mat- 
 ter. Thus ordinary motion is known as it appears in bodies of 
 sensable magnitude; wave motion occurs mostly in liquids and 
 gases; molecular motion belongs to the molecules and atoms of 
 ponderable matter while the motion of electricity is confined 
 mostly to the imponderable ether. Solar light and heat in its 
 transit outward from the sun and stars, is also for the most 
 part confined to the ether. Like forms of matter, all forms of 
 motion are changable into each other. As bodies differ in mass 
 or in the quantity of matter they contain, so the quantity of 
 their motion or energy, and consequently the effect of their 
 collisions with one another must differ. This is called the mo- 
 mentum, or the power of matter to persist in its motion. It is 
 a somewhat different name for the inertia of matter. The mo- 
 mentum of a body is its quantity of motion; its striking force; 
 and so the energy of a given mass of matter is more or less as 
 the quantity of its motion is more or less. This important fact 
 is a necessary consequence of the inertia of matter and it af- 
 fords a mathematical expression of the truth that motion or 
 physical energy is an indestructable something which is quan- 
 
-91 — 
 titatively measureable. To find the energy of a moving body, 
 multiply its velocity in feet per second, (quantity of motion) by 
 its weight or quantity of matter. Since this law is strictly true 
 of all bodies of sensable mass, it should be equally true of not 
 only the molecules which compose such bodies, but also of the 
 units or particles of the ether. This is an inference indispensa- 
 ble to our philosophy From the inertia of matter and from the 
 relative motion and contact of its bodies or ultimate unit, we 
 derive a fundamental law of physical energy or motion, which 
 is set forth in the three following passages. 
 
 1. Every definite body of matter, when in a state of absolute 
 rest, will remain so, with inertia proportional to its quantity of 
 matter, until moved by the contrct of other matter in relative 
 motion. When in motion, it will move in a straight line, with 
 uniform velocity, and with energy or striking force proportion- 
 al to its quantity of matter and velocity, until resisted, changed 
 in its course or stopped, by its contact with other matter, to 
 which its motion is relative. 
 
 2. Physical action or energy manifests itself only through 
 the contact of bodies or particles of matter. Every action pro- 
 duces a change of relations, every action has its equivalent re- 
 action in an opposite direction, and in every action motion or 
 energy is transferred from body to body. 
 
 3. In every action or transfer of motion, the same quantity 
 of motion lost by the loosing body will be gained by the receiv- 
 ing body; so that energy or motion though always changing in 
 form, in direction, diffusing or accumulating, can never change 
 in kind or quantity. 
 
 The first section of the above described law specifies that 
 every change or transfer of motion in matter must occur thru 
 the contact of two or more of its bodies or ultimate units, at 
 least one of which must have relative motion; and all may 
 have such motion or a part may have either absolute or rela- 
 tive rest. It also affords a full and clear definition of the iner- 
 tia of matter. The second section aims to more specifically set 
 forth the nature of physical change or energy, and the third 
 distinctly affirms the indestructability of motion or physical 
 energy. It will be seen that this law is a clear deduction from 
 the laws of relativity and inertia; and that there is nothing in 
 physical energy but the motion of inert matter. It might be 
 called the law of inertia, the law of the conservation of motion 
 or physical activity, or its separate sections may be regarded 
 as specifying separate laws of material activity. Fundamentally 
 it is the one truth which underlies and governs the physical side 
 of the universe. 
 
 But here is an important consideration. From this law and 
 from the inference that matter cannot be created or destroyed 
 
—92- 
 it follows that the universe has always been in motion, at least 
 somewhere and that motion like matter is indestructable. If all 
 things must exist in matter, and if matter has no power in its- 
 elf to create or destroy its own motion; always transferring it 
 by contact from body to body, without decreasing the total quan- 
 tity, then the universe always was, and always must remain, 
 just as we find it at present, in motion. On the other hand, if 
 all matter was in a state of absolute rest, or almost any state 
 but the present, no power would exist to give it motion or cre- 
 ate the serial order of changes necessary to consciousness in 
 physical life. This conclusion inevitabley follows from the above 
 described law, and we are at once led to the question, is iner- 
 tia the governing law of the whole, which determines the fate 
 of all things both physical and mental? As already mentioned, 
 inertia and consciousness are both properties of the one sub- 
 stance which we call matter or mind; that they are convertable 
 into each other, or rather the one disappearing when the other 
 appears, and hence that when matter is conscious it is not in- 
 ert, and so may control its own motion thus being able to act 
 for self as in ordinary conduct, and thus to some extent being 
 independent of the law of inertia. If this power belongs to the 
 life of a planet it may also belong to a Supreme Spirit, and so 
 there would be a power above and superior to the inertia of 
 matter and which at times may interfeie with it so far as to 
 control the direction of motion just as we do within our own 
 bodies every day we live. It is not here assumed that this pow- 
 er is almighty or independent of matter or that it can exist out 
 side of matter. Neither does it create matter or motion or any- 
 thing but forms of matter, forms of motion and forms of mind. 
 We can learn all about it by the proper study of our own minus 
 and this part of our subject will be attended to in the next book. 
 
 17. What Science has done for this Philosophy.— Our 
 theory so far developed, plainly indicates that physical energy 
 is nothing but the motion of inert matter, and that the law of 
 its conservation is the law of inertia. It will now interest us to 
 know what science thus far has done to uphold or refute this 
 theory. It is not known to me that any one heretofore has at- 
 tempted to work out the theory that the motion of inert matter 
 is all there is in physical energy. But it certainly seems plain 
 that the progress of modern physical science has been steadily 
 in the direction which tends to confirm this theory as a truth. 
 The theory of the "Conservation and Correlation of Forces" 
 as now worked out by Grove, Helmholtz, Mayer, Faraday, Car- 
 penter, Lebig, Joule, Thompson, Tyndall, Youmans and others, 
 has been generally accepted by scientists as an universal truth; 
 though its application in several places is not yet in sight. A 
 
— 93 — 
 brief account of this law is given below. 
 
 At the present time it is claimed that there is but one kind 
 of energy in the universe, and that like matter, this one univer- 
 sal energy is indestructible. To our organs of sense this energy 
 appears in a number of forms which we call sound, heat, light, 
 electricity, magnetism, chemical action, sensible motion, etc; and 
 it is claimed that mental or vital phenomena should be included 
 in the same class. These forms of energy are believed to be in- 
 terchangeable: any one form may change into any other form. 
 They are also supposed to bear a constant relation of quantity: 
 any one form can give rise only to its equivalent of some other 
 form, and so on without end, the total quantity in the universe 
 remaining constant. A great deal of experimental evidence has 
 been offered to justify this conclusion. Both the interchangea- 
 bility and the quantitative relationship of these forms of energy 
 are now regarded by many able scientists as established truths. 
 These results may be found in numerous books on this subject 
 and need not be described here. So far as this line of research 
 has been pursued all its results appear tome to justify the theo- 
 ry here advanced. In fact, it is already believed by the majority 
 of scientific men that sound, heat and light, are nothing but 
 forms of motion; and of late years the belief is rapidly spread- 
 ing that electricity and magnetism will soon fall into line with 
 the others as forms of motion in the ether. 
 
 A few examples of the transformation and persistence of 
 the forms of energy may be mentioned here. In the case of a 
 sensible body falling from a high place, it is supposed that the 
 force of gravity is changed into sensible falling motion. But as 
 to the nature of the force of gravity in itself, or the manner of 
 its change into falling motion, science does not claim to know. 
 Newton, about 200 years ago, discovered the law of gravity, or 
 more correctly the law of its variations, but confessed himself 
 unable to divine its cause. To the present day it seems that no 
 advance has been made toward a solution of this mystery. Men 
 of reputation do not profess to know what force is or what the 
 nature of its transformations. When the falling body strikes a 
 solid surface its falling motion is supposed to change into sound 
 and heat, and in some cases electricity is produced. The sound 
 thus generated is diffused in surrounding matter and is soon 
 lost to all human tests, but not to the universe, for it is sup- 
 posed to change into other insensible forms. As will appear in 
 the next chapter it contributes to the general expansive force 
 of the medium. If the heat produced by the falling body is in- 
 tense enough, a portion of it becomes light, which is diffused 
 in the same way that sound is. If the electric current gener- 
 ated in this way, or in any other way, is conducted thru a wire 
 which is coiled around a bar of soft iron, the iron will man- 
 
— 94 — 
 ifest the magnetic force. Heat, light, electricity or magnetism 
 may either of them give rise to chemical action, that is, change 
 into it, and chemical action may turn itself into any of the oth- 
 er forms of energy. 
 
 Now it may be seen that all this (here only briefly men- 
 tioned) is in complete harmony with our theory of inert matter 
 in motion. It is also clear that the transformation of physical 
 energy is nothing but the transfer of motion from one form of 
 matter to another, exactly as required by the laws of the com- 
 munication of motion, which we derive from the inertia of mat- 
 ter. For example, when the falling body strikes a solid surface 
 its falling motion is arrested and a part of it is changed into 
 sound by the shock of impact; which sound is wave motion in 
 the atmosphere. Another part may become heat, which is sup- 
 posed to be a vibratory or shaking motion of the invisible mo- 
 lecules of the falling body and of the surface on which it strik- 
 es. All these changes and the equivalent relations among them 
 have been proved by a great deal of experimental research, and 
 today it would be difficult to find a well informed person who 
 is not willing to admit that sound, heat, light and even electric- 
 ity, magnetism and chemical action, may be nothing but forms 
 of motion in the ultimate particles of matter. But the majority 
 of the people who are occupied with business or pleasure, or 
 getting to heaven, do not seem to be aware of this wonderful 
 progress of modern science. They ride to business or to church 
 on the street car, and they feel the motion of their bodies as 
 they glide along, and perhaps some of them feel like resenting 
 the noise, but few of them ever think of the fact that their 
 motion is transformed electricity, which itself is motion coming 
 direct from the dynamo through the wire, and that the dynamo 
 is moved by the engine, which in turn gets its motion in the 
 form of heat from the steam, which steam gets it from the 
 chemical combustion of the coal, which coal has received it long 
 ago as transformed light and heat from the sun, stored in the 
 tissues of plants by the agency of living matter. All these con- 
 trivances or agents are simple means of changing the form of 
 physically guided motion from one to another, until we feel it 
 while we ride and think of the good things of earth and heaven 
 without a thought of how we get them. 
 
 All the activities of living matter as they appear in the 
 phenomena of life, are directly dependant upon the forms of 
 motion above mentioned. Life on this planet would be impos- 
 sible without heat and light, and electricity and chemical mo- 
 tion are also necessary to it, though less conspicuous. At first 
 it was generally believed that all the manifestations of life are 
 forms of the one universal force, like sound, heat or light, etc. 
 Mr Spencer up to 1903, in his 'First Principles' advocates this 
 
—95— 
 view. He says on page 211. "Even after all that has been said 
 in the foregoing part of this work, many will be alarmed by 
 the assertion that the forces which we distinguish as mental, 
 come within the same generalization. Yet there is no alterna- 
 tive but to make this assertion; the facts which justify, or ra- 
 ther which necessitate it, being abundant and conspicuous". 
 On page 217 he says. "How a force existing as motion, heat or 
 light, can become a mode of consciousness, these are mysteries 
 which it is impossible to fathom." In the sixth edition of his 
 work 1902, it seems that Mr Spencer has retracted somewhat 
 from the above, as appears in the following. "But now, rever- 
 ting to the caution which preceeded these two paragraphs, we 
 have to note, first, that the facts do not prove transformation 
 of feeling into motion but only a certain constant ratio between 
 feeling and motion; and what seems a direct quantitative cor- 
 relation is illusory." 
 
 The idea that mind and motion are forms of the same uni- 
 versal force did not advance as rapidly as the idea that sound, 
 heat and light are forms of motion, and very likely the reason 
 is, that it is contrary to common sense. Experimental research 
 so far has done nothing to justify this idea while all of its re- 
 sults have helped to confirm the theory that all truly physical 
 manifestations are movements of inert matter, which must be 
 united by a general law. The line which we have drawn betw- 
 een the physical and the mental sides of the universe is there- 
 fore sustained by scientific research in a way which cannot be 
 overlooked by the philosopher. 
 
 But scientific research has clarly shown that mental things 
 are all directly dependent on the motion of matter; in particu- 
 lar those forms of it which are confined to the ether and to the 
 molecules. A motionless universe would be unproductive of phy- 
 sical life. It therefore seems scientifically certain that all that 
 science has done so far, is in support of the theory here advan- 
 ced, viz. that physical energy or force is nothing but the motion 
 of inert matter, and that the laws of its transformation and 
 conservation, are those described in §16. 
 
 For these and other reasons to appear later it seems that 
 we must look to mind for the real energy of the universe. 
 
 18. Comments and Conclusion.— We can now ask: What 
 are the next steps necessary to reach the goal of philosophy? 
 If science and common sense can make an indisputable stand 
 for the truth of the theory that all physical activities are move- 
 ments of inert mattar, governed as described, then evidently 
 we have only to push forward with a careful review of all the 
 facts as given in modern text books on physical science, to see 
 if certain well known mysteries can be explained and brought 
 
—96 — 
 into harmony with the facts of science and under the described 
 physical laws. (§16). All the mysteries of the physical universe 
 known to me are found in the three divisions of physical science 
 called Astronomy, Physics and Chemistry; and they are careful- 
 ly considered in the four remaining chapters of this book. 
 
 Under the head of Astronomy we have to consider the na- 
 ture the universal substance called Ether; the form and mode 
 of activity of the Atoms and Molecules of sensable bodies; the 
 cause of Gravitation or Gravity; the cause of the Tides, of Sun 
 Spots, and the great mystery of Comets. Under Physics there 
 is the intricate and numerous facts of Electricity and Magne- 
 tism, among which there is a great deal of mystery. Under the 
 head of Chemistry there is a much more complex and mysteri- 
 ous class of facts which involve the most intimate relations of 
 the ultimate units of sensable bodies, with each other and with 
 the ether in which they are always immersed. In the last chap- 
 ter we are to deal with the universe at large and inquire into 
 those far reaching questions of its past, present and future his- 
 tory, with reference to life, here and hereafter. And finally, 
 the greatest of all questions, (is the present form of the phys- 
 ical universe a result of chance, or is it a product of intelligent 
 design?) will be carefully and reverently scrutinized. So there 
 is plenty of hard but highly interesting work before us. 
 
 Now I wish to make an earnest appeal to my reader who 
 has followed me so far, and who has not sold himself to one of 
 those phantasms of idealism, to read the following chapters in 
 view of what has gone before, and then compare it with the 
 views now commonly held by those philosophers and religion- 
 ists who can see nothing in the universe but the one all perva- 
 ding Force, Mind or God, and who make no effort, nor ever 
 seem to think that an effort is possible or necessary, to distin- 
 guish, analyze, and construct the simple things of everyday ex- 
 perience into a most perfect and beautiful whole, which reveals 
 more completely the wisdom of the Supreme, than any inven- 
 tion of the know nothing but force specialist. I would ask him 
 to think of the following manifesto of philosophy, and then se- 
 riously ask himself; is this philosophy? 
 
 "We come down, then, finally to Force, as the ultimate of 
 ultimates. Though Time, Space, Matter and Motion are appar- 
 ently all necessary data of intelligence, yet a psychological a- 
 nalysis (here indicated only in outline) shows us that these are 
 either built up of, or abstracted from experience of force." 
 
 I cannot find the psychological analysis which would justi- 
 fy this proposition. To come to a final like this is to ignore the 
 most striking contrast in human experience; namely that which 
 always happens in the direct contact of a mass of living, sensa- 
 tive, conscious matter, with a mass of inert and lifeless matter. 
 
—97 — 
 That modern philosophy has been lending a helping hand to the 
 new forme of idealism is very evident. The new Christian ideal- 
 ism, miscalled a Science, and which is now making rapid stri- 
 des to conquer the world, claims to be justified by both science 
 and philosophy. A recent defender of this new religion puts the 
 situation in these words. 
 
 "This idealism is by no means out of the line of the tenden- 
 cy and trend of all modern thinking, although in advance of it. 
 No one can have failed to note the increasing emphasis that is 
 today being laid on the powers and possibilities of thought, and 
 in every department of learning the tendency is more and more 
 away from a material to an immaterial basis, away from a phy- 
 sical toward a metaphysical explanation of things. The scien- 
 tific investigator of so called physical phenomena is today tel- 
 ling us that matter is not what it seems to be; that Matter is 
 explained and is explained away. We are told that the real sub- 
 stance of things is not matter but force. What we eall matter 
 is really the manifestation of negative electricity having the 
 properties of so called matter." 
 
 It is not clear to me how a force can have all the proper- 
 ties of inert matter; and this looks like another case of confus- 
 ion of ideas, so common to this class of thinkers. The fact is 
 conspicuous that all these people admit something, which the 
 common sense of mankind calls matter or substance. But thro- 
 ugh either a foolish prejudice against the word matter; or thro- 
 ugh a total inability to systematize their common sense ideas, 
 so as to reveal a proper and necessary place for not only that 
 real space occupying thing which we call matter, but for mo- 
 tion, and mind, and everything else known to common sense; 
 these people fail to see the simple truth. It is in the systemat- 
 ic arrangement of the common things, that we must look for 
 a complete solution of this problem. Let the reader remember 
 this and not only make a note of the clear distinctions which the 
 human mind has already made among the simple things of uni- 
 versal experience, and to which we have given names, but in 
 particular let him notice whether we are able to explain the 
 well known mysteries of mind and matter. The certain test for 
 the truth of any theory is found in its competency to explain 
 the mysteries and harmonize the facts. 
 
 The method of analysis and synthesis described in § 3, has 
 been recognized by all scientists and philosophers so far as kno- 
 wn to me. It applies to any object of scientific inquiry and it 
 first separates the components of such objects, observing care- 
 fully all their inherent qualities, modes of activity and relations 
 to others of their class, etc. Then it puts them together in the 
 combinations which will reveal the harmony and account for 
 the facts which the rational mind of man naturally looks for un- 
 
—98 — 
 der the first principle of logic; 'Consistency or Necessity'. The 
 religious idealist cannot look at the matter in this light perhaps 
 because he has inherited too much of that Hindo Mysticism 
 which seeks God by the emotion of desire and humiliation. His 
 yearnings for the divine essence occupies so much of the precious 
 time which God has given him in which to develop his mind, 
 that he has no time to think of the simple material things which 
 are continually pelting him and crying for his attention. 
 
 This whole problem may be presented in one brief para- 
 graph, and in the simplest language, and it is all in the harmo- 
 nious relations of time, space, matter, motion and mind. The 
 following distinctions are unavoidable to sense experience, and 
 they are at least far more consonant with a scientific classifi- 
 cation of things and their necessary relations, because they 
 plainly show us a disinction of kind between matter, motion, 
 and mind, and that time and space are objectively necessary to 
 this distinction of the three, and hence all their possible forms, 
 relations, changes, and duration; and that time and space are 
 not in themselves, things, as we regard the forms of matter, 
 motion and mind. Notice that I use only the common words of 
 every day experience, with things known to everybody, in the 
 following passage. 
 
 Any definite portion of matter or substance, may exist with- 
 out motion, but motion cannot exist without matter. Matter 
 may have any definite form, without motion or change of form, 
 but motion cannot have form, or even being, without change. 
 Motion may be added to a given quantity of matter, without 
 increasing its quantity, but matter cannot be added to matter, 
 without increasing its quantity. The quantity of matter, which 
 represents a given quantity of motion, may change, without 
 changing the quantity of motion; likewise, the quantity of mo- 
 tion in a given quantity of matter may change, without chan- 
 ging the quantity of matter. But all this would be impossible 
 if matter and motion were only different forms of the same 
 thing. The difference between matter and motion, and their re- 
 lations to each other, is therefore certainly not the same as 
 the difference between forms of matter among themselves and 
 forms of motion among themselves. Now almost exactly the 
 same argument will apply to the difference between matter 
 and mind. Any definite quantity or form of matter may exist 
 without conscious mind, but the conscious mind cannot exist 
 without matter. Matter may have any definite form, or many 
 forms, of motion or mind, but no form of mind can exist with- 
 out matter, nor can it be conscious without the motion of mat- 
 ter. Conscious mind (or forms of mind which may be conscious 
 or unconscious) may be added to a given quantity of matter 
 without increasing its quantity, but matter cannot be so added 
 
— 99- 
 without increasing the quantity of matter. The quantity of mat- 
 ter or motion in which a definite mental organism is contained, 
 may be increased or reduced without increasing or reducing the 
 mental organism; and on the other hand, the mental organism 
 may be enlarged or reduced within certain limits without in- 
 creasing or reducing the quantity of matter or motion. But all 
 this would be impossible if matter, motion and mind were only 
 different forms of the same thing. This difference in matter, 
 motion and mind, not being a difference of form, we must re- 
 gard as a difference of kind; and to say that these three kinds 
 of being are not changeable into each other, is to say that they 
 are unchangeable; eternal in themselves, for there are no other 
 kinds of being as shown in the following final analysis: 
 
 The change of matter, motion or mind, into time or space, 
 is, of course, unthinkable. The one alternative for us, is simply 
 this: We must find all things, in the one thing Matter, or we 
 must give up the search. From our definition of things (§1), it 
 follows that, to define anything, is to distinguish and describe 
 all its differences and relations. When we have done this, we 
 then know what that thing is in the most ultimate sense of the 
 word knowledge. All differences in matter (things) admit of a 
 primary classification as follows: 
 
 A. Difference of Kind: (1) matter itself, (2) the motion of 
 matter, (3) the mind of matter. These three, matter, motion, 
 mind, are indestructible: they cannot be created, destroyed or 
 changed into anything else. 
 
 B. Difference of State: (1) states of rest and states of mo- 
 tion in matter (on the physical side) ; (2) states of unconscious- 
 ness and states of consciousness in mind (on the mental side) . 
 The opposite states of matter are changeable into each other, 
 and so are the opposite states of mind. 
 
 C. Difference of Form: (1) forms of matter and forms of 
 motion on the physical side (all changeable) , (2) forms of mind 
 or mental elements, conscious or unconscious, on the mental side 
 (also changeable). 
 
 All matter is inert when it is not conscious, and when it is 
 conscious it is not inert. Inertia is the prinary law which gov- 
 erns the physical side of the universe. Conscious mind is the 
 only free agent or real energy in the universe, and its freedom 
 or power depends upon this interchangeability of inertia and 
 consciousness. 
 
 These distinctions and classes are the most simple, the most 
 common and the most general that can be thought of, and they 
 are offered here as the A B C of philosophy. The four remain- 
 ing chapters of this book and all of the next book will be occu- 
 pied with a careful explanation and defence of this fundamen- 
 tal division of things. 
 
CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 MYSTERIES OF ASTRONOMY. 
 
 19. Primary Divisions in matter and Motion.— In this 
 chapter we are to apply the physical laws described in the pre- 
 ceeding chapters, to the mysteries of that part of the science 
 of astronomy which concerns oui planet and the solar system. 
 To facilitate the work it will be best to notice certain large di- 
 visions in matter and motion. 
 
 First regarding matter. The substance of the universe may 
 be divided into two large divisions, named as follows; (1), pon- 
 derable matter; (2) imponderable matter. Ponderable matter is 
 all that which has weight, as appears from the force of gravity. 
 In this division are the three subdivisions known as solids, liqu- 
 ids and gases, and which constitute all bodies of sensible mag- 
 nitude. The smallest portions (ultimates) of ponderable matter, 
 according to the atomic theory, are called Atoms. Aggregates 
 of from two to several hundred atoms are called Molecules. The 
 atoms and molecules are too small to be distinguished by the 
 human sense, but their existence is conceeded by the majority 
 of scientific men, on the ground of well supported theory. All 
 the knowledge we possess of them, is, and necessarilly must 
 be, theoretical, for the simple reason that they must exis+ be- 
 yond the reach of sense experience. But this knowledge so far 
 as it goes, appears to be entirely satisfactory. All credible or 
 scientifically acceptable theories of chemistry, require the exis- 
 tence of matter, as the space occupying thing of which the mo- 
 lecules and the atoms are made. The theory of Boscovitch, wh- 
 ich assumes the existence of centers of force without extension 
 or space occupancy, if true, is admitedly a truth which the hu- 
 man mind will never be able to understand; and with such the- 
 ories we have nothing to do. The stars, planets, satelites, com- 
 ets, meteors, nebulae and all sensible bodies, are composed of 
 the insensible molecules, and these again of the atoms, which 
 latter, are the ultimates of ponderable matter. The movements 
 and mysterious relations of all these bodies will be carefully 
 considered as required by physical laws. (§16) 
 
 Imponderable matter is all that which forms the great body 
 of Ether which is supposed to fill all space in the universe not 
 occupied by ponderable matter. The bodies of ponderable mat- 
 ter being constantly in motion in all directions must move throu- 
 gh the ether. Hence the ether must also be composed of units 
 
— 101 — 
 or small individual particles. The wave theories of light and 
 heat are the only theories at present acceptable to science, and 
 the ether is supposed to be the vehicle of this wave motion. 
 Waves of light and heat traverse the star-strewed space in all di- 
 rections and cross each other at all points and in all possible 
 angles; hence the ether must exist and it must consist of units 
 which have individual motion. This much is now admitted as 
 at least scientifically probable. 
 
 Now, the only assumption, made or required in the present 
 theory regarding the ether, is simply this: The ether medium 
 consists of exceedingly small particles of real matter, possessed 
 of inertia, motion and therefore momentum and all the mechan- 
 ical properties of ordinary matter, thus making it a subject of 
 the same mechanical laws. The ultimate particles of the ether 
 must be many times smaller than the smallest atom, and the 
 space between them must be empty in order to permit them to 
 move with perfect freedom. Granting only this, the way is then 
 open to a mechanical explanation of every one of the mysteries 
 of the physical side of the universe. 
 
 These units of the ether are not required to have weight or 
 any mysterious power of attraction or repulsion, for themselves 
 or for other forms of matter. This substance in the present 
 theory, must serve as the mechanical cause of weight or grav- 
 ity, also all the so called forms of attraction and repulsion, as 
 those of electricity, magnetism and chemistry, and it must be- 
 have exactly as required by the physical laws described in §16. 
 
 These two great divisions of all matter, and the proposition 
 that all is governed by the same laws, should be carefully re- 
 membered by the reader as an aid to understanding what fol- 
 lows in coming chapters. 
 
 Next regarding motion: The laws of inertia and relativity 
 require that all motion should be communicated from body to 
 body by contact and in the form of impact or pressure; and all 
 bodies or particles thus moved must obey the strongest impulse 
 and move in the direction of least resistence. The same thing 
 should be true of all discreet portions of matter, from the lar- 
 gest ponderable mass to the smallest particle of the ether, and 
 the bodies must come in actual contact, directly or thru inter- 
 vening bodies, for there is no transfer of motion thru empty 
 space. When the motion of a sensible body is resisted or stopped 
 by its direct contact with other bodies, more or less of its mo- 
 tion will be transferred and so will continue as pure motion, 
 but it may change to other forms, as sound, heat, light, elec- 
 tricity, chemical changes and gravity or falling motion. The 
 pressure of a liquid or a gaseous medium, directly or indirectly, 
 should result from the motion and impact of its smallest units 
 upon each other and upon the surface of larger bodies, and 
 
— 102 — 
 these small masses of matter should obey the same physical 
 laws that govern larger bodies; but being much smaller they 
 should move with far greater velocity. If the pressure of such 
 a medium be equal on all sides of a ponderable body, the body 
 will not receive motion from the medium. If the pressure is 
 greater on one side than the opposite, the body will move in the 
 direction of least pressure. From which it follows that Gravity, 
 or falling motion, the upward motion of bodies in air, water, or 
 in any liquid or gas, a vessal sailing before the wind or any ob- 
 ject moved in the same way, the moving parts of a gas or steam 
 engine, electric and magnetic attraction and repulsion, chem- 
 ical affinity or any motion of mass or particle which arises with- 
 in and by a liquid or a gaseous medium, ponderable or impon- 
 derable, should be a direct result of the impact or pressure of 
 other matter in relative motion. 
 
 These propositions follow directly from the truth that inert 
 matter in motion is the only space occupant on the physical side 
 of the universe. If they are true it must prove with equal cer- 
 tainty, that all the mysteries of the physical universe, along 
 with all the facts known, must, or at least with a high degree 
 of probability may, form one complete system harmonious thru- 
 out; and that we ought to be able to trace it out in all its com- 
 plicated and obscure parts, by following the laws and sugges- 
 tions given above. In the next section we will put this general 
 proposition to a first and severe test by applying it to the mys- 
 tery of Gravitation. 
 
 20. Gravitation. — This is one of the recognized forms of 
 physical energy. It will directly produce motion and this motion 
 may change into sound, heat, light, electricity, magnetism, 
 chemical changes and any form of sensable motion. Under the 
 name gravitation it is supposed to govern the heavenly bodies 
 thruout the universe, while gravity is confined to bodies at the 
 surface of the earth. I will here use the word gravity in both 
 cases. About 230 years ago Sir Isaac Newton discovered the law 
 of the action of gravity; and this law being well known need 
 not occupy our attention at present, since it is the mystery that 
 we are now after. It is now generally known that the one great 
 mystery about gravity is its cause. How does one body act up- 
 on another at a distance, causing the two to come together? 
 How does our sun act upon this earth, or the earth on the sun, 
 thru over 90 millions of interveneing miles, thus keeping the 
 earth continually circling around the sun? If not for this enor- 
 mous power the earth would certainly obey the first law of mo- 
 tion and move off from the sun in a straight line. As required 
 by the law of the "Correlation and Conservation of Forces, " 
 (forms of motion, §16.) how does the other forms of force or 
 
— 103 — 
 motion change into gravity, or how does gravity change into 
 the other forms or give rise to falling motion? This is the mys- 
 tery of gravity, and evidently its solution must have an impor- 
 tent bearing on the law of the Conservation of motion. 
 
 If our general proposition is sound, if the only space occu- 
 pant is matter, if all physical activities are movements of mat- 
 ter and if all physical motion persists because matter is inert, 
 or, in other words, if physical energy is nothing but the mot- 
 ion of inert matter, the law of its conservation being the law 
 of inertia; then gravity or falling motion can be only a form of 
 ordinary motion, due to the transfer of motion to the falling 
 body from some other form of matter. And the explanation of 
 this mystery should simply consist in showing how the transfer 
 may take place. So here goes. 
 
 We begin with the sound proposition already derived from 
 the inertia of matter and from the law of Universal Relativity 
 (§8) that the ether is the universal medium in which all ponder- 
 able matter is immersed, and that it consists of exceedingly 
 small particles of inert matter, densely crowd ed together in the 
 space not occupied by ponderable matter, and which particles 
 have empty space between them and are not so close together 
 but that they have plenty of room for free motion through dis- 
 tances perhaps many times their own diameters. This substance 
 must be the medium of radiant motion which is emitted from 
 the stars, the sun and all ponderable bodies, and the motion 
 from which proceeds outwards in all directions, crossing at all 
 points and in all degrees of intencity. Besides this wave motion 
 there is necessarilly an individual motion of the particles them- 
 selves, upon which the general tension or expansive force and 
 pressure of the medium depends. Moving in space otherwise 
 empty and not encountering anything but neighboring particles, 
 the units of the ether must describe straight lines with uniform 
 velocity, until they strike each other or ponderable atoms. Fol- 
 lowing each collision is a change of direction and each particle 
 being perfectly solid, no motion can be absorbed. This form of 
 the ether unit precludes the possibility of these particles per- 
 forming any action but that which may result from their motion 
 and collisions, and this action can be nothing but a mechanical 
 result of the motion of inert matter. This is a point which 
 should be remembered. Now as mechanical results of the mo- 
 tion and collision of the inert particles of such a medium, we 
 have the following in the order stated. 
 
 (1). The diffusion of motion from ponderable bodies out- 
 wards thru the medium in all directions. (2) , The expansion of 
 the medium, due to the diffusion of motion. (3). Enormous 
 pressure of the medium in all directions from all points within 
 its limits, as a result of its expansion. (4). To prevent the dif- 
 
— 104 — 
 fusion and separation of these units into a boundless space, this 
 great body of ether must be confined to a limited space which 
 is enclosed on all sides by matter whieh is incapable of receiv- 
 ing its motion and therefore capable of resisting its outward 
 pressure. As the universe itself must be limited according to 
 relativity, (§8) so the ether must be limited according to the 
 laws of motion. (§16). In chaqter 7, this theory of a limited uni- 
 verse will be carefully examined and completely justified. 
 
 Within this limited material enclosure the ether medium 
 should exist in a high state of tension, proportional to its un- 
 changing quantity of motion, and should therefore exert great 
 pressure in all directions from any point within its limits. In 
 this medium the ponderable bodies are always immersed and 
 the medium must exert pressure on all sides of these bodies. If 
 all sensable bodies and larger, were solid thruout, they would 
 be destitute of internal relative motion and so would impart 
 very little or no motion to the ether. But if such bodies were 
 composed of atoms and molecules in constant motion with veloc- 
 ities proportional to their mass, (as required by the laws of mo- 
 tion) they would then impart motion to the ether. Two forms 
 of this motion may be inferred from physical laws; (1), a wave 
 motion through the ether, as in light, heat or electricity, and 
 (2), a confused motion of the particles as in ordinary heat and 
 electricity. (§28), It is now an established fact of science, that 
 all forms of wave motion, diminish in intensity when the distan- 
 ce thru which it travels is increased at the following rate. If 
 the intensity of light, for example, falling on a given surface at 
 the distance of one foot, one mile or one million miles, is called 
 one, its intensity at double that distance would be one fourth; 
 at three times that distance one ninth; and so on. Or in other 
 words, if the quantity of motion in a cubic mile of ether at one 
 million miles from the sun is expressed by the number four, the 
 quantity at double that distance would be one. This rate of de- 
 crease follows from the fact that motion radiated from a center 
 outward in all directions, must diffuse itself thru four times the 
 space after doubling its distance, and so being communicated 
 to four times the quantity of matter, (or at least to the matter 
 which occuqies four times the extent of space) must be pro- 
 portionally reduced in intensity. This ressult comes direct from 
 the law of the Conservation of Motion. (§16). 
 
 It follows from the same law that the density of the medi- 
 um at different distances from a radiating body should bear a 
 constant relation to the quantity of motion it contains at such 
 points — the more distance and less moton the more density and 
 the less distance and more motion the less density. From which 
 it follows that if we could travel outward from our sun in any 
 direction we would meet with a uniform increase in the density 
 
— 105 — 
 
 of the medium corresponding to the rate of decrease in the in- 
 tencity of the suns radiation. Proceeding in this way we would- 
 eventually reach a point in the ether at which the intencity of 
 the light and heat would be about equal from all directions. 
 This would be a region of greatest density of the ether between 
 star and star in those parts of the heavens in which the stars 
 are about equally distributed. From this point of view the stars 
 would probably appear as they now do from this earth and our 
 sun might be seen as one of them while the observer would be 
 immersed in perpetual night. At this point the density and 
 pressure of the medium would be about equal on all sides of a 
 ponderable body, and such a body would not receive motion of 
 its mass from the medium in any direction. 
 
 We can now begin to understand the mechanical cause of 
 the motion of mass, or sensable falling motion, which we call 
 gravity or weight. It follows from the motion of inert matter 
 in the form of a medium as described, that when the medium 
 is expanded on one side of a ponderable body more than on its 
 opposite side, that the body will move toward the more expan- 
 ded portion of the medium, as a result of the greater pressure 
 of the medium on its opposite side. The greater expansion of 
 the medium on one side of the body may result from the near 
 proximity of a radiating body of higher temprature on that 
 side. This, in brief, and as required by our general theory, is 
 our explanation of the cause of gravity. The same theory some- 
 what modified, may be applied to falling motion at the surface 
 of the earth. (§21) As applied to our Solar System, it is suppos- 
 ed that the planets are immersed in the general medium ether, 
 the density of which gradually increases from the sun outward, 
 as a result of the diminishing intencity of the suns radiation at 
 the same rate. The density and pressure of the medium is there- 
 fore greater on the outside of the planet. Now the increasing 
 density of the medium, as described, can be readily seen; but 
 it may be more difficult to see the physical source of the differ- 
 ence of pressure necessary to produce the effect of gravity. To 
 make this clear let us suppose, (1), that our sun is situated in 
 the center of a great expanded field in the ether, which ex- 
 tends outward in all directions from the sun, gradually shading 
 into the surrounding more dense ether, and that this expansion 
 in the medium is due to the sun's radiation of motion in the for- 
 m of light and heat, and perhaps electric waves, and subject to 
 the law of diminution as described. (2), Suppose that the earth 
 is situated in one side of this expanded field at some distance 
 out from the sun. The density of the ether would then be grea- 
 ter on the outside of the earth. (3), Imagine a great circle a- 
 round the sun and far enough out from the sun to just touch 
 the inside of the earth. Outside of this circle draw another cir- 
 
— 106 — 
 cle just large enough to touch the outside of the earth. Half 
 way between these two circles draw another circle, which sho- 
 uld pass thru the center of the earth. (4), Now imagine that 
 these three circles mark the sectional limits of two great sphe- 
 res, or distinct parts of the medium, each about 4000 miles in 
 periphal thickness, the diameter of the earth being about 8000 
 miles. The entire surface of the earth is then covered by the 
 ether contained in the thickness of the two spheres, one of wh- 
 ich is just inside the other and the outer half of the earth's sur- 
 face is covered by the outside sphere and the inside is covered 
 by the inside sphere. (5), For well known mechanical reasons 
 the ether must exert pressure equally in all directions from any 
 point within its universal body. Now suppose that the outside 
 sphere, which is between the middle line and the outsibe line, 
 represents a solid sphere, strong enough to resist the pressure 
 of the ether from within. Then we would have a great hollow 
 sphere filled with the ether, with the sun in its center and the 
 earth imbedded in the thickness of this sphere to a depth of one 
 half of its diamiter, the inside of the earth being exposed to the 
 ether within. In this case the pressure of the ether on the ear- 
 th's surface would be altogether on the side of the earth next 
 the sun, and the amount of this pressure can be learned by sub- 
 tracting the area of one half of the earth's surface from the ar- 
 ea of the whole of the inside surface of the sphere, and by kno- 
 wing the whole pressure of the medium. (6), Now let us en- 
 large our hollow sphere until its outer limit is marked by the 
 outmost circle which touches the outmost point on the earth's 
 surface. In this case the pressure of the ether on the inside 
 half of the earth's surface would be the same as before, but 
 the pressure on the outside ought to be much greater for the 
 following reasons. The outside half of the earth's surface must 
 receive all the lateral or sideways pressure of the ether to a 
 depth of 4000 miles, that between the middle and outside lines; 
 and this lateral pressure must be greater than that on the in- 
 side of the earth, because the volume of the ether in the outside 
 sphere is greater, and in particular because the outside sphere 
 must sustain by far the largest part of the whole pressure of 
 all that part of the medium within the outer circle, in all direc- 
 tions from the sun. Hence the difference of pressure which re- 
 sults in gravity or falling motion. 
 
 But even the above may not be sufficiently lucid as an ex- 
 planation to some persons. Perhaps the following will help them. 
 All the ether directly between the earth and the sun must ex- 
 ert its pressure so as to keep the two bodies apart. But all that 
 enormously greater volume of the ether which is not directly be- 
 tween the two bodies, yet within the circle of the earth's orbit, 
 must exert its pressure against the outside ether, reacting on 
 
— 107-- 
 the outside of the earth; hence the difference of pressure. 
 
 That this is a direct mechanical result of motion, in a me- 
 dium of inert matter as described, cannot be doubted by any 
 one acquainted with the well known laws of motion. Besides, 
 we have very good experimental to evidence justify this con- 
 clusion. A small hydrogen balloon can be made to move toward 
 a vibrating tuning fork, by holding the fork at one side and 
 close to the balloon. A vibrating disk may also be made to at- 
 tract small objects in the same way, and experiments showing 
 similar results in a liquid medium, have been described. In these 
 experiments it has been shown that the air or liquid is expand- 
 ed on one side of the body, thus causing less pressure on that 
 side, hence the so called attraction. In chapters five and six this 
 mechanical theory has been applied to electric and magnetic at- 
 traction and repulsion and to molecular attraction and repulsion. 
 
 All this is in perfect harmony with a general mechanical 
 theory because it shows us that the buoyant force of the me- 
 dium, which is necessary to hold the planets in their orbits, is 
 a clear result of the sun's radiation of motion. The planets con- 
 tinually press outward against the medium as a result of their 
 centrifugal force, and this in turn is a result of their motion 
 around the sun. But the outside pressure of the medium is suf- 
 ficient to prevent them flying off from the sun in a straight line 
 as required by the first law of motion; which law, they would 
 obey if not prevented by the greater pressure from the outside. 
 
 As we ought to expect, this theory will account for the va- 
 riations in the amount of the force of gravity due to varying 
 distance. For illustration, if our earth was removed to double 
 its present distance from the sun its gravitating force would be 
 reduced to a fourth of its present amount, because the pressure 
 of the ether on the earth's sunward side would be proportionally 
 increased as a result of the reduction of the intensity of the 
 sun's radiation due to increased distance. There is a gradual 
 progression toward an equalization of the pressure of the me- 
 dium on the two sides of the earth, as due to increasing dis- 
 tance, while there is a gradual increase in the difference of 
 pressure on the two sides, as due to decreasing distance; and 
 so it is that the law of the action of gravity, as demonstrated 
 by Newton, comes into harmony with this general theory. 
 
 All things considered, it seems certain that this theory at 
 least points the way to a final solution of this greatest mystery 
 of the physical universe. If this is the true solution it can be 
 seen at once that the force of gravity is no longer an outstand- 
 ing power, which has no physical connection with the other 
 forms of force or motion, since its physical character and as- 
 similation with the other forms can be traced out with perfect 
 clearness; for it proves to be unmistakably a form of motion, re- 
 
— 108 — 
 
 suiting from the change of other forms into it, and which may 
 itself change into still other forms, the entire series of which be- 
 ing completely and continually under the laws of inert matter, 
 (§16 book 1), when they are not controled by a conscious mind. 
 (§15 book 2). 
 
 21. Gravity and Cohesion.— In the case of falling motion 
 at or near the surface of the earth the mode of action is some- 
 what complicated with air and water, which affords opportunity 
 for studying the phenomena of gravity and other forms of so- 
 called attraction, in a different and further instructive light. 
 
 The earth's surface is enveloped by an ocean of ponderable 
 gases called the atmosphere and which cover it to considerable 
 depth. The exact depth is not known, but supposed to be some- 
 thing over 50 miles. Its density diminishes rapidly with the ele- 
 vation, being reduced to one half at 2-7 miles. At this rate a 
 very thin atmosphere should remain at 50 miles, which would 
 disapear entirely at 80 miles. The earth is also partly covered 
 by an ocean of water which is about 800 times more dense than 
 the air at the surface of the earth. These gases and liquids play 
 an important part in the phenomena of weight and cohesion, so 
 must not be overlooked. It is a law of hydrostatics (the inertia 
 of matter) that all gases and liquids transmit pressure equally 
 in all directions from any point below their surface, and which 
 pressure increases with the depth from the surface. For exam- 
 ple, the upward, downward or lateral pressure per square foot 
 in pure water, at a depth of one foot from the surface, is equal 
 to the weight of a cubic foot of water, which is a little over 62 
 pounds; at a depth of two feet twice that amount, and so on. 
 As a result, when a solid body is immersed in water or any gas 
 or liquid, the water will exert pressur on all sides of the body 
 at once, but the pressure on its under side will be greater, be- 
 cause the under side is at greater depth from the surface. In 
 consequence of the weight of the units of gases and liquids at 
 or near the surface of the earth, their density will increase down- 
 ward; in other words, their pressure will result from the weight 
 and free mobility of their units, and those portions nearest the 
 center of the earth will be more dense because they bear the wei- 
 ght of the superincumbent portions. All space in the universe, 
 except that between the particles of the ether, being occupied 
 by matter, as the density of ponderable matter increases down- 
 ward the density and quantity of the ether must decrease in the 
 same direction; and as the density of ponderable matter decrea- 
 ses upward or outward, the density of the ether will increase 
 in the same direction. From a radiating body there is also an 
 increase in the density of the ether outward as a result of the 
 diminishing intensity of the radiant motion. From the inference 
 
— 109 — 
 that the ether exists in all space not occupied by ponderable 
 matter, and that it exerts pressure in all directions, (§19) it fol- 
 lows that the more dense, or the greater the quantity of pond- 
 erable matter in a body, the greater will be the pressure of the 
 ether on its external surface. For examples, a cubic inch of lead 
 will displace more ether and receive more pressure on its outside 
 than a cube of iron, the cube of iron more than a cube of water, 
 the water more than a cube of cork, the cork more than a cube 
 of air and so on. 
 
 From these facts all of which are well based on the laws of 
 inertia, it follows: That a ponderable body of sensable magni- 
 tude when immersed in air or in water, will also be immersed in 
 the ether. That the body will displace a volume of air or water 
 equal to its own volume. That the pressure of the air or water, 
 tho exerted on all sides of the body, will be greater on its under 
 side because the under side is farther from the surface. The bo- 
 dy will also displace a volume of ether equal not to its own sen- 
 sable volume, but to its density or to the quantity of matter it 
 contains, and the ether will exert pressure on all sides of the 
 body at once, but the pressure will be greater on its upper side 
 than on its under side, for reasons described. (§20). So it is 
 that the tendency of a body to rise, fall, or remain at rest, when 
 immersed in air or in water, will depend exactly on its own den- 
 sity, as compared to the density of the ponderable part of its 
 medium. For example, if the weight of the quantity of water 
 displaced by a body, when completely immersed in it, is less than 
 the weight of the body, then the body is more dense than water 
 equal volumes compared and it will sink in water. If the weight 
 of the volume of water displaced by the body is greater than 
 the weight of the body, then the body is less dense than water 
 and it will rise in water. In the first instance the pressure of 
 the ether on the upper side of the body is greater than the 
 pressure of the water on its under side, hence its downward 
 motion. When the weight of the water displaced is equal to the 
 weight of the body, then the density of the body and that of an 
 equal volume of the water is the same, and the body will re- 
 main at rest between two equal and opposite pressures. 
 
 As a further and more detailed explanation we will take the 
 case of a ball of cork immersed first in water then in air. When 
 in water the cork will have an upward tendency and if free to 
 move will be impelled toward the surface of the water. When 
 held in air the cork will have a downward tendency and if free 
 to move will instantly fall. The cause of the upward motion of 
 the cork in water may be explained as follows: The cork is less 
 dense, more porous, and contains more ether volume for volume 
 than the water surrounding it. The ether exerts a direct un- 
 equal pressure (cause of weight) on each molecule or smallest 
 
— 110- 
 portion in both the cork and the water; but the quantity of 
 matter in a given space in the water being greater, than in the 
 same space in the cork, the water will displace a proportionally 
 greater quantity of the ether and will receive a like greater 
 pressure. To this greater pressure of the ether on the water 
 its superior weight is due, hence the cork will be forced upward 
 by the greater pressure of the water on its under side; or, in 
 other words, it will move upward by the indirect pressure of 
 the ether acting thru the water. Thus the upward motion of 
 the cork comes directly from the water in the form of pressure 
 or buoyant force; the water receives it directly from the ether 
 thru that difference of pressure which is the cause of weight; 
 the ether gets it directly from the molecules of the earth and 
 air as radient motion resulting in ether expansion, from which 
 comes the weight of ponderable bodies; and the molecules get 
 it direct from the sun as light and heat. It is thus the same 
 motion thru all its changes. 
 
 The downward motion of the cone in air may be explained 
 as follows: The cork is more dense and contains less ether vol- 
 ume for volume than the air surrounding it. The ether exerts 
 a direct unequal pressure on each smallest portion of both the 
 cork and the air, but the cork being relatively more dense will 
 displace a greater quantity of the ether volume for volume, and 
 will be pressed downward with a force as much greater than 
 that pressing down the same volume of air, as the quantity of 
 ether displaced by it is greater. The indirect pressure of the 
 ether acting thru the air on the under side of the cork will tend 
 to prevent its downward motion and will diminish its weight to 
 some extent; also the pressure of the column of ether directly 
 under the cork will tend to prevent its falling motion. But the 
 pressure or expansive force of the far greater volume of ether 
 below but not directly under the cork, will act indirectly on its 
 upper side, hence the falling motion. In this case as in the other 
 the motion is first transferred to the ether medium from the sun 
 as waves; then after traveling to the earth it is absorbed by the 
 molecules; then to the ether as the expansion which gives dif- 
 ference of pressure and finally the falling motion of the cork. 
 In all these changes the motion never ceases to be motion, and 
 it cannot depart from inert matter: so inertia must be its gov- 
 erning law. 
 
 Many facts might be mentioned, in fact everything known 
 to me in the physical universe, seems to readily come into har- 
 mony with this mechanical theory of gravity. The law of fal- 
 ling motion, which requires the velocity of falling bodies to in- 
 crease as the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and so on, showing that 
 gravity is a constant force, acting during the descent of the 
 body as well as at its start, is just what we would expect of a 
 
— Ill- 
 continuous pressure. A stoiit bottle containing air and sealed 
 water tight, when sunk to considerable depth in the ocean may 
 be crushed by the increased pressure of the water, and it will 
 also loose weight as it sinks in the water. In this case nearly 
 the whole pressure of the medium both ponderable and impon- 
 derable, will be transferred to the outside of the bottle by the 
 increased density of the water and greater displacement of the 
 ether immediately surrounding the bottle, thus causing a with- 
 drawal of the ether in the bottle and in the pores of the glass. 
 
 The common idea of gravity, now taught in our schools, is 
 that of an attractive force, which exempts nothing material, 
 which acts thru all distances and without regard to interven- 
 ing objects and which action can only vary as the quantity of 
 matter or distance varies. Now let the reader remember this 
 formulae in view of the f amilliar facts described below. 
 
 The form of attraction called Cohesion, is a feature of all 
 solids, and in less degree of liquids, and it appears to result di- 
 rectly from the contact of sensable bodies, also their molecules, 
 as in cases of welding, soldering, or in the use of pasts, glue 
 and the like. As an example of cohesion, a drop of water will 
 adhere to a small bit of solid matter no larger than the drop, 
 while both are held very close to the surface of the earth. When 
 we compare the great mass of the earth with that of a drop of 
 water, then take into account the relative distances between 
 the three bodies, and the repulsive force which, as shown later 
 must act between each molecule of the water, then we see at 
 once the impossibility of an attractive force acting as prescri- 
 bed above. A better illustration of the same difficulty is that 
 of mercury and iron. The density of mercury is much greater 
 than that of iron, yet mercury is a liquid and iron is a tenacious 
 solid. To reconcile this repulsive force which maintains the liq- 
 uid form of matter, and the attractive force which maintains 
 the solid form, and this gravitating force which makes things 
 fall, the three under the above formulae, is, on its very face 
 an impossibility. What we want is a theory that will explain 
 and harmonize all the facts. It seems certain that these and 
 other like difficulties will disappear completely under the me- 
 chanical theory. The repulsive force of the molecules will be 
 brought under the mechanical theory in chapter 6, and this be- 
 ing understood the difference between mercury and iron can be 
 seen at once. If the facts of gravity can be brought under this 
 generalization we ought to expect the same of those of cohesion. 
 Let us notice a few cases. When a number of molecules of the 
 vapor of water get together as in a drop of rain, they are held 
 together, not by an attractive force acting from their center 
 or from one to another, but by the outside pressure of the more 
 dense ether in the air surrounding them. The vapor of water 
 
— 112 — 
 is known to be diffused in the air and to be condensed by a re- 
 duction of temperature, which is also a reduction of the molecu- 
 lar repulsive force, described later. The molecules then unite 
 at the point where outside pressure begins to outbalence molec- 
 ular repulsion, and they are held together, not by any attract- 
 ion acting from within, but by a nearly uniform pressure on the 
 outside; being a little greater on the upper side, as in gravity. 
 Pour a small quantity of water on a smooth dry board of light 
 wood, and notice that the water will not spread over the board 
 but will appear to be repelled by it. The board being highly 
 porous and the pores being filled with the ether, the water is 
 prevented to some extent from spreading over the board by the 
 outside pressure of the ether, as in other cases. But if the sur- 
 face of the board is wet, its density is then equal to water, and 
 the water spreads because the pressure of the ether from with- 
 in the board and at the edges of the drop of water, is removed 
 to some extent. Two pieces of cork if brought in contact while 
 under water will not cling together because there is no greater 
 pressure from the ether or the water on their outsides; but when 
 floating on the surface where they are partly immersed in the 
 ether of the air which is more dense, and having a film of wa- 
 ter between them, they are then held together by the outside 
 pressure of the ether. The preparation of the sensitized album- 
 en paper used by photographers for printing photographs, requ- 
 ires that the paper be floated on a solution of silver-nitrate in 
 water. The usual strength of the solution is about 50 grains of 
 silver salts to the ounce of water. When the solution is too st- 
 rong it will collect in small drops scattered over the paper when 
 it is lifted from the solution and held in mid-air, thus spoiling 
 it for use. An increase in ths density of the solution beyond a 
 certain point will cause it to displace more ether and receive 
 more pressure on its outside from the ether, which pressure is 
 sufficient to collect the solution into drops as in the cace of rain 
 drops. It is possible to select a series of liquids and arrange them 
 according to their density, so as to reveal this difference of pr- 
 essure very clearly. A drop of sulphuric ether, one of the light- 
 est of fluids, if placed on a flat surface, will spread out nearly 
 flat; a drop of water, more dense, will not spread so much; a 
 drop of sulphuric acid, still more dense, will spread much less; 
 a drop of mercury, the most dense of fluids, will assume nearly 
 the form of a sphere. 
 
 We might mention hundreds of similar cases all of which 
 seeming to reveal the true relationship of the ether and ponder- 
 able matter, as required by physical laws (§16), while they flat- 
 ly contradict the truth of the idea of gravity or cohesion as an 
 attractive force acting as described. These cases appeal direct- 
 ly to the common sense of mankind and to say that they are 
 
— 113 — 
 
 suggestive is to state the simple truth. The following experi- 
 ment appears to go right to the mark and might be regarded as 
 a demonstration. 
 
 Take two plates of glass when perfectly dry and clean, place 
 them in contact side to side and stand them on edge, holding 
 one. The one unsupported will separate from the other and fall. 
 Next dip both plates in water and place them together as be- 
 fore. They are now held together by considerable force. Thus 
 when perfectly dry, nothing but air between them, they fall a- 
 part, but with a film of water between them they are held to- 
 gether by a force, which, if explained as an attraction between 
 the water and the glass, is not explained at all. Now remember 
 that water is 800 times heavier than air volume for volume. 
 Hence from the theory of attraction we ought to expect the 
 plates to be forced apart by the greater weight of the water 
 between them; while from the theory of pressure we ought to 
 expect them to be held together by the greater outside pressure 
 of the ether, as in other cases. It will be seen at once that this 
 result cannot be ref e rred to the weight and lateral pressur of 
 the air, because water is much heavier than air; neither will any 
 theory of attraction which, does not explain attraction, account 
 for it. The pressure of the ether medium must be much great- 
 er on the sides of a body having two parallel flat sides like a 
 plate of glass, than it is at the edges of such a body; and for 
 the same reason a thin film of water or any fluid should have 
 a greater pressure on its sides than on its edges. Hence, when 
 the water is introduced between the plates of glass, as above 
 described, it will displace the air and a large part of the ether 
 within, so that the ether on the outside is more dense, and as a 
 result we have the superior outside pressure. In chapter 5 me- 
 chanical reasons will be given for the further support of the 
 theory that the pressure of the ether is greater on the sides 
 than on the edges or ends of ponderable bodies, all of which 
 contain ether more rare than that in the air outside of them. 
 As examples, the electricity (expanded ether §28) , imparted to 
 an insulated plate conductor, is more abundant at the edges 
 than in the middle of the plate and it tends to escape at points 
 on the plate as the corners which project into the air. So also 
 the electricity or more rare ether in a thin film of water is for- 
 ced toward the edges by greater pressure on the sides. All this 
 is intelligible if we admit that electricity is motion in the ether 
 resulting in its expansion as explained later. What we call cap- 
 illary attraction also falls into line under this theory. The rea- 
 son why fluids ascend above their level in small tubes and in 
 the pores of solids, is the same as that which causes electricity 
 to escape from pointed conductors; outside pressure of the me- 
 dium. But the facts of electricity belong to the next chapter. 
 
— 114 — 
 Without further discussion we may safely conclude, I think, 
 that the general facts of gravity and cohesion, which are inex- 
 plicable under any idea of attraction, may be explained and re- 
 duced to order under the mechanical theory here described. In 
 all cases of cohesion due to the contact of bodies, a part of the 
 outside pressure of the ether is transferred from the inside or 
 point of contact, to the opposite or outside of the bodies, as due 
 to a displacement of more or less ether between them; hence 
 the cohesion. As long as there is ether between two such bodies 
 equal in density to that outside, there is equal pressure on both 
 sides and hence no cohesion. All of which is fatal to the theory 
 of attraction as given in the above formulae. 
 
 22. Newton's Law of Gravity.— Returning to the facts 
 of Astronomy let us see how far our mechanical theory is in 
 harmony with the law of the action of gravity as defined by 
 Newton. According to Newton's law the amount of the force 
 of gravity in any case, is dependent on two factors: quantity 
 of matter and distance thru which it acts. It is more or less as 
 the quantity of matter is more or less and it decreases accord- 
 ing to the law of inverse squares, described in (§20). 
 
 It is now taught that there is no limit to the action of the 
 force of gravity, — "that every particle of matter in the uni- 
 verse attracts every other particle", as prescribed above. This 
 statement ofcourse cannot be accepted as true if the mechan- 
 ical theory is accepted. As already shown this force should be 
 limited to the sphere of radiation of the active heated body. The 
 power of our sun, for example, should extend only to that part 
 of the universe wherein his light is about equal to that of neigh- 
 boring stars. The force of gravity should depend to a great ex- 
 tent upon the temprature of the radiating body, and is not pro- 
 portional to the quantity of matter it contains. If our sun, for 
 example, should gradually burn out and grow cold like a stove 
 when the fire goes out, we can infer from our theory that the 
 earth and the planets would most likely draw nearer to the sun 
 for a while, but eventually a point would be reached at which 
 their tangentile force would outbalance the outside pressure of 
 the ether, then they would leave the sun and each pursue a st- 
 raight course thru the universe. This must be the fate of our 
 system of planets unless there is some means of keeping up the 
 present temperature of the sun. This matter will have our atten- 
 tion again in chapter 7. 
 
 Like any confined and heated gas the tension or pressure 
 of the universal medium of ether should be the same at all poi- 
 nts in the universe, though it may differ in density at different 
 points as the quantity of motion at such points may differ. 
 The perfect mobility of the ether, its inertia and the laws of 
 
— 115 — 
 
 the communication and diffusion of motion which comes from 
 its inertia, makes this conclusion unavoidable. The whole pres- 
 sure of the medium on any ponderable body, must be in propor- 
 tion, not to the size or volumn of a body, but to its density or 
 to the quantity of matter it contains. (21). From which it ap- 
 pears that the first factor in Newton's law, (quantity of mat- 
 ter) is at least to some extent justified by the mechanical the- 
 ory. It appears also that there ought to be a definite and con- 
 stant relation between the quantity of matter in a planet, its 
 velocity in its orbit, its distance from the sun, the density of 
 the ether surrounding it and the temperature of the sun; for in 
 the perfect balance of all these elements would depend the sta- 
 bility of our system of planets. 
 
 By observing the changes in the sun's apparent diameter 
 continually during the year, Astronomer's have found that the 
 true form of the earth's orbit is an elips with the sun in one of 
 its foci. This is more or less true of all the planets. It is also 
 known that our system is moving toward the star P, in the 
 constellation Hercules. The perihelion, (or point in the orbit of 
 a planet at which it is nearest the sun) is on the same side of 
 the sun for all the planets. It is not known to me whether this 
 is the side toward which the system is moving; but if it is, the 
 fact would justify the idea of a resisting medium as the cause 
 of the eliptical form of the orbits. But whatever be the cause, 
 it is evident that this eccentricity of the orbits of all the planets 
 is not in harmony with Newton's law, while it seems to agree 
 perfectly with our theory of a mechanically active medium of 
 ether. To illustrate, let us take the motion of the earth once a- 
 round the sun. The eccentricity of the earth's orbit is 1-60 of 
 its diameter, and in perihelion the earth is about three millions 
 of miles nearer to ths sun than at its opposite point called aph- 
 elion. Also in perihelion the velocity of the earth in its orbit 
 is somewhat greater than on the opposite side. Now if we take 
 the earth's velocity for one minute at any time during the year 
 and at any point in its orbit, making due allowance for the mo- 
 tion of the system against a resisting medium, then attempt to 
 calculate its velocity and course for all subsequent minutes, as 
 required by the Newtonian law, what is the result? The earth's 
 centrifugal force on the one side, and the gravitating action of 
 the two bodies on the other, must be equal and opposite all the 
 time, in order to maintain the earth in a continuous orbit. The 
 form of the earth's orbit should be that of a true circle, with 
 the sun's center of mass in its center and the earth's center of 
 mass exactly on the circle; if the law of Newton is true. From 
 this law we can only think of two equal and opposite forces in 
 perfect balance; hence the stability. The slightest deviation 
 one way or the other, means the destruction of the system. The 
 
— 116 — 
 eccentricity of the orbits of all the planets is thus totally unac- 
 counted for by the theory of gravity denned by Newton. 
 
 The influence of the planets upon oneanother called pertur- 
 bation, is another example of the inadequacy of this theory of 
 attraction. If the disturbing effect is due to a direct action 
 between the two bodies, exercised thru empty space, and as re- 
 quired by the definition, then the formulae of this action must 
 be rewritten, for the observed facts do not justify it. It seems 
 strange that these discrepancies could have been overlooked so 
 long. If any one else has noticed them, 1 am not aware of it. 
 
 Now if we look at our Solar System with its massive plan- 
 ets, whose orbits all have more or less eccentricity, and which 
 planets are continually subject to irregularities due to their ac- 
 tion upon one another, and think of the perfect stability of the 
 whole, thru immense periods of time, it is certainly not very 
 easy to understand it as due to an incomprehensible attractive 
 force acting thru a perfect void and as required by its definition. 
 But if we simply fill this inter-planetary space with a substan- 
 ce, having only the mechanical properties of ordinary matter, 
 just as we have snpposed to be true of the ether, then how ea- 
 sy it is to take the steps of legitimate theory which will enable 
 us to surmount all difficulties, account for all the facts and view 
 our system in its wonderful perfection and simplicity. The per- 
 turbation of the planets thru this medium would result from 
 a slight increase in the rarity of the medium on the side of the 
 planet away from the sun, due to the radiation of motion from 
 some outside planet, thus diminishing to some extent the buoy- 
 ant force of the medium; which force is due to the sun's radia- 
 tion. The planets are thus held in their orbits by a flexible sup- 
 port, which may yield outward more or less according to the in- 
 tensity of the radiation from without. 
 
 From this brief and imperfect review of the most general 
 facts of Astronomy it appears that the Newtonian law or theory 
 is not alltogether true, or true only in part. It is not true as an 
 universal force acting as described — the sun's action being con- 
 fined to its sphere of radiation, and so with other bodies. It is 
 not true as a force which depends alone upon the quantity of 
 matter in the two bodies, because it is shown to be a force wh- 
 ich depends upon the higher temperature of one of the bodies. 
 But it appears to be true that the weight of a planet will de- 
 pend on the quantity of matter it contains at a given tempera- 
 ture of the sun and a given velocity of the planet. It also ap- 
 pears that the weight of a planet will decrease as the square of 
 its distance from the sun increases, but as due to the diminu- 
 tion of the sun's radiation at the same rate. These conclusions 
 are not offered as final or absolutely correct. A mathematical 
 treatment of the subject has been impossible. 
 
— 117 — 
 
 23. The Moon and the Tides.— The periodic rise and fall 
 of the surface of the ocean twice every 24 hours, called the tides, 
 is known to be a result of the gravitating action of the moon 
 and the sun. It seems that we have, in this phenomenon of the 
 tides, the most convincing evidence of the incompetency of the 
 theory of attraction, and of the entire sufficiency of the theory 
 of mechanical ether pressure, as a means to explaining the facts. 
 
 The moon being so much nearer to the earth than the sun 
 is, his power of producing the tides is about double that of 
 the sun. The elliptical form of the moon's orbit is the cause of 
 some variation in his distance from the earth; and with this go- 
 es a corresponding variation in the tides, it being greater at the 
 least distance and least at the greater distance. At the time of 
 new and full moon, in particular if the moon at this time is near- 
 est the earth, the highest tide will be produced; for in this case 
 the sun and the moon will act together. When in quadrature, 
 the moon's position with respect to the sun is such that the two 
 bodies will interf eare with each other in their action upon the 
 earth, hence the tide elevation shows itself at four different po- 
 ints on the earth's surface, but is lowest of all at any point. The 
 two points of highest elevation are nearly or quite equal and oc- 
 cur on opposite sides of the earth; on the sides nearest and mo- 
 st remote from the moon or the sun. The highest point next 
 the moon is nearly under it, lagging a little behind, and tends to 
 follow the moon around the earth. These are a few of the facts 
 known about the tides, and mentioned here to prepare the rea- 
 der for what follows. The explanation of the tides from the law 
 of gravity as defined by Newton, is briefly as follows. 
 
 The two opposite sides of the earth's surface being at dif- 
 ferent distances from the moon, by about 8000 miles, are une- 
 qually attracted. The water of the ocean on the side next the 
 moon is drawn away from the solid mass of the earth, while 
 the earth is drawn away from the water on the opposite side, 
 hence the bulging out of the ocean on the two sides of the ea- 
 rth as observed in the phenomenon of the tides. 
 
 Even if we admit the truth of this idea of attraction, this 
 explanation of the tides by it is beyond comprehension. The 
 mass of the earth is 80 times greater than the m ass of the mo- 
 on. A body placed at a point half way between the earth and 
 the moon would be attracted by both at the same time, but the 
 moon would pull in one direction while the earth would pull in 
 the opposite direction. Owing to its far greater mass the pull 
 of the earth would be very much greater than the pull of the 
 moon; and since every body that moves must obey the stron- 
 gest force and move in the direction of least resistance, the 
 body placed half way between the earth and the moon would 
 certainly move toward the earth and for that reason it would 
 
— 118 — 
 
 not move toward the moon. Now if this same body was placed 
 at the surface of the earth, its certainty to move toward the 
 earth would be immensely augmented, because its weight would 
 be immensely increased. Exactly the same thing is true of all 
 matter at the surface of the earth. Every molecule of water 
 in the surface of the ocean is at all times not less than 221,463 
 miles from the center of the moon, and not more than 4000 miles 
 from the center of the earth. What could be more impossible? 
 Yet this explanation of the tides is now taught by a Yale Col- 
 lege Professor. (Loomis's Treatise on Astronomy, page 186). 
 
 Even if the moon does raise the water of the ocean in this 
 way, why does it not continue to lift it all the way to the moon, 
 since the least diminution of the distance is an increase in the 
 moon's power of attraction. Perhaps it would be a better expla- 
 nation to suppose that the feeble attraction of the moon is suf- 
 ficient to overcome the earth's attraction enough to permit the 
 water to expand by its internal molecular repulsive force, thus 
 swelling up the surface as in the tides. Or perhaps, the moon's 
 radiation may increase the molecular repulsive force at this 
 point thus causing expansion and elevation of the surface. But 
 such theories at best do not more than approach the truth be- 
 cause they do not explain attraction or repulsion. The same dif- 
 ficutly appears in the disturbing effect of the planets on one an- 
 other noticed in §22; also the effect of the sun upon the moon. 
 The insufficiency of the theory of attraction being apparent, let 
 us see what the mechanical theory can do for us. 
 
 The moon and the earth are both radiators of motion in all 
 directions thru the ether, hence between the two bodies the me- 
 dium ought to be somewhat more expanded than elsewhere. In 
 chapter 5 it will appear that electricity in one of its forms is 
 motion in the ether something like heat in ponderable matter. 
 For mechanical reasons already explained it follows that the 
 ether immediately over and within that part of the earth's at- 
 mosphere and the ocean, which is directly between the earth 
 and the moon, must be somewhat more expanded than else- 
 where. This would diminish the outside pressure of the ether to 
 some extent, directly over that part of the earth's surface or 
 the ocean and the atmosphere, where the tide elevation occurs, 
 thus permitting the expansion and elevation of the surface of 
 the ocean and the atmosphere at that point, by their internal 
 molecular motion. In this way the tide elevation on the side of 
 the earth next the moon is explained. It should be noticed that 
 this explanation has not been devised to suit this particular case. 
 It is the same mechanical theory which we have applied to the 
 perturbation of the planets, and in slightly modified form to all 
 the facts of gravity and cohesion. It is the one theory for all 
 the facts, and the further we go the more we can see this. 
 
— 119 — 
 
 In order to understand the cause of the tide protuberance 
 on the opposite side of the earth it will be necessary to mention 
 certain analogies in electric phenomena, to be fully described in 
 chapter 5. As already mentioned electricity in one of its forms 
 is expanded ether. When an insulated metallic sphere is elec- 
 trified, its atmosphere of electricity or expanded ether, will dis- 
 tribute itself equally over the sphere, if no other electrified 
 body is near it. But if an electrified body is brought close to 
 the sphere, but not in contact with it, its electric atmosphere 
 will immediately accumulate on two opposite sides; on the side 
 next to the electrified body and on the side opposite. As expla- 
 ined in chapter 5 this form of electricity is expanded ether con- 
 fined to the surface of the sphere by the outside pressure of the 
 medium. Now it is here supposed that this is exactly what oc- 
 curs on the earth, on a large scale, in the case of the tides, the 
 moon being the electrified body. As shown in §21, the outside 
 pressure of the ether is greater on the sides of a flat plate or 
 an elongated conductor than it is on the edges or ends. It may 
 be readily seen that the atmosphere of expanded ether which 
 must exist in the earth's atmosphere, would be lengthened out 
 toward the moon as due to the proximity and radiations from 
 the moon, and as due to the greater pressure of the medium on 
 the sides of the two bodies The following analogous cases may 
 be mentioned here. The electricity on an insulated metalic sp- 
 here or globe, is always equally distributea over its surface, if 
 no electrified body is near it; but if an electrified body is near, 
 then its electricity always assumes the ellipsoidal form, with 
 its major axis toward the elctrified body. Now on an insulated 
 metallic cylinder, which is longer than wide, the electricity is 
 always at the ends whether an electrified body be present or 
 not. On a plate, it is at the edges; in a steel magnet, at its ends. 
 Supposing electricity to be expanded ether undea the enormous 
 outside pressure of the medium, these facts are at once accoun- 
 ted for. The expansion of the ether on opposite sides of the 
 earth in this way, and as due to the moon's electric radiation, 
 will releive the outside pressure of the ether on the two sides 
 of the earth, thus permitting the water of the ocean to bulge 
 out as in the tides. In this way the tide elevation on the oppo- 
 site side of the earth is explained by the mechanical theory. 
 
 It may be supposed that the moon ought to receive more 
 motion from the sun than from the earth when passing between 
 the two bodies. Hence the question. Why don't the moon fall to 
 the sun when passing between the earth and the sun? The ans- 
 wer is evident in the great probability that the sun's radiation 
 which strikes the moon on his sunward side, has more of the 
 form of light and radiant heat, while the earth's radiation wh- 
 ich reaches the moon should have more of the electric form, 
 
— 120 — 
 which latter is more potent in producing the moon's gravity. 
 The electric radiation which maintains the moon in its orbit, 
 tho more intense by reason of less distance, as shown in the 
 tides, is also confined to one point. No doubt these questions 
 may be thoroughly examined by the astronomer with his mod- 
 ern equipment and practical knowledge. 
 
 24. The Moon's Atmosphere.— Careful observation for a 
 number of years has failed to reveal a sensable atmosphere on 
 the moon. If there is any, it is supposed to be so rare as to fail 
 to produce the twilight effects known to be a result of the ear- 
 th's atmosphere. Besides, during the many occupations of the 
 fixed stars with the moon, no effect of refraction has ever been 
 noticed, which fact is regarded as proof that the atmosphere of 
 the moon, if it exists at all must be extremely rare. Hence the 
 questions: Why was the earth provided with an atmosphere, 
 while the moon has none? and will the mechanical theory give 
 us any light on the question? 
 
 The Nebular theory of the origin of our Solar System, (de- 
 scribed in chapter 7,) is the only theory, so far as it goes, that 
 offers a mechanical explanation for the known facts. According 
 to this theory, there was a time long ago, when the earth and 
 the moon formed a single nebulous body, intensely heated and 
 expanded so far as to extend some distance beyond the present 
 orbit of the moon. Thru the usual process of cooling and con- 
 densation, due to the radiation of internal motion, and thru the 
 action of the centrifugal force which is due to the present rota- 
 ry motion, a nebulous ring encircling the equator of the revol- 
 ving body would be formed and detached from the larger mass 
 in the center which mass is to be the earth. The same cooling 
 process continuing, would break up this ring into smaller parts 
 and these would finally unite to form the moon. In view of the 
 mechanical law of segregation — which requires the integration, 
 first of the heavier elements and afterwards the lighter, accor- 
 ding to their atomic weights, leaving the lightest of all on top 
 or outside, and in view of the fact that the moon is now a solid 
 body, tho perhaps composed of the lighter elements, it may be 
 inferred, that since the ring from which the moon was formed 
 contained molecules heavy enough to form solids, it ought to 
 have contained molecules light enough to form permanent gases 
 like those of our atmosphere or even lighter. So it follows from 
 the nebular theory, that our moon as well as this earth, ought 
 to have an atmosphere. Hence another question: How did the 
 moon loose his atmosphere? 
 
 When our planet was still very hot and surrounded by an 
 extensive atmosphere of gases and vapors, and when the moon 
 was newly formed and in a similar condition but more advanced 
 
— 121 — 
 toward the solid form, it may be inferred that the expanded 
 ether surrounding both the earth and the moon was in a high 
 degree of electric tension, and that the two bodies bore the re- 
 lation of positive and negative, the earth being positive to the 
 moon. In this state, stable equilibrium would be uncertain if 
 not impossible. Any unusual disturbance in either the earth or 
 the moon would be an increase in their electric energy. We now 
 have such disturbances in our sun and their effect upon the 
 earth is shown in what we call magnetic storms. The moon be- 
 ing near the margin of the earth's expanded field, would give 
 that field greater length in the direction of the moon. This is 
 an effect similar to that of the tides and it has a number of well 
 known analogies in electric phenomena. The moon's electric at- 
 mosphere being negative to that of the earth, any unusual dis- 
 turbance in the earth would cause an electric discharge in the 
 direction of the moon as its only outlet. This discharge would 
 be the same as any discharge of electricity, experimental exam- 
 ples of which on a small scale may be easily obtained. But the 
 discharge should be continuous, not sudden like a flash of light- 
 ning, and it should project beyond the moon, straight into the 
 ether medium, thus carying away and dissipating the lighter ma- 
 terials of the moon which might have remained to form an at- 
 mosphere. So it appears from the mechanical theory that our 
 moon ought not to have an atmosphere; that it ought to appear 
 just as it does at the present time. 
 
 It was very likely a winnowing process like this which not 
 only took away the moon's lighter materials, which, under the 
 nebular theory would have been left with it, but also prevented 
 it from acquiring a rotary motion as did the earth. When we 
 come to consider the mystery of comets (§26) we may witness 
 at the present day an actual occurrence of the same thing. 
 
 25. The Sun and the Planets.— The central and largest 
 member of our Solar System is the sun. From inertia as the 
 universal physical law it follows that the sun should be the ex- 
 clusive source of the energy of the system except that stored 
 in the planets and other bodies. All this energy is pure motion, 
 and it persists because matter is inert. The most of it comes 
 directly from the sun in the forms of light, heat and electricity; 
 but on reaching the planets and other outside bodies it may 
 change to other forms, as sound, chemical action, gravity and 
 all the forms of physical activity. It is necessary to all forms 
 of life or mental activity; but there is no evidence that it ever 
 changes into mind. The planets may also react upon the sun or 
 upon each other, by reflecting this motion. 
 
 It is known that the tides of our ocean, the meterological 
 changes in our atmosphere and the general magnetic condition 
 
— 122 — 
 of the earth is produced or effected in some mysterious way by 
 the sun and the moon. It is also suspected that sun spots and 
 solar storms are produced or influenced in their number and 
 periodicity by the varying positions of the planets. It seems but 
 natural to look to the ether medium and the mechanical laws 
 which govern it for the explanation of these facts. 
 
 The sun is enveloped by an intensely hot and luminous atmos- 
 phere of great depth called the photosphere. Sun spots are be- 
 lived to be enormous depressions or cavities in this atmosphere 
 which expose to view the darker interior of the sun. If we only 
 look at the late pictures of sun spots and read the careful ac- 
 counts of them, it is not difficult to see that the sun may be im- 
 mersed in a material repulsive medium, which reveals its pres- 
 ence by its pressure on the sun and by intruding itself into the 
 sun's atmosphere. According to careful measurements the smal- 
 lest spot that can be seen must have an area of at least 50,000 
 square miles, while some of the larger ones measure as much 
 as 153,500 miles in diameter and with a depth of 4000 miles. The 
 general appearance of these spots is that of a dark irregular 
 shapedpatch called the nucleus, surrounded by a fringe less dark 
 and called the penumbra. It is now belived to be proved that 
 these spots are great depressions in the sun's most heated and 
 luminous outer atmosphere, exposing to view the inner and less 
 luminous body of the sun; all of which is to be expected from 
 the mechanical theory. Sun spots are most generally found in 
 two zones or belts encircling the sun on each side of the equa- 
 tor and from 8 to 20 degrees from it. They are rarely seen di- 
 rectly on the equator or more than 45 degrees from it on either 
 side. The duration of the spots is extremely variable, some ap- 
 pearing and disappearing in 24 hours, while others have been 
 known to last several months. They also change their forms 
 more or less rapidly and they often appear to move in various 
 directions, in some caces attaining a velocity of 1000 miles an 
 hour. A revolving motion around a vertical axis has been fre- 
 quently noticed in these spots, which is exactly like the whirl- 
 ing wind storms here on earth. In short, all observed facts so 
 far support the theory of a highly heated atmosphere as descri- 
 bed, and clearly subject to mechanical laws. 
 
 Now to explain the cause of sun spots according to the pres- 
 ent theory we might proceed as follows. The sun revolves upon 
 its axes a little more than 14 times during one revolution of the 
 earth around the sun. The centrifugal force of the sun's atmos- 
 phere due to this rotary motion, must be stronger on the equa- 
 tor and from 10 to 20 degrees on either side, than at other poin- 
 ts. As a result the atmosphere must tend to accumulate, become 
 less dense and of greater depth on the equator than elsewhere. 
 As another result two shallow zones on each side of the equator 
 
— 123 — 
 would be formed. The atmosphere at or near the poles would 
 have little or no centrifugal force, hence little or no tendency 
 to bulge out or leave its place. Hence the thinning and shallow- 
 ing of the atmosphere between the poles and the equator would 
 be an inevitable mechanical result, and it is in these zones that 
 we ought to expect to find the sun spots if they are what they 
 appear to be. And this is where we do find them. So far there 
 is perfect agreement between observed facts and mechanical 
 laws. The sun's equator being in the same plane with the orbits 
 of all the planets, there ought to be some reflection of motion 
 from the planets back to the sun. Here we have a noteworthy 
 inference. The changing positions of the planets, their varying 
 distances from the sun, the fact that a number of them are all 
 on one side of the sun at the same time, these facts at once sug- 
 gest the high probability that a corresponding effect in the at- 
 mosphere should be looked for. The near approach of a large 
 planet, or two or three of them in conjunction or opposition, 
 must have some effect upon the sun similar to that of our ocean 
 in the cace of the tides. The diminished outside pressure of the 
 ether on the sun's equator would tend to heap up the atmos- 
 phere at this point thus withdrawing it from either side and 
 so permitting the more dense ether at the sides to intrude its- 
 elf into the atmosphere and so cause the sun spots. A lateral 
 whirling motion of the spot or of a portion of the sun's atmos- 
 phere due to the conflict of opposing currents, would make an 
 opening for the ether thus accounting for the whirling spot. 
 This, in brief, is our mechanical explanation of sun spots. 
 
 The two sun spot belts on each side of the sun's equator, 
 give us an idea of the beginning of the process which develops 
 the nebulous rings which thru further progress in the same di- 
 rection may produce a planetary system or a moon system like 
 those of the planet's Jupiter and Saturn. The rings of Saturn, 
 the fact that Jupiter has no belt or dark rift exactly on his equ- 
 ator, the divisions in the tails of comets and in electric dischar- 
 ges thru air, the peculiar and diverse forms of distent nebulae 
 etc, these and other similar appearances, suggest at once the 
 presence of a common cause which is not to be placed outside 
 the sphere of physical law. 
 
 Like the hurricanes and tornados of this earth, the sun's 
 atmosphere is also the scene of very similar activities, But so- 
 lar storms are so much greater in magnitude and violence that 
 those of our small world would be only as a drop in the ocean 
 if compared. The big wind storms of this earth are mostly con- 
 fined to the tropics or region of the trade winds, and they oc- 
 cur mostly in two zones on either side of the equator, which 
 corresponds exactly with the sun spot zones in position. It is 
 also in these sun spot regions that the terrific storms of the 
 
— 124 — 
 sun's atmosphere are mostly confined. So with respect to atmo- 
 spheric disturbance there is a notable resemblance between the 
 sun and the earth, which ought to be expected in view of the 
 physical theory. 
 
 By continually observing the sun's disk during the last 60 
 years Astronomers have noticed that sun spots and storms are 
 subject to a periodic increase and decrease covering from 10 to 
 12 years. For 5 or 6 years there is a gradual increase in number 
 and size, then they decrease until there are very few; the time 
 from one point of highest number to another being between 10 
 and 12 years. It has also been noticed that the earth's magnet- 
 ic equilibrium is disturbed at the time of greatest solar activity 
 and spottiness. And further, it is found that the wind storms 
 of the earth appear to increase somewhat at the same time. So 
 far as known to me there is not enough reliable information on 
 this subject to base a safe conclusion. From what I have learn- 
 ed so far the idea was suggested that if this periodicity really 
 exists in such an extensive number of phenomena in both the 
 earth and the sun, and if there is a close correspondence in time 
 between the two, that the explanation might be found in the 
 regular movements of some outside body or bodies, which can 
 sensibly effect the sun's atmosphere thru radiation. 
 
 Now the planet Jupiter is the largest in our system outside 
 the sun, his volume exceeding all the other planets put togeth- 
 er. The present temperature of Jupiter is believed to be greater 
 than that of any of the other planets. His period of revolution 
 around the sun is 11 7-8 years, which agrees very close with the 
 periodic time of the sun spot cycle. His average distance from 
 the sun is 492 millions of miles, and this distance varies within 
 24 millions of miles between the two opposite points in his orbit, 
 perihelion and aphelion, being nearest to the sun in perihelion. 
 Hence it seems that Jupiter more than any other single body 
 in our system ought to possess the power of causing disturb- 
 ance in the sun, and thru the sun, of acting upon the earth. It 
 is also evident that this influence of Jupiter might be increased 
 or retarded by the other planets both in amount and time. The 
 conjunction or opposition of the earth or of any other planet, 
 one at a time or two or more, with Jupiter, might increase his 
 action or interfere with its regular occurrence so far as to 
 bring it on a year in advance, or retard its time of arrival. 
 On the other hand, if any planet within the orbit of Jupiter, 
 one or more, should happen to occupy the point in its orbit 
 situated at 90 degrees from the sun, with reference to the posi- 
 tion of Jupiter, that planet would have a retarding effect on 
 Jupiter. The facts thus far known to me which seem to bear 
 on this matter are briefly a3 follows. 
 
 Dr Wolf of Zurich, has prepared from the recorded obser- 
 
— 125 — 
 vations of others, a list of the relative number of sun spots for 
 each year since 1750. This list shows 11 complete cycles from 
 1750 to 1870, giving an average as near as possible of 11 years to 
 each cycle. But in the account of this record there is no men- 
 tion of the time of the perihelion passage of Jupiter — whether 
 it corresponds to the time of greatest solar activity or not, or 
 anything about it. From other sources I have learned that 1858, 
 59, 60 and 61, were years of many sun spots. Jupiter was at 
 his perihelion point in December 1856, about one year prior to 
 the beginning of this sun spot epoch. Jupiter's next perihelion 
 arrival occurred in October 1868. In this year a severe earthquake 
 occurred in California and the usual sun spot activity followed in 
 the few succeeding years. The next perihelion of Jupiter came 
 in September 1880. The following years, 81, 82 and 83, were 
 years of many sun spots, storms and floods. In July 1892 Jupiter 
 reached perihelion again and on April 19th of the same year 
 California had another severe shakeup, more severe than any 
 since 1868. Jupiter's next perihelion occurred some time in 1904. 
 The severest earthquake of all, so far, which almost complete- 
 ly destroyed San Francisco, in California, occurred some time 
 in April of that year. The year 1902 will be remembered as the 
 most disastrous in modern times in the history of volcanoes. 
 It was also an unusual year for storms and floods in the U. S. 
 
 This is all I can mention at present (June 1908) and some 
 of these statements may not be strictly true. But on the whole 
 they seem to indicate the possibility of the presence of a me- 
 chanical agent which, tho not perfectly regular, perhaps owing 
 to the several conflicting elements, seems to at least tend to 
 keep the sun spots, sun storms, earth storms, earthquakes, vol- 
 canoes, aurora displays and magnetic disturbances on the earth, 
 pretty well together; tho they do not coincide quite so well with 
 the perihelion passage of the planet Jupiter. But this should be 
 expected, to some extent at least when we consider the conflic- 
 ting agents. Very likely observers in the future may be able to 
 settle the question as to how far this planet is concerned, and 
 what are the nature and amount of the influences from other 
 sources, and whether they are altogether mechanical. 
 
 It is to be expected from this general theory that an earth- 
 quake or a volcanic eruption may be induced by the same cause 
 which permits the expansion of the atmosphere of the sun or 
 the earth, or the elevation of the surface of the ocean as in the 
 tides. The pent up expansive energy within the surface of the 
 earth due to heat, is perhaps greater at some points than at 
 others, and any decrease of outside pressure on the general sur- 
 face must tend to give this energy greater liberty, hence the 
 eruption at old vents or the shaking of the surface. 
 
 The opinion has been advanced that comets, in some mys- 
 
— 126 — 
 terious way may be able to produce the effect which gives rise to 
 sun spots. When the large comet of 1883 made its short turn 
 around and close to the sun a large spot broke out suddenly on 
 the part of the sun's disk nearest the comet, and the same 
 thing happened with the great comet of 1843. The presence of 
 the comet would relieve the outside pressure of the medium, 
 thus permitting the expansion and thinning of the sun's photo- 
 sphere, hence its displacement and the intrusion of the medium 
 forming the spot. This would also involve the electric repulsion 
 fully explained in §26. 
 
 As to the magnetic or mechanical influence of the sun upon 
 the earth, it seems that we have the most satisfactory evidence. 
 It is well known that currents of electricity are induced and 
 kept going around the earth by the sun, which heats successive 
 parts of the earth's surface as it turns on its axis. These cur- 
 rents being currents of expanded ether similar to those in a 
 magnet or a conducting wire (Chap. V.), the needle of the 
 compass is made to point north and south in order to bring its 
 revolving currents into harmony with the earth currents; that is, 
 the direction of the current in the under side of the needle must 
 be the same as those of the earth in order to prevent friction and 
 to maintain the currents in the magnet. A further application 
 of the same theory will explain the daily oscillations of the 
 needle, the slight changes in the daily movements during the 
 year, the changes of the position of the earth's magnetic pole, 
 and other mysteries of terrestrial magnetism. These things are 
 here only briefly noticed. A thorough experimental research 
 will be necessary to make everything clear, and this is beyond 
 my reach at present. 
 
 The so-called magnetic storms which produce sudden irreg- 
 ular movements of the needle, and which are known to effect 
 not only all other needles throughout the world at the same 
 moment, but in many cases the telegraph instruments and the 
 electric condition of the atmosphere are known to be most inti- 
 mately connected with unusual disturbances in the sun. It has 
 been often noticed that when the earth's magnetic equilibrium 
 is disturbed in this way, there is an unusual display of the au- 
 rora lights in the polar regions of the earth's atmosphere. Ex- 
 plorers in the Arctics have noticed that the aurora was never 
 visible over ice fields, that when in progress the luminous 
 streamers always appeared over the open sea. It is well known 
 that water is a better conductor of electricity than ice. Many 
 persons have noticed the close similarity of the aurora lights to 
 certain forms of electric discharge. Mr. R. A. Proctor, the as- 
 tronomer, says: "As to the electric character of these displays, 
 no question can be entertained although there are few prob- 
 lems of greater difficulty than the determination of the exact 
 
—127— 
 manner in which the electric action is excited. ' ' No doubt of it, 
 electricity is the active agent, and when we come to under- 
 stand what electricity is (Chap. V), the whole will come under 
 the laws of inertia, and the difficulty is gone. 
 
 It is known that the earth's magnetic condition, or power 
 to maintain the needle in position, varies during the year, being 
 greater during the two months December and January, in both 
 hemispheres. The earth makes his perihelion passage about the 
 first of January, at which time there is the least distance 
 between the earth and the sun, the distance at this point being 
 about three million miles less than at aphelion. From which it 
 is supposed that the sun's magnetic influence varies with the 
 distance, being greater when the distance is least. Observation 
 even goes so far as to make it highly probable that this influ- 
 ence varies as the square of the distance, which, if true, 
 would be in perfect harmony with our mechanical theory of 
 gravity (§ 20) . It is also known that the moon affects the mag- 
 netic condition of the earth. By means of the horizontal pendu- 
 lum it has been found that bodies at the surface of the 
 earth directly under the moon, have slightly less weight than 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Here we have a community of carefully observed and es- 
 tablished facts, all showing an intimate connection with one 
 another and with periods of unusual activity in the sun, and all 
 of which speak out plainly for a common cause; and what 
 can it be if not the mechanical action of a material medium 
 like the ether? 
 
 26. Comets. — Perhaps there is no object in the heavens 
 better fitted to attract attention or excite the speculative mind 
 than the comets of our solar system. When seen on a dark, 
 clear night, with that wonderful appendage called a tail stretch- 
 ing across the heavens for over a hundred million miles, the 
 imagination of the superstitious man begins to see world-wide 
 calamity; and his prophetic vision often impels him to warn the 
 world of the impending wrath of an offended God. But the man 
 with a more rational turn of mind takes a different view of the 
 matter. With him it is a problem which makes a strong appeal 
 to man for an explanation. The feature which is best calculated 
 to attract the attention of the thinking man, is the strange be- 
 havior of the comet while making its perihelion passage around 
 and close to the sun. It is known that a comet while passing 
 this point in its orbit may come very close to the sun. The com- 
 et of 1843, the largest of the century, actually rushed thru the 
 outer limits of the sun's atmosphere, so close that the heat was 
 estimated to be 2000 times greater than red hot iron. 
 
 While in the midst of this fiery gauntlet the tail of this 
 
— 128 — 
 comet began to develop with surprising rapidity, reaching a 
 length of 120 millions of miles in a few hours. And most re- 
 markable, this tail presented all the appearance of being re- 
 pelled or driven outwards by some repulsive action of the sun. 
 To convey a correct idea of this phenomenon and of the diffi- 
 culties attending it, I must quote a passage from the writings 
 of Sir John Herschel, who was one of the most competent and 
 careful of observers. — "It is clear that if we have to deal here 
 with matter such as we conceive it, viz, possessing inertia at 
 all, it must be under the dominion of forces incomparably more 
 energetic than gravity, and quite of a different nature." In an- 
 other place the same writer presents the difficulties of the case 
 in the following passage.— 
 
 "There is beyond question some profound secret and mys- 
 tery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails. Per- 
 haps it is not too much to hope that future observation, borrow- 
 ing every aid from rational speculation, grounded on the prog- 
 ress of physical science generally, especially those branches of 
 it which relate to the ethereal or imponderable elements, may 
 ere long enable us to penetrate this mystery and to declare 
 whether it is really matter in the ordinary acceptance of the 
 term, which is projected from their heads with such extrava- 
 gant velocity, and if not impelled at least directed with a refer- 
 ence to the sun at its point of avoidance. In no respect is this 
 question as to the materiality of the tail, more forcibly press- 
 ed upon us for consideration than in that of the enormous sweep 
 which it makes around the sun in perihelio, in the manner of a 
 straight and rigid rod, in defiance of the law of gravity, nay 
 even of the received laws of motion, extending as we have seen 
 in the comet of 1680 and 1843 from near the sun's surface to the 
 earth's orbit, yet whirling around unbroken in the latter case 
 thru an angle of 180 degrees in little more than two hours. It 
 seems utterly incredible that in such a case it is one and the 
 same object which is thus brandished." 
 
 The above is from a competent observer and I would invite 
 the reader's attention to that part of it which refers to the ap- 
 parent repulsive action of the sun, also that part which pro- 
 pounds the question as to whether it is matter in the then ac- 
 cepted sense, which is projected from the comet's head and which 
 makes a mighty sweep of the heavens in so little time. When 
 Herschel wrote the above the ether was not generally regarded 
 as ordinary matter, and in fact by many it is not so regarded 
 now. As will appear later it is to electricity that we must look 
 for the explanation of these nature freaks. From the above it 
 seems that the writer was looking in the only promising direc- 
 tion for the explanation. A study of electric phenomena in view 
 of the ether and mechanical laws may lead us to the true solu- 
 
— 129— 
 tion. From all accounts it is not generally true that the tails of 
 comets are projected directly out from the sun as described ab- 
 ove. They are often curved backward from the direction of 
 their motion, as tho being impelled against a resisting medium. 
 The rapid and extensive swing of the tail of the comet of 1843, 
 and the fact that it was projected straight out from the sun, 
 might have been almost wholly an electric display similar to the 
 aurora lights in the polar regions of our atmosphere but far 
 more energetic. Perhaps the atmosphere of the comet was soon 
 dissipated into the outer medium and that which followed was a 
 powerful discharge of motion thru the ether somewhat like a 
 flash of lightning but more continuous. It is known that the 
 majority of comets appear to have tails composed of ponderable 
 matter, most likely in the gaseous form, and that incandescent 
 gases are good conductors of opposite electricity. The following 
 account of comets generally is the best that I am able to offer 
 from recent books which have come in my way. 
 
 The orbits of comets generally have the form of a greatly 
 elongated ellipse. They first emerge from the outer regions of 
 the solar system or beyond, and look like small roundish neb- 
 ulous bodies, slightly more condensed in the center. This cen- 
 tral part (called the nucleus) is generally brighter than the sur- 
 rounding portion and it is common to all comets. Around this 
 is a nebulous haze or atmosphere of considerable extent, grow- 
 ing more rare as its distance from the center is increased, 
 called the coma. As the comet approaches the sun its coma as- 
 sumes an elongated form with its longest diameter pointing to- 
 ward the sun. This, according to the mechanical theory, would 
 be a result of the sun's radiation as in the case of the tides of 
 our ocean and atmosphere. Later on this lengthening of the 
 coma grows more apparent and the nucleus appears to occupy 
 the end nearest the sun and to increase in brightness. As the 
 comet comes nearer to the sun the coma in many cases begins 
 to undergo remarkable changes. It first appears to be retarded 
 in its path as if being impelled against an inert resisting me- 
 dium; or perhaps the momentum of the nucleus being greater, 
 owing to its greater mass, is less retarded by the medium than 
 the lighter material of the coma, or perhaps it is due to some 
 extent to greater outside pressure on the more dense material 
 of the nucleus. Next the nucleus begins to increase in bright- 
 ness as if from internal disturbance and soon begins to throw 
 out a luminous jet toward the sun. Sometimes more than one 
 such eruption occurs but always on the side next the sun. These 
 jets seem to arise from some internal eruptive agency perhaps 
 not wholly unlike the volcanoes of the earth, and the materials 
 being first projected toward the sun for a short distance are 
 then born back by the retarding medium to form the tail 
 
— 130 — 
 
 of the comet which now begins to develop behind the nucleus, 
 growing longer as the comet nears the sun and always pointing 
 away from the sun. Sometimes the luminous matter in front of 
 the nucleus forms into a number of crescent shaped bands one 
 outside the other and having dark spaces between them. This 
 feature was conspicuous in Donati's comet which had seven such 
 envelops. The comet of 1843 while approaching the sun seemed 
 to move almost in a straight line toward that luminary, then 
 after swinging around and close to the sun it took nearly an op- 
 posite course returning to outer darkness. While moving toward 
 the sun the tail projected to the rear and away from the sun, 
 but on making its short turn around and close to that white hot 
 mass its tail shot out at great length and always directly from 
 the sun, so that the comet retreated to outer space with its tail 
 in advance. Thus it would seem that this comet, head and tail, 
 was actually blown away by some powerful action of the sun, 
 and to some extent the same is true of all comets. 
 
 Now in view of our mechanical theory it seems highly prob- 
 able that comets, the one just mentioned at least, are first im- 
 pelled toward the sun by the outside pressure of the ether, as 
 in the case of gravity or electric attraction, (the comet being 
 negative to the sun) then on reaching that part of its orbit 
 which brings it nearest the sun, it receives an electro- positive 
 charge from the sun; then it is repelled and driven back to the 
 colder region of outer space where it has a chance to cool off a 
 little, when it is ready to be attracted again by the sun. This 
 mechanical process reminds us of the convection currents of air 
 in a room being heated by a stove; or of the boiling water in a 
 kettle. The lighter material of the comet's atmosphere would 
 first become electro-positive by a transfer of motion from the 
 sun, and so would be repelled to form the tail which begins to 
 develop before the comet makes its perihelion passage. The nu- 
 cleus of the comet being more dense is retained longer by out- 
 side pressure. In the same way it is supposed that our moon 
 was deprived of an atmosphere. A certain period of balance 
 between the centrifugal force of the comet and the repulsve 
 force of the sun on the one side, and the outside pressure of 
 the medium on the other, would enable the comet to describe 
 a part of a circle in which its velocity would be somewhat in- 
 creased ; and the repulsive force of the sun being most likely 
 increased at the same time, a point would be reached at which 
 the comet would begin to recede from the sun. 
 
 It is known that a flame or any heated ponderable body is 
 always a good conductor of electricity or expanded ether, while 
 pure ether as in a vacuum, is a most perfect nonconductor of the 
 same. Hence it is to be expected that when the comet arrives 
 close to the sun, its coma and nucleus would serve as an outlet 
 
—131 — 
 for the sun's powerful expansive or electric energy, because 
 they are negative conductors. The coma of the comet would 
 receive the first discharge from the sun because it is outside 
 and in advance, and being thus rendered positive would be re- 
 pelled and driven back to form the tail. The eruption witnessed 
 in Donati's comet is not perfectly clear unless it is due to some 
 diminution of outside pressure and liberation of pent up expan- 
 sive force in the nucleus. The difference between positive and 
 negative electricity will be explained in the next chapter. 
 
 If electricity or the mechanics of the ether is the real agent 
 in cometary phenomena it ought to be possible to give an illus- 
 tration of this strange behavior of the comet by a simple elec- 
 tric experiment on a small scale. When this idea first occurred 
 to me (in 1880) m y first attempt seemed to be a complete suc- 
 cess and I must describe it here. I suspended a small pith ball 
 by a fine silk thread six inches long and attached to the ball a 
 few shreds of cotton two inches long. Fine silk thread is a non- 
 conductor of electricity and cotton thread is a good conductor 
 of the same. Next I electrified an argand lamp chimney near 
 its upper end by friction and stood it on the table top end up. 
 I had anticipated that the electrified end of the glass chimney 
 would serve as a diminutive sun, while the cotton tailed pith 
 ball might play the part of a comet. When all was ready I 
 brought the comet near the sun and noticed that it promptly 
 moved toward the sun; (elctric attraction, gravity or difference 
 of pressure in the ether medium). As soon as it touched the 
 sun its tail immediately swung out from the sun and it bounded 
 back tail first; (electric and molecular repulsion) . Then being 
 charged with electricity or expanded ether from the sun the 
 comet was repelled, and when brought close or made to swing 
 around the sun, its tail always pointed away from the sun ex- 
 actly like a real comet while making its perihelion passage. In 
 later experiments I adopted a small leaden ball for the comet's 
 head; then I could make it describe a true ellipse with the sun 
 in one foci and the tail swinging outward as with comets gener- 
 ally. With suitable apparatus it seems possible that every fea- 
 ture of comets may be duplicated by the use of electricity. 
 
 The comet discovered by Biela in 1826 on its return in 1846 
 was found to be divided into two smaller comets traveling side 
 by side about 200,000 miles apart. The same two comets ap- 
 peared again in 1852 moving somewhat further apart. In this 
 fact we have an example on a large scale of the electro-molecu- 
 lar-mechanical repulsive force described in the next two chap- 
 ters. The comet when close to the sun would acquire the posi- 
 tive electricity which would make its parts self-repulsive, hence 
 the division. Writers on the subject generally admit the pres- 
 ence of this repulsive force. Bessel proposed a form of magnet- 
 
— 132— 
 
 ic polarity and repulsion but did not explain magnetic polarity 
 or repulsion. Prof. Loomis in his treatise on astronomy says. — 
 "In order to explain the phenomena of comet's tails it seems 
 necessary to admit the existence of a repulsive force by which 
 certain particles of a comet are driven off from the nucleus, 
 and that these particles are then acted upon by a more power- 
 ful repulsive force eminating from the sun." R.A. Proctor, in 
 the 'Contemporary Review, ' says concerning the electric nature 
 of cometary phenomena. "It is worthy of note that outside of 
 electricity there is nothing known to physicists which seems to 
 offer even a promise of explanation, so far at least, as the grand- 
 er and more striking, also the more mysterious of cometary 
 phenomena." Dr Huggins the spectroscopist, who examined the 
 spectrum or eelf-light of comets, entertained similar views. In 
 short, from the testimony of many careful observers, well fixed 
 for the work, it seems plain enough that a complete solution of 
 the mystery about comets is a complete solution of the mystery 
 about electricity, showing that the laws of electric action are 
 laws of motion. The question whether the sun is electrified pos- 
 itive or negative is, according to our view, simply a question of 
 electric intensity or degree of ether expansion, the sun's ether 
 being more highly expanded than that of the comet and there- 
 fore positive to it. Or, in other words, the ether in the sun con- 
 tains more motion, volume for volume, than that in the comet, so 
 contains more expansive energy or power to move bodily in any 
 direction of least resistance, and a direction of least resistance 
 is toward and thru the comet, because its electricity or expand- 
 ed ether is negative or less intense. But when the projected sub- 
 stance of the comet's head receives a charge of positive ether 
 from the sun it is then repelled, because like electricities always 
 repel each other; a fact to be explained later. 
 
 It was mentioned in §25 that comets may have the power of 
 causing sun spots, and this is to be expected and may be read- 
 ily understood from the mechanical point of view. The hot at- 
 mosphere of the sun repels the atmosphere of the comet as soon 
 as it becomes positive, then it is driven back to form a tail. The 
 comet also repels the atmosphere of the sun, but the sun being 
 so much larger than the comet, its atmosphere is only displaced 
 or driven outwards from a point directly under the comet; so 
 the interior and darker body of the sun is exposed to view as in 
 the spot. When we come to understand the electro-mechanical 
 theory, the phenomena of comets will be better understood, and 
 this is our object in the next chapter. 
 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 MYSTERIES OF PHYSICS. 
 
 27. Sensible and insensible forms of motion.— This 
 chapter is occupied for the most part with the mysteries of elec- 
 tricity and magnetism, the facts of which, being generally treat- 
 ed under Physics. As in the preceding chapter the object here 
 is to derive the harmony of the facts fromi;he laws of motion. 
 To this end it will be necessary first to briefly notice certain 
 sensible and insensible forms of motion. 
 
 From atom to atom the transfer of motion is insensible in 
 time and space, but between bodies of sensible mass it requires 
 a sensible time. It is here inferred that the transfer of motion 
 among the ultimate particles of matter is exactly the same as 
 it is among sensible bodies. There is only one way according to 
 this theory, (§19) . A bullet thrown against a pane of glass will 
 break it into a number of pieces, but the same bullet if fired 
 from a rifle will cut a round hole in the glass not much larger 
 than the bullet. The lesser velocity has time to impart motion 
 to a larger volume of the glass, while the greater velocity ef- 
 fects the separation of a small portion of the glass from its oth- 
 er parts before the motion has time to communicate itself to 
 the other parts. This experiment illustrates the general truth 
 that the communication of motion, even among the smallest 
 particles, requires time, and the fact is unexplained until we 
 admit that there is empty space between the smallest particles 
 and that all their movements may come under the laws of iner- 
 tia. It is also this fact, in the case of the rifle bullet, which in- 
 creases the penetrating power of a cannon shot nearly four fold 
 when its velocity is doubled. The energy of a given mass, there- 
 fore, increases as the quantity of its motion, not as the square 
 of its velocity, as mentioned in text books. 
 
 If we shoot a billiard ball straight across the table it will re- 
 bound straight back again. If it strikes the opposite side from 
 an oblique direction it will rebound in an opposite oblique direc- 
 tion, both directions always forming the same angle with the 
 perpendicular. In every case of visible motion, that of compo- 
 sition or subdivision, that which appears as circular, elliptical 
 or that of any curve, accelerated or retarded motion, the move- 
 ments of the gyroscope or spinning top, cases of interference, 
 pressure or impact, all should come under the mechanical laws 
 which we derive from the inertia of matter. 
 
— 134 — 
 
 All wave motion, according to this theory, ought to be the 
 same in form, whether sensible or insensible. Perhaps physical 
 scientists will object to this proposition because it is not in the 
 books, but books may not be always right. The visible waves 
 on the surface of water do not convey a complete idea of all 
 that's in wave motion. The true form of all wave motion, as re- 
 quired by inertia, is that of alternate condensed and expanded 
 spheres propagated thru the medium in all directions. In the 
 condensed part of the wave the particles of the medium are 
 forced closer together but they immediately reexpand to a point 
 beyond the normal density and so form the expanded part. The 
 result is a transfer of the motion to another part of the medi- 
 um in advance and so the motion proceeds outward while the 
 matter remains behind. In the reexpansion of the condensed 
 part of a wave that part of the medium directly in front of it 
 is pushed forward to some extent while being condensed, hence 
 a part of the medium oscillates to and fro in the direction of the 
 wave motion. In the condensed part of the wave the particles 
 are forced closer together thus shortening their range and in- 
 creasing their velocity and energy of impact upon one another, 
 hence for a brief period there is an accumulation of energy in 
 the condensed part of the wave. In the reaction which follows 
 this potential energy is continually being transferred thru the 
 medium as long as it retains the wave form of motion, being 
 gradually reduced according to the law of diminution. (§20). 
 
 This form of ether wave comes directly from the physical 
 laws described in (§16). From these laws it seems that we can 
 distinguish three forms of motion in the ether, that of its indi- 
 vidual particles, that of its waves and that of its currents. The 
 current form will be described when we come to deal with elec- 
 tricity; the wave form was described above; that of its individ- 
 ual particles should have some attention here. As already as- 
 sumed (§19) , the ether medium is composed of exceedingly small, 
 perfectly solid and elastic particles of inert matter, totally in- 
 capable of internal relative motion because they are absolute- 
 ly solid. Individually such particles can have but two forms of 
 motion, the whirling motion and that of a straight line thru 
 empty space. In the first there is little or no effect beyond the 
 limits of the particle itself. In or from the latter great results 
 immediately follow. Each particle is governed entirely by its 
 own inertia, that is, it will move in a straight line until it strikes 
 another particle then it will bound off in a different direction 
 and so on continually vibrating between the others which hap- 
 pen in its way. This motion may be more or less and the quan- 
 tity of motion in the medium at any point will determine its den- 
 sity at that point. It is not difficult to see all the mechanical 
 possibilities for such a medium. It will exert enormous pres- 
 
— 135— 
 sure in all directions, and for this reason it must be bounded on 
 all sides by matter which will resist its outward pressure, (§51). 
 When expanded at one point more than at others it will move 
 in any direction of least resistance, hence the current. An elas- 
 tic medium of this sort may serve as a perfect vehicle for wave 
 motion, since it is capable of yielding to more or less condensa- 
 tion from which it will promptly react. This form of wave ap- 
 pears to be the only one that will harmonize with this form of 
 medium, which in itself is the only material medium justified 
 by the laws of inertia and relativity. From which it follows that 
 all wave motion should be the same in form, whether of light, 
 heat, electricity, sound or waves in liquids. 
 
 In the course of this chapter it will appear that all the dif- 
 ferent forms of electricity and magnetism may be derived from 
 this form of the ether medium with ponderable matter and 
 physical laws. Also in chapter 6 it will be shown that even the 
 complex facts of chemistry may be reduced to order under it. 
 
 The laws of the reflection of motion, which govern the mo- 
 tion of ordinary projectiles, (p,133), are equally true of light 
 waves, heat waves, electric waves and sound waves. Dense 
 bodies, the metals, are the best reflectors of wave motion, and 
 this is due not only to smoothness of surface but to superior 
 inertia. There is more matter in the dense body and proportion- 
 ally more resistance offered to motion. Waves of the same 
 length, either in light, heat, electricity, sound or those of liq- 
 uids, when they meet from opposite directions, will interfere 
 and destroy each other; that is, they blend together and the 
 wave form is confused and obliterated, and the motion is changed 
 into other forms, perhaps that of electricity in the case of ether 
 waves, and that of heat in the case of sound or fluid undula- 
 tions. This is an important fact which has something to do with 
 our theory of electric repulsion described in this chapter. 
 
 The intensity of all wave motion decreases as the square 
 of the distance thru which it travels increases. This general law 
 of the communication of motion from a single body or point to 
 the surrounding medium in all directions, illustrates the truth 
 of the universal presence of inertia, whieh requires that motion 
 must decrease in intensity as the quantity of matter to which 
 it is imparted is increased. 
 
 All wave motion may be refracted, focused or dispersed. 
 When light, for example, is passing from any medium, into a 
 more dense medium, from a direction oblique to the surface of 
 the denser body, it is refracted or deflected from a straight 
 line. This bending from a right line is generally but not always 
 toward the perpendicular. When the light falls from a direction 
 perpendicular to the surface of the denser body, there is no 
 refraction. In all cases of refraction a part of the wave motion 
 
— 136 — 
 is reflected from the surface. It seems that refraction itself is 
 a form of reflection due to the inertia of the denser body. In 
 thus passing from a rare into a dense medium, light is also re- 
 tarded in its velocity, and the difference of velocity in the two 
 media bears a constant ratio to the index of refraction. There is 
 also some correspondence between the density of a body and its 
 refracting index, hence it is to be supposed that the retardation 
 of velocity is due to the fact that the wave motion is commu- 
 nicated to a greater quantity of matter in the more dense part 
 of its medium. If this is true it would then seem highly probable 
 that the ponderable part of transparent bodies must serve as a 
 part of the medium of light, and contrary to the view now held 
 light is not confined to the ether alone. On this subject Profes- 
 sor John Tyndall, in his notes on "Light and Electricity," says. 
 "The density of the ether is greater in liquids and solids than in 
 gases, and greater in gases than in vacu. A compressing force 
 seems to be exerted upon the ether by the molecules of these 
 bodies." This is perhaps only a conjecture from the fact that 
 light is retarded in its passage thru ponderable bodies in propor- 
 tion to their density. But it is not justified by this general the- 
 ory, which requires the ether to be more expanded as it ap- 
 proaches or mingles with the molecules from which it gets its 
 motion, and that it must be less dense as the density of ponder- 
 able matter is increased. Hence from this theory it is most like- 
 ly that transparent ponderable bodies form at least a part of 
 the medium of light, tho some of the light must be intercepted. 
 
 When waves of sound strike a nonconductor of sound they 
 are reflected more or less, but those which pass the sides of the 
 body will travel around the side to the side opposite. When 
 waves of light strike an opaque body they are partly absorbed 
 and partly reflected, but those which pass the sides of the body 
 do not pass around it like the waves of sound, hence the body 
 casts a shadow. This difference between light and sound seems 
 to be a result of the great difference in their velocities. Light 
 travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second and sound travels 
 at the rate of 13 miles per minute, hence the sound has time to 
 communicate itself in a lateral direction while the light has not. 
 It is a case similar to that of the bullet when thrown against 
 a pane of glass and when fired at the glass from a rifle. 
 
 Other seeming discrepancies between modern scientific tea- 
 ching and this general mechanical theory, might be mentioned. 
 But this work being a general theory necessarilly more or less 
 incomplete at first, and being more concerned with general prin- 
 ciples, must be expected to overlook the small details to some 
 extent, which small fry may wait for future notice. What we 
 should notice here is the fact that our common sense ideas about 
 sensible things may guide us to the truth about insensible things. 
 
— 137 — 
 
 28. Electricity. — In this, and in the following sections, I 
 will undertake to explain and reduce to order the best known 
 facts of electricity and magnetism, as would be required by this 
 general theory. The task is a difficult one but from all that has 
 gone before, the outlook for something important on the same 
 line is highly favorable. 
 
 The several forms of electricity are known as frictional, 
 voltaic, thermal, atmospheric, animal, electro-magnetism, mag- 
 neto-electricity, terrestrial magnetism and ordinary magnetism. 
 All these are changeable into each other and into light, heat, 
 sound, chemical action and sensible motion, and so far as known 
 they conform strictly to the law of quantity; that is, any one 
 form will give rise to only its equivalent of some other form. 
 It is now generally believed that all of these, whether electric or 
 magnetic, are forms of electricity and that electricity is a man- 
 ifestation of the one universal but as yet mysterious energy. 
 This should be remembered in view of our theory that physical 
 energy is nothing but the motion of inert matter, and that the 
 laws of its transformation and conservation are the laws of mo- 
 tion which we have derived from the same inertia. (§16) . 
 
 The well known facts of electric attraction and repulsion 
 were noticed and recorded by the Greeks 25 hundred years ago. 
 But no experimental work for more knowledge was commenced 
 until about the beginning of the 16th century. From that time 
 to the present, particularly in the last 50 years, electric science 
 has advanced rapidly and many able investigators have made 
 fame and fortune in this field of research. It was first supposed 
 that only a certain class of bodies called electrics, such as glass, 
 amber, guttapercha, sealingwax, silk and flannel, were capa- 
 ble of producing electricity by friction. But later experiments 
 revealed the fact that all the electrics were nonconductors, and 
 that bodies on which no electricity could be developed by fric- 
 tion, such as the metals and the like, were conductors. This im- 
 portant discovery was soon followed by another, equally impor- 
 tant and showing that when conductors are properly insulated, 
 they too were capable of electric excitement by friction, and 
 so it was finally established as a general truth that under prop- 
 er conditions electricity maybe developed by friction on all bod- 
 ies. This is another fact to be remembered in view of the me- 
 chanical theory. The discovery of facts soon led to the devis- 
 ing of theories to account for the facts, and so many ingenious 
 theories have been proposed; but so far all of them have proved 
 unsatisfactory to scientists generally. An account of all these 
 theories would be unnecessary here as they may be found in 
 the books and it will be noticed that all of them include the idea 
 of an unexplained attractive and repulsive force which resides 
 either in the molecules, or in the units of an hypothetical elec- 
 
— 138— 
 trie fluid or two fluids, and which force remains entirely outside 
 the sphere of mechanical law. The need of a true theory of elec- 
 tricity is now well understood by scientists and of course the 
 true theory must take in all the universe. 
 
 It is well known that electricity exists everywhere in na- 
 ture in some disguised form which shows no sign of its presence 
 unless called into activity by friction, heat, chemical action or 
 magnetic influence. It is also known that the ether exists eve- 
 rywhere in nature except in the space occupied by the atoms. 
 Electricity is found at all times in the insensibly small pores 
 of all solids, in liquids and gases, and in the atmosphere, and it 
 appears to increase in strength and quantity with the altitude. 
 This is also true of the ether. There is nothing in all this to in- 
 terfere with the idea that the forms of electricity and magne- 
 tism, are forms of ordinary motion, changeable into each other 
 and into other form, as light, heat, sound and sensible motion, 
 and that the substance which moves is the ether in its close re- 
 lationship with the molecules of ponderable bodies. These mol- 
 ecules are always immersed in the ether, they move thru it and 
 the idea that they must impart some of their motion to this 
 medium, is certainly one of the true ideas which must have a 
 place in our system. The belief is now very general among sci- 
 entists that the ether will play an important part in some fu- 
 ture theory of electricity, but so far it seems that no precise 
 line of investigation, under physical law, has been pursued to 
 this end. Let us bear in mind that the primary assumption in 
 this general mechanical theory is, that all physical activities or 
 so called forms of energy, as light, heat, electricity, magnetism, 
 chemical changes, the X rays, sound, gravity and all sensible 
 movements, are nothing but forms of motion in the one sub- 
 stance, tbe inertia of which is the governing law of all. 
 
 29. Frictional Electricity.— If the ether is a medium 
 composed of small particles of inert matter as described, there 
 can be no doubt but that it may receive motion from ponderable 
 matter. Science has already admitted this as necessary in the 
 case of the wave theory of light and heat. Since it receives mo- 
 tion in the form of waves, there is no difficulty in the idea that 
 sensible portions of its body may receive the motion of expan- 
 sion exactly the same as does pondeable gases and liquids. For 
 example, the air readily receives waves from a sounding body, 
 and with equal readiness it may be expanded by heat or even by 
 sound waves. By suitable means the air may be expanded on 
 one side of a body, causing difference of pressure and sensible 
 motion in the body as in a case of so called attraction. (§20 §32). 
 
 We may then expect the ether to be capable of receiving 
 the motion of expansion which is simply an increase in the ve- 
 
—139— 
 locity of its particles as described in (§27). In the case of sound 
 the motion is converted into sound waves by the impact of a 
 moving body against a resisting surface which surface yields to 
 some extent but immediately reacts and starts the sound wave. 
 In the case of heat a body may be heated by impact or friction 
 or by its contact with another heated body, in which latter case 
 the motion is supposed to be communicated directly from mole- 
 cule to molecule. It is a familiar fact that sensible bodies may 
 be heated in this way and that the heat may be directly com- 
 municated to the surrounding air. Heat being molecular motion 
 both in solids and in gases, and the molecules being immersed 
 in the ether, it is impossible to escape the idea that some of this 
 motion is imparted directly to the particles of the ether. Hence 
 the expansion of the ether is inevitable. In the case of light, 
 the heat of impact or friction has only to be increased to the 
 point of incandescence or white heat, then the body emits the 
 very short, quick waves which give rise to our sense of light. 
 Scientists now distinguish a number of different wave lengths 
 among these. The shortest, forming the visible spectrum, are 
 called light, and the longest, being invisible, are heat waves. 
 Science also recognizes two forms of heat, the wave heat and 
 ordinary heat, which latter is supposed to be a confused motion 
 of the individual molecules and atoms, which of course must be 
 governed by the laws of inertia. The former is that found in 
 the invisible part of the spectrum and which travels a long dis- 
 tance with the velocity of light. The latter does not travel so 
 far but is more potent in expanding the atmosphere and other 
 gases and liquids near its source. Electric waves and x waves 
 are now also recognized by the cultivators of science. 
 
 Now there is no reason why we should not distinguish and 
 recognize two forms of motion in the ether, similar to the two 
 just mentioned in ponderable matter — wave motion and the con- 
 fused vibratory motion of the particles like that of ordinary 
 heat. The first mentioned would be light, wave heat and elec- 
 tric waves, and the latter would be frictional electricity or the 
 motion of the particles which results in the expansion of a sen- 
 sible body of the ether. This idea comes directly from the ulti- 
 mate particle of inert matter, governed as described in §27. 
 
 This expanded body of ether may be expected to exert pres- 
 sure outward in all directions against the surrounding more 
 dense ether, exactly as does a body of expanded air. The draft 
 of a stove depends on the fact that the air in the flue has been 
 expanded by heat and so being made lighter, volume for volume, 
 is pushed up the flue because the outside more dense and heav- 
 ier air is allowed to flow into the stove. To account for this 
 fact we must admit that the expanded air exerts pressure out- 
 ward against the surrounding more dense air. So with the ether. 
 
— 140- 
 
 Now this expanded body of ether may cause difference of 
 pressure resulting in the motion of sensible bodies, the same as 
 does the expanded air in cases mentioned in §20. But in this case 
 we would call it electric attraction. This expanded body of the 
 ether may also move in any direction of least resistance as does 
 the currents of hot air up the chimney. Remove the cork from 
 a bottle containing expanded air and we have an example of 
 this motion which will apply to illustrate certain forms of elec- 
 tric discharge. The expanded air rushes out of the bottle until 
 equilibrium is restored in the ponderable part of the medium. 
 In like manner the ether rushes out of the expanded field until 
 equilibrium is restored as in a flash of lightning and in other 
 cases. In this we have the source of the electro-motive force in 
 all cases of current not purely undulatory, as well as in cases 
 of discharge. But the phenomena of conductivity and resistance 
 are complicated with certain molecular facts which we must 
 trace out in order to understand the whole, and this is to be 
 attempted in the following sections. 
 
 Since all space except that between the smallest particles 
 of matter should be occupied, it follows that, as the density 
 and quantity of ponderable matter in the earth's atmosphere 
 and solid surface increases downward from the outer limits of 
 the atmosphere, the density and quantity of the ether should 
 decrease in the same direction. The ether should also be more 
 expanded by the molecules which move in it, in particular the 
 more dense or those containing the most molecular motion. It 
 is known that the earth's solid surface is a good absorber and 
 conductor of heat, also a good absorber and conductor of elec- 
 tricity. The metals are all good absorbers and conductors of 
 heat, and almost exactly to the same extent they are absorbers 
 and conductors of electricity. The conducting capacity of a 
 number of the metals for both heat and electricity, has been 
 carefully examined by four investigators, Weideman, Franz, 
 Riess and Lenz, with results as follows. — Silver, for heat, 100; 
 for electricity, 100. Copper, for heat, 73; for electricity, 66 to 
 73. Gold, for heat, 53; for electricity, 53 to 59. Brass, for heat, 
 23; for electricity, 18 to 21. Tin, for heat, 14; for electricity, 10 
 to 22. Iron, for heat, 11; for electricity, 12 to 13. Lead, for heat, 
 8; for electricity, 7 to 10. Platinum, for heat, 6; for electricity, 
 10. Bismuth, for heat, 1; for electricity, nine- tenths of one. 
 
 It will be seen that these results afford substantial support 
 for the mechanical theory. It is to be expected that where there 
 is the greatest capacity for receiving molecular motion there 
 we ought to find the most of it, and there the ether would be 
 most apt to receive motion from the molecules. On the other 
 hand, it is known that all light, porous bodies, as dry air, silk, 
 flannel, glass, sealing-wax, guta-percha, dry wood and the like, 
 
— 141 — 
 
 are bad conductors of both heat and electricity, a further no- 
 table confirmation of this theory, because we ought to expect 
 that bodies in which there is little capacity for receiving or im- 
 parting such motion, there the ether ought to be more dense, 
 thus making such bodies a direction of greater resistance to the 
 electricity or expanded ether and therefore bad conductors. So 
 it would seem that the difference in conducting capacity in dif- 
 ferent bodies, is purely a physical difference; that is, a form 
 and size of the molecules which makes them more or less capa- 
 ble of receiving and communicating motion to each other and to 
 the ether. Now from our well known mechanical laws it may 
 be readily seen that in this relation of ponderable and impon- 
 derable matter, there will always exist a tendency toward uni- 
 versal equilibrium, and that any disturbance of this tendency, 
 as in a sudden or unusual expansion of the ether at any point, 
 may give rise either to a sudden discharge or a moderate cur- 
 rent of electricity in any direction of least resistance, thus re- 
 sulting in a move toward equilibrium. Since the ether in noncon- 
 ductors should be more dense than in conductors, the direction of 
 least resistance in a case of frictional electricity near the sur- 
 face of the earth, ought to be toward the earth, toward a con- 
 ductor or thru a conductor, in particular if it makes connection 
 with the earth. As an example, if a glass rod held in the hand 
 be electrified by friction, the expanded ether immediately on 
 the surface and within the pores of the glass, cannot flow into 
 the earth because the glass is a bad conductor; and the glass is 
 a bad conductor because the ether within and on its unelectri- 
 fied parts is more dense than that of the expanded field; and 
 the expanded field or body of electricity cannot escape into the 
 earth because it is more or less completely fenced in by the sur- 
 rounding more dense ether. The rarefied ether thus corraled, 
 clings to the glass for a short time because the glass is a pon- 
 derable solid in which the ether is somewhat less dense than in 
 the surrounding air, hence it is held there by outside pressure 
 until dissipated just as heat is. The same thing happens with an 
 insulated conductor when excited by friction. But if a conductor 
 which connects with the earth be subject to friction, the ether 
 is expanded the same but it is immediately dissipated into the 
 earth and the general equilibrium between the earth's tension 
 and that of the surrounding air is maintained, and so there is 
 no appearance of electricity. In this we have the reason why 
 electricity is not dissipated upward as is the case with expanded 
 air by the buoyant force of the surrounding air, but must tend 
 to cling to insulated solids or to be discharged toward the earth, 
 or toward or thru conductors which connect with the earth. And 
 the motive force is not only the expansion of a sensible body of 
 ether but the outside resistance of the surrounding more dense 
 
— 142— 
 ether as in the case of expanded air. But the comparison of the 
 air in this case is not altogether correct because the outside 
 pressure of the air is due to its greater density and weight, 
 while the outside more dense ether acts only as a resisting me- 
 dium. The rarefied ether most likely receives its motion direct 
 from the molecules in the surface of the two bodies rubbed to- 
 gether, which molecular motion is due to friction. This view 
 seems the most likely since different substances are known to 
 produce different degrees of expansion in the ether. 
 
 It seems altogether impossible to conceive how motion can 
 be changed by friction into any other form but that of the indi- 
 vidual molecules which results in expansion, unless it be a like 
 motion in the ether. The necessary truth that no motion is ever 
 lost or changed into anything but a different form of motion, 
 and the fact that friction will readily produce heat and expan- 
 sion in ponderable matter, leaves no question but that this ex- 
 pansion of the ether is the true source of this form of electric- 
 ity. Frictional electricity in its origin, and to a certain extent 
 in its relation to conductors and nonconductors, is therefore 
 simply a series of connected forms of motion in the ether, in- 
 fluenced more or less by the forms of the molecules of the bod- 
 ies with which it is associated, and governed by the laws of 
 motion which come from the inertia of matter. This however, 
 if true, is not the whole truth since it can be easily shown that 
 a body of expanded ether will not always flow into another body 
 of expanded ether. This important fact is next to be noticed. 
 
 30. Positive and Negative Electricity.— The commonly 
 accepted theory now is, that there are two kinds, or two degrees 
 of electricity; the one called positive, or more, and the other 
 called negative, or less. It is still claimed by a few that there 
 are two kinds of electricity, but the majority I believe hold to the 
 theory proposed by Dr Franklin, — that of one kind or form, 
 appearing as positive and negative. According to this view, the 
 act of electrification by friction, effects a division of the one 
 electricity, one part of which clings to the rubber and the other 
 to the body rubbed. For example, if a glass rod be rubbed by silk 
 positive electricity will be developed on the glass and negative 
 on the silk. These two divisions may be known by the fact that 
 two bodies charged one positive and the other negative, will al- 
 ways attract each other, while two bodies charged alike, either 
 positive or negative, will always repel each other. The words 
 positive and negative, proposed by Dr Franklin and used as 
 meaning more or less of one kind of electricity, are still in use 
 and they are very appropriate for the present mechanical theory. 
 
 According to this theory the act of electrification by friction 
 would consist in the expansion of a small body of the ether, a 
 
— 143 — 
 portion of which clings to the rubber and the rest to the body 
 rubbed. In order to account for the difference between the two 
 forms of electricity it seems necessary to admit that a physical 
 difference in the molecules of the two bodies rubbed together, 
 enables them to communicate to the ether different periods of 
 vibration or different degrees of expansion. Thus owing to a dif- 
 ference in mass, number and arrangement of the component 
 atoms in the molecule of glass and that of the silk, (upon which 
 depends their difference in chemical properties) the act of rub- 
 bing the two bodies together, will give rise to two expanded 
 fields in the ether, in which the particles oscillate with different 
 velocities, thus resulting in different degrees of expansion in 
 the two fields, the greater of which being properly called posi- 
 tive and the lesser negative. Two expanded fields differing in 
 this way would not repel each other, but would be forced to- 
 gether, mixing and neutralizing each other, by the outside 
 pressure of the medium, so behaving like positive and negative 
 electricity. But two expanded fields having the same degree of 
 expansion would repel each other or behave like the same form 
 of electricity, either positive or negative, when imparted to 
 two separate bodies or to one elongated insulated conductor. 
 As already mentioned in chapter fourth, the outside pressure 
 of the ether must be greater on the sides than on the ends or 
 edges of a conductor having the form of a cylinder or a plate; 
 hence two bodies which can freely separate, and when both are 
 charged with the same form of electricity, will repel each other 
 by the combined action of outside pressure and inside expansive 
 force. The outside pressure acting strongest on the sides gives 
 the expansive force a tendency to act in the direction of the 
 length of the field thus pushing the two bodies apart. But if 
 the two bodies are charged with opposite electricities, then 
 there is no internal resistance and the two expanded fields will 
 unite by outside pressure and for the reason that each offers to 
 the other a direction of least resistance exactly as does all con- 
 ductors of electricity. 
 
 This assumption of no resistance between two differently 
 expanded fields in the ether may not be readily clear to some 
 readers, but it seems to be the only way to a solution on phys- 
 ical laws, besides, it is justified by a number of well known 
 facts. It is known that different bodies when heated to incan- 
 descence will throw the ether into waves differing in length as 
 in the monochromatic lights; also, that different bodies emit 
 ordinary heat in which the molecules manifest a difference of 
 motion. Waves of like periods when meeting from opposite 
 directions always interfere and destroy each other, but if their 
 periods or lengths are unlike, they pass into and thru each oth- 
 er without interference. This is likewise true of light waves, 
 
-144 — 
 heat waves, electric waves and sound waves, and this is a sig- 
 nificant fact in this connection because it plainly indicates that 
 electricity in the ether is mechanically the same as heat in pon- 
 derable matter. It may be possible to test this question experi- 
 mentally, by causing two sounding bodies suspended near each 
 other to emit sound waves of the same and of different lengths, 
 and by observing the result. 
 
 All non-conductors when electrified by friction are at once 
 converted into conductors of the opposite electricity. For ex- 
 ample, a stick of sealing-wax when unelectrified is a bad con- 
 ductor of both forms of electricity, but when charged by friction 
 it promptly conducts or absorbs the electricity of glass. If we 
 suspend two pith balls, one by a non-conducting thread and the 
 other by a good conducting thread, the latter is always most 
 powerfully attracted either by the glass or by the sealing-wax. 
 The good conductor offers to the expanded field a direction of 
 least resistance, hence outside pressure prevails and attraction 
 results. The two electricities seem to behave toward each other 
 very much as they do toward neutral conductors, in which, ac- 
 cording to this theory, the ether ought to be at all times to 
 some extent expanded. It seems highly probable that there is 
 more than two forms of electricity, among which there is only 
 a physical difference. The electricity of the sun would then be 
 positive to that of the earth while that of the earth would be 
 positive to the electricity of the moon, and the earth's electricity 
 would then be relatively both positive and negative. 
 
 It is known that under suitable conditions the so called neg- 
 ative electricity may be developed on glass and the positive on 
 sealing-wax; indeed there are many facts on record tending to 
 show that the physical condition of bodies have a great deal to 
 do with the form of electricity they may exhibit when rubbed. 
 For instance, if a piece of polished and a piece of rough glass be 
 rubbed together, the former will acquire positive and the latter 
 negative electricity. The rough surface affords numerous points 
 for the escape of the active ether and so it becomes negative by 
 reduction. If two bodies alike in surface and in substance, but 
 differing in temperature, are rubbed together, negative elec- 
 tricity will appear on the warm body. It can be readily shown 
 that both heat and light will increase the conducting power of 
 bodies, and that heat in many cases is a prompt means of dissi- 
 pating a charge of electricity. The color of bodies also has some 
 determining effect, as when black and white silk are rubbed to- 
 gether, the black will show negative and the white positive elec- 
 tricity. It is known that all black substances absorb more light 
 than white substances, and that the light is changed into heat, 
 and so the expanded ether is dissipated by heat. 
 
 The temperature of bodies in their relation to electricity is 
 
— 145— 
 suggestive of a reason why heat is an agent in the dissipation 
 of electricity. Since heat is molecular motion it follows that the 
 ether within and close to the surface of a heated body may re- 
 ceive motion and more of it than it would from the same body 
 when cold. But the electricity thus generated would be immedi- 
 ately converted into the molecular repulsive force (explained in 
 chapter 6) which expands the air, (and in the case of combus- 
 tion which converts the burning material into the gases which 
 result from combustion) hence would not appear to the sense aa 
 electricity. Being thus conducted away as insensible molecular 
 repulsive force, all heated bodies, tho great producers of elec- 
 tricity, show no signs of its presence. 
 
 The phenomena of electric induction as described in books 
 of high authority, (seeTyndall's "Light and Electricity") appear 
 or may appear, to some persons, as justifying the theory of 
 two kinds of electricity, and hence should have some attention 
 here. According to the received theory of two electricities, if 
 an electrified body be placed near but not in contact with an in- 
 sulated neutral conductor, the electrified body will act across 
 the interval and will decompose the so called compound fluids, 
 attracting the constituent unlike its own and repelling the op- 
 posite. When the electrified body is withdrawn, the two elec- 
 tricities thus separated will reunite as before, leaving no indi- 
 cations of electricity in the conductor. This separation of the 
 two electricities by the influence of an outside body, is called 
 electric induction. According to our mechanical theory, it is the 
 same thing that happens with the earth and the moon in the 
 case of the tides. (§23) . When under the influence of induction 
 the repelled electricity on the opposite side of the insulated con- 
 ductor is said to be free; for if that side is connected with the 
 earth it will immediately escape into the earth. Then on re- 
 moving the inducing body the electricity opposite to it (and also 
 opposite to that which was allowed to escape) will remain on 
 the insulated body, diffusing itself over it and so exhibiting the 
 presence of electricity. This is called electric decomposition by 
 induction in the books, and by which means it is claimed that 
 either the positive or the negative electricity may be separated 
 from the other and made captive. If the inducing body is posi- 
 tive the captive electricity is negative, and vice-versa. These 
 facts, if they are facts, would make it probable that there are 
 two kinds of electricity and that they are not what this me- 
 chanical theory would make them. But this conclusion is not 
 born out by my own experiments and reasoning from mechan- 
 ical laws. According to the mechanical theory, if an electrified 
 inducing body is placed close but not in contact with an unelec- 
 trified insulated conductor, as described above, also in the books, 
 here is what happens. 
 
— 146— 
 
 The inducing body will act upon the other body exactly as 
 the moon acts upon the earth in the case of the tides. The neu- 
 tral body, like the earth, is always charged with some degree 
 of expanded ether; which, under the influence of the inducing 
 body will tend to accumulate on opposite sides as in the case of 
 the tides and as due to the same cause. If the inducing body is 
 suddenly removed, the so-called decomposed electricities will re- 
 combine and disappear. So far everything is clear and strictly 
 mechanical. Now if the inducing body be again brought close to 
 the other the apparent decomposition is again noticed; but this 
 time if we connect the opposite side of the induced body with 
 the earth by a conductor, then a portion of its expanded ether 
 will be moved into the earth, and the resistance to the expan- 
 ded field of the inducing body will be somewhat reduced on that 
 side, hence a portion of its expanded ether will be transferred 
 to the induced body; then, if the inducing body on the one side 
 and the earth connection on the other be promptly removed, 
 the body under inductive influence will be found to be charged 
 with expanded ether, which, on being tested will be found to be 
 negative or less intense than that of the inducing body. Thus it 
 seems that the mechanical theory will explain the facts quite as 
 well, if not better, than the older theory of two mysterious fluids. 
 
 Now to prove that electricity or expanded ether is actually 
 transferred from the inducing body to the body induced, the fol- 
 lowing experiments seem to be entirely sufficient. Place a sheet 
 of tin on a plate of glass somewhat wider than the tin and sup- 
 port the glass on a dry glass tumbler. Next attempt to impart 
 a charge of electricity to the sheet of tin. It will be found that 
 the tin will refuse to take any but a very feeble charge. But if 
 a conductor which connects with the earth be placed under and 
 in contact with the glass, or, better still, if the glass plate with 
 the tin be placed on the bare table, then the tin will receive a 
 strong charge which charge will show itself plainly if the glass 
 is lifted from the table and held in mid air so that more dense 
 ether is admitted on its under side, thus forcing the expanded 
 ether up and making it more conspicuous. When the glass plate 
 rests on the table the electricity of the tin is less conspicuous 
 for the reason that there is greater density of ether above the 
 glass in the air than there is below the glass in the table; hence 
 the expanded field is forced to some extent thru the glass into 
 the table by the greater pressure from above. But when the 
 glass is lifted and held above the table in mid air, the density 
 of the ether is nearly equal on both sides and the expanded field 
 being thus completely surrounded and confined to the tin is at 
 once made more conspicuous, as may be shown by presenting a 
 pith ball suspended by cotton thread and observing the attrac- 
 tion. When thus charged the tin may be discharged by touching 
 
— 147— 
 it with a conductor which connects with the earth. The Leyden 
 jar often described in books affords a good example of the same 
 phenomenon which may be explained in the same way. In order 
 to charge the jar it is necessary to connect the inner coating of 
 metal with the prime conductor of an electric machine and the 
 outer coating with the earth thru a conductor. If the jar is com- 
 pletely insulated from the earth it will refuse to receive the 
 charge. When the machine is being worked a continuous current 
 of electricity will flow from the machine thru the jar and thru 
 its earth connection to the earth. By means of a galvanometer 
 it may be proved that this current is toward the earth, not from 
 the earth, as required by the older theory of a compound fluid. 
 Here is an open and promising field for the experimentalist 
 who can afford only the most simple means. 
 
 31. Molecular Architecture.— It was shown in §29 that 
 the difference between conductors and nonconductors of elec- 
 tricity should be a physical difference; also that the molecular 
 arrangement which would make a good conductor of electricity 
 ought to make a good conductor of heat, and on the contrary a 
 bad conductor of electricity should be a bad conductor of heat. 
 Experiment readily reveals the different conducting capacities 
 of different bodies for both electricity and heat and the likeness 
 is just what we ought to expect from our theory. But can ex- 
 periment with electricity or heat reveal any facts about inter- 
 nal structure or molecular arrangement? 
 
 We can at least suppose that the molecules of good conduct- 
 ors are not all held in rigid contact, but are to some extent in 
 solution with the ether and hence more free to receive and com- 
 municate motion among themselves, and to the ether. For this 
 reason the ether within such bodies should be more expanded 
 than outside, thus making it a direction of least resistance to an 
 outside source of electricity opposite to it. The good conductors 
 are generally composed of the metallic elements and are heav- 
 ier, volume for volume, than the nonconductors. Such bodies re- 
 ceive more pressure from the ether on their outsides and pro- 
 portionally less within on the individual molecules or their small 
 aggregates, hence the molecules would have more individual 
 freedom, at least some of them. This is in substantial harmony 
 with observed facts so far as known to me, but in the case of 
 solids there must be a permanent contact of the molecules, at 
 least some of them, in order to account for the stability of sen- 
 sible forms. A bar of steel is a good conductor and it is also a 
 very tenacious solid, hence its molecules should be united in 
 some regular structure, perhaps something like the vegetable 
 cell and with the interspaces filled with loose molecules in solu- 
 tion with the ether. This will perhaps be regarded as only spec- 
 
-148 — 
 illative, but the facts amply justify it. All nonconductors are 
 light porous bodies in which there should be a similar contact of 
 molecules. But the pores in such bodies should be larger and 
 they must be filled with the ether instead of ponderable matter. 
 In this way the molecules being held in the close embrace of in- 
 dividual contact by a greater density of ether within the body, 
 would not be able to receive and communicate motion like those 
 of the metals. This molecular structure might vary in different 
 bodies, thus accounting for their difference in conducting power 
 as well as their different degrees of hardness. The physical pores 
 being larger and being filled with the ether, and the molecules 
 being held together by internal pressure direct from the ether, 
 such properties as brittleness or tendency to break rather than 
 bend might be accounted for. Such properties as malleability, 
 fusability and non-combustability, seem to belong exclusively to 
 the conductors, and this we ought to expect in view of the pres- 
 ent theory. The molecules of such bodies can receive and dif- 
 fuse the motion which would give them electric and self -repul- 
 sive atmospheres and liberate them as vapor. Not being able 
 to receive and communicate molecular motion the nonconductor 
 would not be able to receive and communicate motion to the 
 ether, hence the ether within its pores must be more dense than 
 in good conductors and so the body would be a bad conductor 
 of electricity. The general fact that bad conductors are com- 
 posed of the nonmetallic elements is significant. Being generally 
 lighter their physical pores must be larger, and these being filled 
 with the ether, it seems more than a speculation to suppose 
 that this is the reason why they are nonconductors. Such bodies 
 must sustain less pressure on their outside and proportionally 
 more within on their small aggregate of molecules which form 
 and sustain the rigid frame work of the body. 
 
 The molecules in the nonconductor being thus in contact un- 
 der pressure close around them, and less susceptible of individ- 
 ual motion, would not be free to acquire independent self-repul- 
 sive atmospheres of expanded ether, (explained in chapter 6) . 
 Friction on the surface of such a body would necessarally im- 
 part some motion to its molecules, as that of heat, and this not 
 being readily diffused thru the body because it is a bad conduc- 
 tor, nor converted into atmospheres of expanded ether surround- 
 ing free molecules and conducted away by upward currents in 
 the air, would have to be communicated directly to the ether 
 in the diffused form of an expanded field of sensible extent, as 
 in the f rictional electricity of glass or sealing-wax. It thus seems 
 easy to see the molecular arrangement which would not only 
 make a good or bad conductor of both heat and electricity, but 
 the necessary means of developing and retaining f rictional elec- 
 tricity. We also seem to have a glimpse of the inside of all solids. 
 
— 149— 
 
 32. Electric Attraction and Repulsion.— In the facts 
 of attraction and repulsion, which have been known for over 
 two thousand years, we have perhaps the best opportunities for 
 successful experimental research, with simple and inexpensive 
 means, that can be found in all the field of electricity. The nec- 
 essary means are so common and so simple that a complete out- 
 fit, sufficient for a convincing demonstration, may be had at a 
 cost not to exceed 10 c, or even less. A glass rod or an argand 
 lamp chimney, a small piece of silk or flannel, a few inches of 
 Bilk or cotton thread and a few small pith balls to be had from 
 last year's dead stocks of the elder or the sun-flower, is the 
 whole thing; and with these the most wonderful revelations of 
 the inner nature of electricity, and of the truth of the mechan- 
 ical theory, may be brought plainly to view. I will mention a 
 few which I have repeated many times and which I am sure I 
 did not compile from some familiar source. 
 
 If a dry glass rod, in dry cold weather, be slightly warmed 
 and briskly rubbed with dry silk, flannel or any nonconducting 
 material of suitable shape, the molecules of the glass will receive 
 motion from the rubber as already described. That this motion 
 is really in the glass is evident from the fact that the glass may 
 be warmed by friction just as the hands may be warmed by rub- 
 bing them together. The ether which lies in contact with the 
 surface of the glass and within its pores, will receive a part of 
 this motion directly from the molecules of the glass as described 
 elsewhere; and the motion thus transferred, will take the form 
 which produces a field of expansion in the ether, that is, the con- 
 fused vibratory motion of its particles will be increased. As will 
 appear in chapter 6 there is reason to believe that the expansion 
 of liquids and gases, at ordinary temperatures, is due to an in- 
 crease in the molecular repulsive force, (electric repulsion) and 
 hence that this form of the expansion of ponderable matter is 
 not exactly the same as that of the ether in the case of fric- 
 tional electricity. 
 
 This small field of expanded ether thus generated will be 
 confined to the glass by the outside resistance of the surrounding 
 more dense ether, and it will exert pressure outward in all di- 
 rections, and it will gradually grow more dense as it merges in- 
 to the surrounding medium. The limits of this expanded field 
 will be the limits of its power of attraction. Now, if a small pith 
 ball, suspended by a fine silk thread, be brought near the glass, 
 the pressure of the largest part of the expanded field will be 
 exerted indirectly on the outside of the ball, thru the more dense 
 ether on that side, resulting in its motion toward the glass, ex- 
 actly as in a case of falling motion or gravity, (§20 and 21) thus 
 exhibiting the phenomenon called electric attraction. 
 
 The pith ball being a better conductor than the surrounding 
 
—150— 
 air, or in other words the ether in its pores being slightly more 
 expanded than in the air, thus making it a direction of least re- 
 sistance to the expanded ether of the glass, and the thread by 
 which the ball is suspended being to some extent a conductor, 
 then as soon as the ball comes in contact with the glass the ex- 
 panded ether will rush into the ball, but being resisted in its tend- 
 ency to pass thru the thread because the thread is not a good 
 conductor, and the ball being charged by ether of the same de- 
 gree of expansion as that of the glass, it will be driven outward 
 by the inside pressure or self-repulsion of like electricities on 
 two bodies which may freely separate; thus exhibiting the phe- 
 nomenon of electric repulsion. 
 
 It may help us to understand this self-repulsion if we recall 
 certain similar cases already mentioned. When electricity is im- 
 parted to an insulated metallic sphere it will distribute itself 
 equally over the entire surface. When imparted to a cylinder 
 the length of which is greater than its breadth and with round- 
 ed ends, it will accumulate at the ends. In the case of the sphere, 
 outside pressure is equal at all points on the surface. In the case 
 of the cylinder, the pressure is greater on the sides than on the 
 ends, for reasons already described; hence the expansive force 
 of the electricity is greater in the direction of the length of the 
 expanded field. Electric repulsion may therefore result from 
 the self-repulsion of two atmospheres of expanded ether of the 
 same degree of expansion, which covers two bodies which may 
 separate, and it may also to some extent result from the tend- 
 ency of the current to force its way thru an imperfect conduc- 
 tor, in which case the repelled body would be forced out by the 
 head of the current, which in turn is due to the momentum of 
 the moving particles of the inert ether. 
 
 The fact that electricity always tends to escape from point- 
 ed conductors into the open air suggests at once the strong prod- 
 ability that the molecules of the air are singly and rapidly 
 charged with expanded ether and immediately repelled outward, 
 being succeeded by others, thus projecting a stream which fol- 
 lows the pith ball and thus aids in maintaining the repulsion. 
 Outside pressure or resistance would keep such molecules in line 
 and the line might reach out several inches. It is known that 
 the vapor of water is a much better absorber of electricity 
 than dry air. When there is much moisture in the air it is very 
 difficult to retain the electricity even when carefuly insulated. 
 The chemical formulae of water is OH2. In the next chapter it 
 will appear that the compounds of oxygen and hydrogen are 
 generally good absorbers of motion, heat or electricity. These 
 facts have a meaning in the present connection. 
 
 The following simple experiments which any school-boy 
 may perform with ease, wil afford a still better view of the in- 
 
— 151 — 
 side mechanical nature of electric attraction and repulsion. Sus- 
 pend three pith balls and numbei them 1, 2, 3. Suspend No. 1, 
 by a fine silk thread, which thread is the best nonconductor a- 
 mong threads known to me. Suspend No. 2, by a coarse silk 
 thread, which is a medium conductor. Suspend No. 3, by a coarse 
 cotton thread, which is a good conductor. Do not forget that ball 
 No. 1, with the fine silk thread is a bad conductor; No. 2, with 
 the course silk, a medium conductor and No. 3, with the course 
 cotton, a good conductor. Next rub the glass and present it to 
 ball No. 1. The ball is attracted, but as soon as it touches the 
 glass it jumps back and repulsion continues as long as the charge 
 lasts. Now give the glass a good charge by brisk rubbing and 
 present it to ball No. 2. This ball is attracted and repelled like 
 No. 1, but notice that the attraction is more energetic, while 
 the repulsion is less so, than with No. 1. This difference of more 
 or less as compared to ball No. 1, is a significant fact as ap- 
 pears from what follows. Next give the glass a weak charge 
 by moderate rubbing, and present it again to ball No. 2. This 
 time the ball is attracted but not repelled. Finally give the glass 
 either a strong or a weak charge, and present it to ball No. 3. 
 This ball is always more powerfully attracted than either of the 
 others, and it is never repelled, whether the charge be strong 
 or weak. 
 
 Here is the explanation. The first ball, No. 1, suspended by 
 the bad conductor, after being forced against the glass by out- 
 side pressure, is promptly driven back for the reason that when 
 the current rushes into the ball, (it being a medium conductor) 
 the current cannot escape thru the fine silk (bad conductor) 
 hence inside pressure or expansive force prevails, because the 
 ball is charged by the same degree of expansion of its ether, 
 hence the repulsion. When the ball retreats a portion of the 
 rarefied ether goes with it, so continuing the repulsion for a short 
 time. The second ball, No. 2, with its medium conductor, is at- 
 tracted and not repelled by a weak charge, because the conduct- 
 ing capacity of the thread is sufficient to carry the current thus 
 permitting outside pressure to prevail, hence the attraction. 
 With a strong charge the greater force of the outrush of the 
 stronger current, and the incapacity of the thread to carry it, 
 gives rise to a dominance of inside pressure, and the ball is re- 
 pelled. From which it appears that as to whether attraction or 
 repulsion is going to happen in any case, will depend on the pre- 
 dominance of one or the other of two opposing forces, which I 
 have called inside and outside pressure. 
 
 And this conclusion receives a clinch in the fact that ball 
 No. 3, with its good conducting thread, is always strongly at- 
 tracted and never repelled, whether the charge be strong or 
 weak, simply because the good conductor allows the free escape 
 
-152 — 
 of the expansive force of the ether, thus preventing inside pres- 
 sure and permitting outside pressure. 
 
 When the threads for these experiments are selected with 
 care as to conducting capacity, it is possible to obtain results 
 which illustrate this feature of electricity in its most hidden 
 and mysterious details, and I know of nothing so well calculated 
 to convey to the mind a clear understanding of the mechanical 
 nature of the force concerned in electric phenomena. How the 
 human mind could sleep for 20 centuries over a little thing like 
 this is strange indeed. There are other forms of this experiment 
 and I will mention one more. If the electrified glass is brought 
 in contact with the medium conducting thread a short distance 
 above the ball, so that the current will run down the thread 
 and charge the ball, then the ball is repelled. But if the glass 
 be first presented to the ball so that the current after entering 
 the ball can run up the thread and escape thru a conductor to 
 the earth, then the ball is attracted. Besides being in perfect 
 harmony with the mechanical theory, these facts are conspicu- 
 ously fatal to the theory of a mysterious electric fluid. 
 
 As already mentioned it is almost impossible to develop elec- 
 tricity by friction in a warm moisture ladened atmosphere. The 
 molecules of water are good absorbers of heat, which they com- 
 municate directly to the ether as atmospheres of expansion, so 
 enabling the molecules to repel each other, also the molecules 
 of the air, hence the presence of the vapor of water in the at- 
 mosphere. This makes a wet atmosphere a better conductor of 
 f rictional electricity than a dry atmosphere. Electricity by fric- 
 tion should be positive to that of the molecules. 
 
 Our atmosphere and the various gases and liquids are all 
 good transmitters of wave motion while they are generally bad 
 conductors of heat. But they are readily heated by convection, 
 which is a circulation due to expansion and difference of pres- 
 sure. The expansion is a result of an increase in the molecular 
 repulsive force due to the absorption of heat by the individual 
 molecules, which heat is transformed into expanded ether as 
 above described. The ether is also a perfect transmitter of wave 
 motion as light, heat waves and electric waves, while it is per- 
 haps the most perfect nonconductor of frictional electricity. 
 The harmony of these facts may be readily seen from the me- 
 chanical point of view. As will appear in the next section there 
 are convective currents in the ether similar to those of ponder- 
 able matter and due to the same cause. 
 
 33. Voltaic Electricity.— Electricity developed by chem- 
 ical action is called voltaic or galvanic electricity. All chemical 
 action is supposed to produce some electricity, more or less as 
 the energy of the action is more or less. If we place a sheet of 
 
— 153— 
 zinc and a sheet of copper in a vessel of water to which has been 
 added a little sulphuric acid, and connect the two metals by a 
 copper wire outside the solution, chemical action will begin 
 between the zinc and the acid, resulting in the decomposi- 
 tion of the acid and the formation of zinc-sulphate, and the hy- 
 drogen of the acid will be set free. During this action a current 
 of positive electricity will flow from the zinc or place of action, 
 thru the water and thru the copper strip, then thru the wire 
 and back to the zinc. A weaker current of negative electricity 
 may also flow in the opposite direction thru the same channel, 
 perhaps starting from the whole length of the wire and strip, 
 which at all times are sources of negative electricity. This neg- 
 ative current, according to our theory, is simply a lower degree 
 of expansion in the ether within the pores of the metal. The 
 metal is thus a direction of least resistance to the expansive 
 force of the ether at the place of chemical action. Here we have 
 very much the same form of activity, governed by the same 
 physical laws, that we have in frictional electricity; differing 
 mainly in the fact that the source of the motion is not friction 
 but chemical action. It seems necessary to describe this chem- 
 ical action somewhat as follows. 
 
 As will be shown in the next chapter, the molecules of the 
 zinc and the acid have an affinity for each other because thev 
 are electrically different, that is, they are surrounded by atmos- 
 pheres of expanded ether bearing the relation of positive and 
 negative, as with sensible bodies already described. It may be 
 inferred that the acid molecule is surrounded by the positive 
 atmosphere because its composition is H2S04, of non-metallic 
 elements, while the zinc molecule contains but one element, Zn. 
 The precipitation of a molecule of zinc upon a molecule of the 
 acid, would then result from the outside pressure of the medium, 
 as in the union of the pith ball and the glass, or a planet and a 
 star. The resulting commotion would cause the uniting molecules 
 to break up and then settle into some different plane of stabil- 
 ity, resulting in a new compound, zinc sulphate, (ZnS04) , from 
 which the hydrogen (H) has been expelled or replaced by the 
 zinc. A part of the internal motion resulting from a number of 
 such unions would be communicated to the ether in the diffused 
 form, hence a field of expansion embracing the field of action 
 and with its inside pressure, would be the result. The ether in 
 the strip of copper, in the wire and in the water, would offer a 
 direction of least resistance to the positive field, hence the posi- 
 tive current in that direction with a weaker negative current in 
 the opposite direction as described elswhere. While passing thru 
 the circuit the positive current would cool somewhat by radia- 
 tion, and would return to the field in a more reduced form, and 
 so would not be repelled by the field. As mentioned in §32, there 
 
—154— 
 is something like this in the convective currents of ponderable 
 matter, which comes under the same general laws. 
 
 The metals which can be used in generating the electric cur- 
 rent have been arranged in a series so that any two in the series 
 when used together, the direction of the positive current will 
 be from the one uppermost in the series to the other, and the 
 strength of the current will depend on their distance apart in 
 the series. They are named as follows; zinc, lead, tin, antimony, 
 iron, brass, copper, silver, gold, platinum. Zinc and lead when 
 used together will produce a feeble current; with zinc and tin 
 the current is a little stronger; with zinc and antimony it is more 
 so and so on to the end. It seems that the conducting capacity 
 for electricity ought to increase in the same order after zinc, 
 but as to this I am not informed. 
 
 In the chemical action of the voltaic battery the hydrogen 
 of the acid, as before mentioned, is set free. When the battery 
 is in action if we place a galvanometer in the circuit, it will be 
 noticed that the current gradually becomes weaker and that it 
 can be renewed in strength by lifting the strip of copper out of 
 the solution and brushing off the bubbles of hydrogen which have 
 gathered on its surface. Even a slight motion of the copper in 
 the solution will increase the current by detaching the hydrogen 
 which rises to the surface of the solution. It is thus evident that 
 the hydrogen which is liberated on the strip of zinc, is convey- 
 ed to the copper with the current instead of being conveyed to 
 the surface by the buoyant force of the solution. It is also evi- 
 dent that there is a real current, a moving body of something, 
 and what can it be if not the ether? 
 
 If we cut the wire which completes the circuit and place the 
 two ends in water a short distance apart, the water will be de- 
 composed by the action of the current which crosses the interval 
 between the ends of the wire. This action occurs at the point 
 where the current enters the water. Each molecule of water 
 is made up of two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen, 
 (H20). In the act of decomposition the oxygen collects on the 
 end of the wire where the current enters the water, and the 
 hydrogen, as in the case of the battery above described, is con- 
 veyed with the current to the other terminal, where the current 
 leaves the water, and there it collects. The two gases separated 
 in this way, may be collected from the two ends of the wire. 
 The fact that hydrogen gas is sixteen times lighter than oxygen 
 gas, and for other reasons, it seems that the mechanical law of 
 segregation (which compels like to seek like) will explain why 
 they are separated. In some way which must be inferred from 
 mechanical laws because it cannot be seen, the stream of ether, 
 like an air blast, strikes among the molecules of water, which 
 are charged by atmospheres of negative ether, resulting in the 
 
—155— 
 breaking up of their equilibrium and the separation of their ele- 
 ments. The elements thus confused together and mixed with the 
 ether, might fall imto a different plane of stability, and this 
 possibly would be that in which like is joined to like as required 
 by segregation. After the gases were formed but still more or 
 less mixed together, they would separate for the simple reason 
 that hydrogen is the lightest and therefore most apt to be ex- 
 pelled by the current and by the buoyant force of the oxygen, 
 which force would result from the outside pressure due to the 
 expanded ether at the point of decomposition. Thus the oxygen 
 is retained by outside pressure and by the superior mass of its 
 units, while the hydrogen is expelled by the buoyant force of 
 the oxygen and the greater lightness of its units. The direction 
 of least resistance for the hydrogen would not be upward as 
 due to the buoyant force of the water, nor downward as due to 
 gravity, but with the current toward the point where it enters 
 the wire, and here it collects in bubbles which are lifted to the 
 surface by the buoyant force of the water. The oxygen which 
 collects at the other terminal, is carried to the surface in the 
 same way. This, in brief, is the theory of voltaic currents, also 
 the theory of electro-chemical decomposition suggested by the 
 general mechanical theory, and tho it may not be strictly true 
 at all points it seems to at least point the way to the truth. 
 
 Experiment shows that electricity requires time in passing 
 thru a conductor and that the time is proportional to the length 
 of the conductor. It is also known that the velocity of the elec- 
 tric current thru a wire is about the same as that of light. If 
 light travels at the rate of 186,000 miles per second it seems 
 certain that there must be some difference of form in the elec- 
 tric current which travels to a long distance, as compared to that 
 of friction which reaches only to a short distance. That of a 
 wire which moves with the velocity of light should have the 
 form of waves in which only the motion is transmitted, while 
 that of lightning, friction and in some cases that of chemical 
 action, should have the form of a moving substance. 
 
 34. Other Forms of Electricity.— Two parallel wires 
 conveying currents of electricity in the same direction will at- 
 tract each other. If the currents flow in oppsite directions, they 
 repel each other. When such wires are coiled in the form called 
 a helix they attract and repel the same as before. If coiled 
 around a bar of soft iron the iron is converted into an electro- 
 magnet. Two such magnets attract and repel each other the 
 same as permanent steel magnets, but they are not permanent, 
 for they lose this power the moment the current is stopped. 
 
 It is recorded that these facts led the French electrician 
 Ampere, to devise his theory of magnetism. In his day electric- 
 
-156— 
 ity was believed to be an imponderable fluid, and his idea as to 
 what magnetism is, was briefly this. To acount for the fact that 
 a bar of iron becomes a magnet when placed in a coil of wire 
 carrying a current, he supposed that each molecule of both the 
 iron and the permanent magnet, is surrounded by a small at- 
 mosphere of the electric fluid, and that this fluid is at rest in 
 the un-magneti zed iron, but in constant motion in the perma- 
 nent magnet. The act of converting the iron into a magnet con- 
 sists in giving these atmospheres of electricity a whirling mo- 
 tion, and this is done by passing a current of electricity around 
 them. The form of this motion was supposed to be whirling 
 currents of a fluid substance, either around the molecules them- 
 selves, or around small aggregates of them. The axis of rota- 
 tion took the direction of the magnetic force which was at a 
 right angle to the direction of the current as in parallel wires. 
 
 Now it is worthy of notice that under this theory, all the 
 facts of electro-magnetism and ordinary magnetism have been 
 united and harmonized, only coming short of their ultimate ex- 
 planation. What attraction and repulsion is, or what electricity 
 is in itself or in its relations to other forms of motion, this the- 
 ory does not go that far. It will be seen that this idea of Am- 
 pere's was very likely a simple inference from sense experience, 
 taken in the way that all right steps in theory should be taken. 
 From our present point of view it proves to be a true idea be- 
 cause we can use it in our theory of the Universe. 
 
 From the present theory, two parallel wires conveying cur- 
 rents in the same direction would be forced together by outside 
 pressure because there is little or no friction between them, and 
 hence little or no internal expansion and inside pressure. But if 
 the currents flow in opposite directions, the resulting friction 
 gives rise to internal expansion and inside pressure, as in other 
 cases of frictional electricity. What is true of parallel straight 
 wires in this respect, would be true the same for circular cur- 
 rents, either in coiled wires, or around molecules; hence, mag- 
 netic attraction and repulsion is electric attraction and repul- 
 sion, and both are due to difference of pressure in the ether. 
 
 Since all the effects of an ordinary magnet may be produced 
 by currents of ether in a coiled wire, it follows that the currents 
 of ether in a permanent magnet may induce electric currents in 
 a wire which has no current. If such a magnet is brought close 
 to a copper wire which is connected with a galvanometer, the 
 presence of a momentary current is noticed in the wire. If one 
 of the poles of a dar magnet be thrust into a coil of wire con- 
 nected with a galvanometer, a momentary but stronger current 
 is started in the wire. When the magnet is withdrawn and its 
 opposite end thrust into the coil, the current is reversed. Now 
 if a bar of soft iron be placed in the coil, and a magnet be pre- 
 
-157— 
 sented to its end, the iron will be converted into a temporary 
 electro-magnet, and will be able to induce a similar current in 
 the wire. This induced current may be rapidly reversed by rap- 
 idly changing the poles of the permanent magnet. In this way 
 a magneto-electric machine, which will furnish a strong current, 
 is produced. The same effect may be obtained without the mag- 
 net, by the use of electricity alone. If a wire carrying the cur- 
 rent of a voltaic battery be suddenly brought close to a wire 
 which is connected with a galvanometer, a current will appear 
 in the latter wire the same as when the magnet is used. This 
 induced current flows in the opposite direction and is of short 
 duration, a mere wave-like movement, in all respects like the 
 one induced by the magnet, but it cannot be made useful by 
 reason of its weakness. All these effects, and others that might 
 be mentioned, reveal the intimate relationship of electricity and 
 magnetism, how they change into each other and how perfectly 
 they conform to our assumption that both are the same motion 
 of the same substance, appearing in different forms. At present 
 it is beyond my experimental means to enter thoroughly into a 
 treatment of this part of the subject, and in a work like this, 
 which aims for a general theory, it would hardly be expected. So 
 far the facts have been obtained from authoritative books on 
 the subject, but what follows has not. 
 
 The efficiency of the permanent magnet as a means of im- 
 parting motion to the ether in the wire, depends on the fact that 
 the ether in the poles of the magnet is in constant motion in a 
 known direction, as due to the inertia of the whole earth, and 
 that this moving ether being confined to the magnet, is a move- 
 ment of the ether itself in a body thru the medium, and that by 
 suitable contrivance this motion may be imparted directly to the 
 ether in the wire and in the form by which it can be conveyed 
 to a distance and in quantities available for work. 
 
 Heat may be changed directly or indirectly into electricity 
 in several ways, prominent among them being the thermo-elec- 
 tric battery. Two metals which differ in conducting capacity, 
 and each having the form of a small straight bar, when sold- 
 ered together, the end of one to the end of the other so that 
 they form an acute angle, and having their opposite ends united 
 by a conducting wire, will give rise to an electric current when 
 heat is applied at the point of union of the two metals. The more 
 the metals differ in conducting capacity the stronger will be the 
 current. Bismuth and antimony differ widely in this respect and 
 are therefore well adapted to the production of a current. The 
 direction of the current is always from bismuth to antimony, 
 across the heated juncture, and from antimony to bismuth thru 
 the wire, or from the worst to the best conductor thru the heat, 
 antimony being the best conductor. Experiment has shown that 
 
—158— 
 a number of metals may be used in this form of battery, and 
 that they may be named in a series, the direction of the current 
 being from any one above to any one below in the list; and the 
 further apart they are in the list the stronger will be the cur- 
 rent. They are named as follows: bismuth, platinum, lead, tin, 
 copper, silver, zinc, iron, antimony. 
 
 As required by the present electro-mechanical theory the 
 electric current must always depend on the presence of two sep- 
 arate expanded fields in the ether, one of which is more expan- 
 ded than the other, or one positive and the other negative, and 
 the two connected by a conductor. In the thermo-electric bat- 
 tery above noted, it seems that we have everything necessary 
 to produce the electric current directly from heat. When heat 
 is applied to the joined ends of the bars of dissimilar metals, 
 molecular motion is imparted to each metal. From the physical 
 difference in the molecules of the metals, arises the different 
 degrees of expansion in the ether and hence the two electric- 
 ities, which flow together and so give rise to the thermo-current. 
 
 When the current from a voltaic battery or from any source 
 is passed thru the metals when cold, and across the juncture 
 from antimony to bismuth, or from the good to the bad conduc- 
 tor, the juncture is heated. If the current is made to pass in the 
 opposite direction, the juncture is cooled. This seems to be a 
 good illustration of the fact that heat and electricity are both 
 forms of the same motion, convertable into each other, and it 
 seems to agree perfectly with the idea that the electric current, 
 in passing from a good conductor into a bad conductor, or from 
 a medium of little resistance to one of greater resistance, that 
 in the latter there is necessarily a transfer of a part of the 
 motion of the ether in the current, to the molecules of the bad 
 conductor, and which transferred motion appears again as heat. 
 On the other hand, in passing from the bad conductor into the 
 good conductor, there is necessarily a diffusion of the motion 
 of the current at the point of juncture which must reduce its 
 temperature, hence the cooling effect. The same explanation 
 applies to the fact that a wire which is a bad conductor of elec- 
 tricity is heated much more than a good conductor which con- 
 veys the same current. In the bad conductor some of the electric 
 motion is intercepted by the molecules and changed into heat. 
 
 Atmospheric electricity was studied by Dr. Franklin, who 
 found that a rod of copper used on a house as a pointed con- 
 ductor for electric interchange between cloud and earth, was a 
 protection to the house against injury by lightning. All the ob- 
 served facts regarding lightning and the use of the lightning 
 rod on buildings and vessels at sea, appears to agree perfectly 
 with the mechanical theory. A genuine flash of lightning on a 
 small scale, may be produced by suitable apparatus used in con- 
 
— 159 — 
 nection with an electric machine. A well known arrangement is 
 to connect a small wooden house with the rubber of an electric 
 machine, (which machine works on exactly the same plan as the 
 glass rod and silk already described) and suspend a small met- 
 allic sphere three or four inches above the house, and connect 
 it with the prime conductor of the machine, which is the source 
 of the positive current. When the machine is worked the sphere 
 is charged positive, and the house and the rubber with the earth 
 connection, is negative. The sphere represents an electrified 
 cloud, which is a dangerous source of lightning. The air between 
 the house and the cloud contains more dense ether which sepa^ 
 rates the two expanded fields and resists their tendency to unite. 
 When the machine is worked for a short time the expansive en- 
 ergy of the two fields, in particular that of the cloud, becomes 
 great enough under outside pressure to cause it to break thru 
 this intervening stratum of ether, hence the discharge which 
 we call a stroke of lightning. Now if we set up a needle on the 
 roof of the house in an erect position, and having its lower end 
 in contact with a wire which connects it with the rubber or with 
 the earth, exactly as we would put up a lightning rod on an or- 
 dinary house, then there is no sudden discharge or flash of light- 
 ning, no matter how long or rapidly the machine is worked. The 
 needle or lightning rod simply serves to puncture the stratum 
 of more dense ether which separates the house and the cloud, 
 thus allowing a continuous and imperceptible discharge which 
 releive s the tension of the cloud, hence the protective value of 
 the lightning rod. Whatever be the cause of atmospheric elec- 
 tricity it is always confined to clouds of aqueous vapor, and it is 
 thought that the condensation of this vapor is its main source. 
 When one electrified cloud comes near another, a discharge may 
 take place from one to the other, thus showing a difference of 
 electric tension. But most often the discharge is from the cloud 
 to the earth, a common fact of the stroke of lightning being 
 that it always takes the direction of least resistance which is 
 toward and thru the nearest conductor. If the conductor is a 
 good one, there is little or no danger; if not, there is and the 
 danger is directly proportional to the resistance and the power 
 of the discharge. 
 
 35. The Forms of Electricity Compared.— Dr. Franklin 
 proved the identity of lightning and electricity by charging a 
 Leyden Jar with electricity from the clouds by means of a kite. 
 This experiment should live long in human history because n<* 
 doubt it was suggested as a simple inference from sense expe- 
 rience. He also performed other experiments with the same elec- 
 tricity which he got from the clouds. The Leyden Jar may be 
 charged from a voltaic battery, a thermo-pile, a dynamo or an 
 
— 160 — 
 electric machine, and it is always the same electricity no mat- 
 ter what its source, and electricity is expanded positive or neg- 
 ative ether, as required by the present theory. These facts, and 
 othors that might be mentioned here, are suggestive at least. 
 
 There is a noteworthy difference between voltaic and fric- 
 tional electricity, which is also suggestive. The force which ur- 
 ges forward a current of voltaic electricity thru a wire is far 
 inferior to that which impels a discharge of f rictional electricity 
 thru a suitable conductor. It is stated that a current from a 
 battery of a thousand cells cannot jump across an interval of air 
 1-1000 of an inch, while a machine of ordinary capacity can force 
 a discharge thru a stratum of air five or six thousand times that 
 distance. The reason for this difference seems plain at once from 
 our present point of view. Frictional electricity is necessarily 
 developed on nonconductors and therefore not converted into 
 molecular atmospheres and conducted away, or communicated 
 from one molecule to another thru the conductor, but must be 
 communicated directly to the medium of ether in the diffused 
 form, producing an expanded field which is more voluminous 
 and diffused than the other, hence outside pressure is more a- 
 vailable in giving it the electro-motive force. The voltaic elec- 
 tricity, on the other hand, being directly communicated to the 
 molecules, from one to another, thru the conductor, and so be- 
 ing strung out thru a long slender wire, do not possess the vol- 
 ume or form of volume that would be effective for the lateral 
 pressure of the medium, which would be necessary to project it 
 from the end of the wire; hence the difference. 
 
 Electricity generally appears like something which has a 
 measurable quantity. When the quantity of electricity imparted 
 to an insulated body is doubled, its volume is doubled; when the 
 quantity is trebled the volume is proportionly increased, and so 
 on. These facts are in no way damaging to the mechanical the- 
 ory, in fact they are directly confirmative. 
 
 The quantity and volume of the electricity on an insulated 
 metallic sphere is equal at all points on its surface. On a flat 
 plate the quantity is greater at the edges and tends to escape 
 into the air, (in particular if the air contains moisture) from all 
 sharp corners or points. On an elongated cylinder-like conductor 
 with rounded ends, like those used in electric experiments, the 
 quantity is greater at the ends. In a straight bar magnet, also 
 in a horse-shoe magnet, the whirling currents of ether are con- 
 fined to the ends of the bar. It is supposed by some that the 
 magnetism of the two poles is different in kind, since the north 
 pole of one bar magnet always repels the north pole of another 
 bar magnet, but attracts the south pole. But this may be a mis- 
 take because the facts can be explained quite as well on the 
 theory of whirling currents of ether which attract when they 
 
— 161- 
 whirl in the same direction and repel when they whirl in the op- 
 posite direction. (§34.) To make the pole of one magnet attract 
 the same pole of another, it is necessary to reverse the current 
 in one of them, and this can be done by turning it end for end. 
 These facts are intelligible in view of the mechanical theory. 
 
 When a permanent straight bar magnet is cut in two at a 
 point half way between its ends, the magnetism of each end 
 divides itself into two equal portions, one portion being remov- 
 ed to the opposite end of the smaller bar, thus forming two 
 complete but smaller magnets, exactly like the larger one, but of 
 only one half the strength. These smaller magnets may be di- 
 vided in the same way and always with the same result. It will 
 be noticed that the magnetism of each pole is divided and one 
 half changed into the magnetism of the other pole; a fact which 
 is not in harmony with older theories. 
 
 When one pole of a bar magnet is applied to a bar of un- 
 magnetized steel of similar shape, the steel bar will be conver- 
 ted into a new and permanent magnet exactly like the applied 
 magnet. This is called magnetic induction. The induced magnet 
 is like the other in all respects. It may be divided into smaller 
 magnets like those from the division of the inducing magnet. 
 To explain this fact we simply suppose that the ether in the un- 
 magnetized bar of steel was set in motion; or rathe, its motion 
 was changed into the form of whirling currents around the mol- 
 ecules of steel, and these being more rigidly in contact with 
 each other, were necessarily forced into the form adapted to 
 the current; and from which new form they are not likely to 
 depart, owing to the more rigid structure of hardened steel over 
 that of iron, hence the permanent magnet. 
 
 Many vegatable and animal substances when placed togeth- 
 er will generate a feeble current of electricity. The belief once 
 prevailed that the voltaic current was due entirely to the con- 
 tact of two unlike metals, an intervening liquid being neces- 
 sary to facilitate conduction. This is true to some extent, but 
 subsequent research has proved that a strong cu rrent can only 
 be obtained by chemical action which results in the decompo- 
 sition of one of the metals. Thru further research it has ap- 
 peared that all chemical action produces some electricity. The 
 dry pile may be mentioned as a source of electricity without 
 chemical action. Heat and light being almost the same in form, 
 differing only in wave length, both ought to be sources of elec- 
 tricity, and this they are. Selenium has the property of genera- 
 ting an electric current under the action of light, and cases of 
 the transformation of heat into electricity and magnetism have 
 been described. So in all the forms of electricity and magnetism 
 thus far considered we seem to see the same simple behavior 
 of inert matter in its countless forms of motion. 
 
CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 MYSTERIES OF CHEMISTRY. 
 
 36. General facts and theories.— As shown in prece- 
 ding chapters the only theory of chemistry admissible under 
 this general theory, is that of atoms and molecules immersed in 
 the universal ether and governed by the laws of inertia. The 
 molecule, not the atom, is now generally believed to be the ulti- 
 mate unit in all chemical changes. A brief history of the steps 
 which led up to this conclusion is the following. 
 
 In 1803 Dr. Dalton of England introduced the atomic theory 
 of the ultimate nature of sensible bodies of matter. This theory 
 has proved to be one of the landmarks in the history of chemis- 
 try, because it has enabled chemists to harmonize many of the 
 facts, but not all. According to this theory sensible bodies are 
 made up of very small indivisible particles of matter, which, 
 in different bodies must differ in size and weight, but in the 
 same substance all must be alike. These particles were called 
 atoms, and it was first supposed that they were perfectly solid 
 thruout their mass and indestructable. All chemical changes 
 were effected by the combination or separation of these atoms. 
 Being permanent, it was necessary for them to unite in certain 
 constant proportions dependent on their mass, size or weight, 
 hence the permanency of the properties of their compounds. 
 For examples, one atom of one substance unites with one of an- 
 other, or one of the first with two, three or four of the second, 
 or two of the first with three five or seven of the second, and 
 so on to certain limits, and in no other proportions. The relative 
 weights of these atoms were their combining numbers or the 
 chemical equivalent of the substance which they form. For ex- 
 ample, a portion of oxygen gas by weight always combines with 
 a portion of hydrogen gas weighing just l-16th as much, to form 
 water, and so with other compounds. 
 
 Now it is claimed that subsequent research has established 
 the fact that all the elementry bodies, as hydrogen, oxygen, 
 carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and the metals, always combine in 
 definite proportions as above indicated, and just as would be re- 
 quired by Dalton's theory of indivisible atoms. But it is also 
 found that most of the elements which combine in equal volumes, 
 undergo no condensation. For example, two equal volumes, one 
 of hydrogen and one of chlorine, when united, form the same 
 two volumes of chloro-hydric acid gas. There are also cases in 
 
-163 — 
 which the volumes of the separate elements are reduced to 1-3, 
 and even to 1-2. Now it is said that from certain physical laws 
 regarding the compressibility and expansibility of all gases, it 
 must be supposed that equal volumes of all gases should contain 
 the same number of molecules. Hence it would follow that the 
 so called elemenatry atoms which form such compounds, are re- 
 ally not atoms, but molecules, since they must be divided into 
 smaller parts in the act of combining. Exactly what evidence 
 there is for this conclusion, offered by others, I have not been 
 able to learn, but in the course of this chapter it will appear 
 from this general mechanical theory, that the ultimate chemical 
 units or smallest portions of matter which can take part in chem- 
 ical changes, and which are now rightly called molecules because 
 they are divisible into smaller parts, are really so divisible for 
 other and purely mechanical reasons. I will try to make it clear 
 that the smallest portions of the elementary bodies are composed 
 of still smaller particles of matter, perhaps true atoms, and that 
 permanency, as well as the fact that they combine in definite 
 proportions, may be explained in another way without the as- 
 sumption of indivisible atoms as chemical units, and in strict 
 conformity to the laws of motion which we derive from the in- 
 ertia of matter. Before taking up this part of the subject it 
 will be necessary to mention a few more general facts of chem- 
 istry, which may be familiar to chemists but not so to the gen- 
 eral reader who is not a special student of this science. 
 
 The properties of a substance are supposed to be its actual 
 or possible activities or changes — the way it may effect the ob- 
 server as in sense experience, when it is brought in contact 
 with other substances, or tbe way it may be effected by the 
 addition or withdrawal of motion. 
 
 Difference in properties is supposed to depend in some mys- 
 terious way upon the inner nature of the molecule or the atoms 
 of which it is composed — upon their form, mass, mode of activ- 
 ity or power of attraction and repulsion. 
 
 The identity of different portions of a substance, and the 
 constancy of its properties, is due to the perfect likeness and 
 constancy of all its molecules. For example, pure water is al- 
 ways like pure water, because its molecules are all alike and 
 always alike. The difference between one substance and another, 
 depends upon a difference in their molecules. For example, alco- 
 hol is not like water, because its molecules, tho alike in them- 
 selves, are not like those of water, and so with other substances. 
 The word molecule is here applied to the chemical unit as well 
 as to the unit of the compound. 
 
 Every action that causes a change in the molecule, is called 
 a chemical action, and every chemical action produces a change 
 in the properties of a substance. This change of properties is 
 
— 164 — 
 said to be a change of the Bubstance into a different Bubstance. 
 Thus by the simple union of the two gases, oxygen and hydrogen, 
 water is produced, and so in other cases. The forms of these 
 changes are numerous and complex, but all may be roughly 
 classed as follows: 
 
 Unlike molecules may act upon each other with interchange 
 of parts, thus altering the form of the molecules of each sub- 
 stance and so giving rise to two new substances. In such cases 
 all the parts of the original molecules may be retained in the 
 new ones, or a part may be expelled. This is the most common 
 form of chemical action and it is called mutual decomposition. 
 
 The molecules of a compound may be divided into two or 
 more smaller molecules, thus forming two or more new sub- 
 stances. This is called chemical analysis. 
 
 Two or more molecules, either of the elements or the com- 
 pounds, may unite to form a new substance. This is called chem- 
 ical synthesis. 
 
 Simply a change of position among the parts of the mole- 
 cule is supposed to result in a change of properties, and there- 
 fore a new substance. This is called isomerism. 
 
 It is believed by many chemists that the molecules of the 
 same substance may either divide into smaller molecules, or 
 unite to form larger molecules, thus changing the properties 
 of a substance. This is called allotropism. 
 
 In view of the theory that there is but one kind of matter 
 in the universe, the above facts regarding the origin of the va- 
 rious properties of matter, seem to be altogether confirmative. 
 They afford absolutely no ground for the belief that there is 
 more than one substance in the universe; while they plainly re- 
 veal the possibility of explaining all differences in matter and 
 therefore all material things, as purely physical — forms of one 
 matter and forms of one motion. This of course applies only to 
 the physical side of the universe. 
 
 In all chemical changes the quantity of matter taking part 
 in the action can neither be increased nor diminished without 
 the addition or removal of matter. This is to be expected from 
 the law that matter in all its most complex transformations is 
 never created or destroyed, and chemistry furnishes many good 
 illustrations of this truth. 
 
 All chemical changes are attended by a manifestation of 
 energy in one or more of its forms, and in all such changes the 
 quantity of energy taking part in the action gives no sign of 
 being increased or diminished without the addition or subtrac- 
 tion of energy. This fact is in perfect harmony with the gen- 
 eral law of the conservation of energy, and chemical facts in 
 general are in harmony with it. The laws of the conservation 
 of matter and energy are now regarded as the foundation of all 
 
— 165- 
 quantitative chemical investigations, and according to this more 
 general theory, when we say matter and energy we mean mat- 
 ter and motion under the common physical laws. 
 
 Since chemical combinations always take place between 
 fixed proportions, it is possible to determine the relative weights 
 of the smallest portions of the elements which enter into the 
 compounds. These smallest portions are supposed to be the in- 
 dividual molecules themselves, but their weights being only rela- 
 tive, can reveal nothing as to the actual weight of the mole- 
 cules. Beginning with hydrogen as the lightest known substance 
 and estimated as 1, the numbers run as follows; boron 11, car- 
 bon 12, nitrogen 14, oxygen 16, and so on up to the rare and 
 heavy metals as high as 231.4, in all 63, known as the elements. 
 
 The molecules of all substances, in particular those of gas- 
 es and liquids, appear to exercise an influence upon each other 
 which is independent of their individual mass or motion. A given 
 volume of hydrogen is 35.5 lighter than an equal volume of chlo- 
 rine, and these bodies are both gases at ordinary temperatures. 
 It is therefore supposed that the hydrogen molecule must be 
 much smaller or less massive than the molecule of chlorine, and 
 they must be held at greater distances apart. Many similar ex- 
 amples might be given, in fact experimental chemistry plainly 
 teaches that like molecules, those of the same substance, exer- 
 cise a repulsive action upon each other, which keeps them at 
 regular intervals apart, thus preserving the liquid or gaseous 
 form of the body of matter to which they belong. 
 
 Experiment also teaches with equal certainty, that unlike 
 molecules, those of different substances, exercise an attractive 
 influence upon each other, which enables them to combine as in 
 the various compounds. Thus, like molecules, those of the same 
 substance, repel each other, while unlike molecules, those of 
 different substances, attract each other. This is a general fact 
 of chemistry with but a few exceptions to be noticed later, and 
 in view of our electro-chemical-mechanical theory, it is a most 
 significant truth. The great importance of this truth is evident 
 at once. The fact of molecular repulsion enables the various 
 bodies to exist in the liquid or gaseous form at ordinary tem- 
 peratures, or to assume that form by the absorption of motion, 
 while the fact of molecular attraction enables the various sub- 
 stances which have an affinity for each other to combine as in 
 the numerous compounds. 
 
 The above are a few of the principal facts of chemistry 
 from the most trustworthy books on the subject known to me, 
 and to which I would call attention by way of introduction to 
 what follows. These facts or theories have not been reproduced 
 word for word, from familial sources. The matter has been 
 presented in the form suitable to the application of the present 
 
— 166- 
 general mechanical theory, and that this compilation is really 
 necessary, will be evident to the most careless reader. 
 
 37. The Theoretical Prospect.— From the literature of 
 the subject we learn, that thru all the past history of chemical 
 science, an impenetrable veil has seemed to envelop the ultimate 
 molecule, and to hide from view its internal structure, mode of 
 activity, etc. And perhaps the most obscure of all its activities 
 is its power of attraction and repulsion, upon which seems to 
 depend the stability of all solids, the liquid and gaseous forms 
 of matter and all chemical changes. From the ordinary point of 
 view this molecular mystery may be looked upon as even more 
 mysterious than the mystery of gravity or that of electricity, 
 for the reason that some subetances posses the power of at- 
 traction to a far greater extent than others, out of all propor- 
 tion to mass, thus being active chemical agents, and even that 
 they can exercise both attraction and repulsion at the same time 
 and in the same direction. It is known that the molecules differ 
 in mass, that they differ widely in chemical energy and the num- 
 ber of simple or elementary molecules which may enter into the 
 compound molecule is known; but as yet nothing has been ar- 
 rived at as to their internal arrangement or selective action up- 
 on each other. 
 
 The mechanical theory of chemistry, which is the object of 
 this chapter, is evidently the only one which will harmonize with 
 the general mechanical theory which is the object of this book. 
 According to this theory, there is nothing on the physical side 
 of the universe but matter, its various forms, the motion of 
 matter, its various forms and the inertia of matter; which last 
 named is the first principle, which governs all physical activities. 
 In theoretical chemistry, therefore, we have to deal only with 
 forms of matter, forms of motion and the laws of motion. As 
 already shown this view is the only one that makes for univer- 
 sal harmony. If we follow this lead it is then evident that the 
 only difference between the molecules of one substance and an- 
 other that we can think of, must be a physical difference; a dif- 
 ference of form in matter and motion. Under this idea of form 
 is included difference of mass, internal arrangement of parts 
 and forms of motion. All chemical changes, therefore, must de- 
 pend on molecular form, and must manifest themselves as forms 
 of motion. There is need of but one kind of matter in this theory, 
 and as we proceed it will become more and more evident that 
 we have no reason to think that more than one substance exists. 
 
 But the prospect is not discouraging; on the contrary it is 
 decidedly encouraging, for there should be nothing in chemis- 
 try which may not be presented to the mind as a simple object 
 lesson. The most complicated chemical changes should require 
 
— 167 — 
 nothing but a black-board and a piece of chalk to give a complete 
 illustration of them, and the entire science ought to be learned 
 as easily as learning to read. Space is the great blank upon and 
 in which all existence plays its part. Nothing occurs outside of 
 mind which may not be illustrated and taught as here described. 
 If we could see the individual molecules and watch them in all 
 their changes, we would discover no new principle nor would 
 we observe any action which could not be explained from the 
 motion of inert matter as described. This must be conceded 
 because a new principle would interfere with the already es- 
 tablished laws of motion, hence cannot exist. From all which 
 it follows that our theory of chemistry must be a simple me- 
 chanical theory, which should fit nicely into our general me- 
 chanical theory. 
 
 In order to reveal the necessity of an interveneing medium 
 and some form of motion, as a means to an explanation of the 
 power of attraction and repulsion, it will be best to describe a 
 well known experiment which seems to throw a new and sig- 
 nificant light on this subject. 
 
 A quantity of ice may be gradually warmed from 1° F, up 
 to 32° F, and the thermometer will indicate every degree in 
 the rise of temperature. The efficiency of mercury as a means 
 of measuring heat depends on its uniform expansion by heat, 
 and heat is supposed to be the relative motion of the atoms or 
 molecules; that is, their individnal vibrations as a whole, which, 
 when increased, results in the expansion of the body and is sen- 
 sible as heat. It follows, therefore, that the ice contains molec- 
 ular motion and that this motion may be increased by the ad- 
 dition of motion from without until 32°, the melting point 
 of ice, is reached. Now at this point the ice begins to assume 
 the form called water, and right here a noteworthy fact is ob- 
 served. The mercury still stands at 32°, and it has stood there 
 during the whole time the ice has been melting, nevertheless 
 there has been a steady inflow of heat. But as soon as the last 
 bit of ice has been melted the mercury begins to indicate a rise 
 of temperature, which steadily increases untill the boiling point 
 212°, is reached. Thus, to the most reliable test, a quantity 
 of heat has been changed into some other form of motion which 
 is not heat (or not the motion of the molecule as a whole) be- 
 cause it cannot communicate itself to the mercury. Now, notice 
 that as a clear result of this experiment, we have the molecu- 
 lar repulsive force which is necessary to maintain the water in 
 its liquid form. 
 
 The same result may be brought out in a modified form of 
 the same experiment. If a pound of ice at 32°, be mixed 
 with a pound of water at 172°, the ice will rapidly melt, but 
 the temperature of the resulting two pounds of water will be re- 
 
— 168- 
 duced to 32°. There has therefore disappeared, during the change 
 of the ice into water, 140 units of heat, which had previously 
 raised the pound of water from 32° up to 172°. Since the ther- 
 mometer has failed to give any account of this heat, we must 
 suppose that it has changed into some other form which is not 
 heat, and the molecular repulsive force being to all appearance 
 a direct result of the absorbed heat, the new form of motion is 
 evidently not that of the molecule as a whole. 
 
 In still another form of this experiment we get the same 
 result. If a pound of ice and a pound of water, both at 32°, 
 be exposed to a uniform source of heat while in separate ves- 
 sels, it will be found that by the time the ice is completely melt- 
 ed, the heat of the water will have been raised to 172°, 
 while the water from the melting of the ice will still stand at 
 32°. As in both the other cases, 140 units of heat have passed 
 into the water without raising its temperature one degree, but 
 with the noteworthy result of giving each molecule a repulsive 
 force which enables it to keep at a certain distance from adja- 
 cent molecules, and which force or motion is not communicated 
 to the mercury as heat would be. 
 
 From all of which it follows that if heat is a motion of the 
 mass of the molecule, all in one direction until it strikes and re- 
 bounds in some other direction, and if the quantity of motion 
 which was absorbed by the melting ice was uniformly distribut- 
 ed among all the molecules, (and this view seems unavoidable) 
 then it simply follows that the molecules of water which took 
 part in the above experiment, must be constructed on some plan 
 which enables them to change this absorbed motion into some 
 other form which is not heat. So we have to inquire what is the 
 form of a molecule which would enable it to receive motion and 
 transform it into other forms, not that of heat. 
 
 The laws of inertia and relativity permit us to entertain but 
 two ideas regardiug the form of the ultimate units of sensible 
 bodies. (1), They are single, solid particles of matter, having 
 no internal section or separate parts, like the atoms of Dalton. 
 (2) , They are composed of a number of such atoms, held togeth- 
 er in groups by some mechanical means. We are limited to these 
 two forms. The molecule of the elementary bodies, must be ei- 
 ther a single atom or a collection of them. A single atom can 
 have but two independent forms of motion; (1), a revolving mo- 
 tion on its axis; (2), a straight line motion as in heat. The mo- 
 lecule of water cannot be a single atom because we know it was 
 formed by the union of two volumes of hydrogen and one vol- 
 ume of oxygen; hence it must be a group of possibly a large 
 number of much smaller atoms. The rotation of a single atom, 
 no matter how rapid, could not communicate the effects of heat 
 as all bodies are expanded by heat. It is the straight line mo- 
 
—169- 
 tion of the molecule as a whole, limited by other molecules and 
 transferable to them, which gives us the heating effect; and 
 since the above experiment plainly shows that the large amount 
 of heat absorbed by the ice in melting does not continue to exist 
 as heat, and that as a result we have instead the liquid form of 
 water, it is perfectly natural and right to suppose that the new 
 form of motion is this repulsive force. 
 
 It is at least extremely doubtful whether the whirling mo- 
 tion of a single atom could have any heating or expanding ef- 
 fect, nor could it act upon other molecules without coming in 
 contact with them. Hence it seems certain that we must give 
 up the first mentioned form of the molecule, (which requires it 
 to contain but one atom) and adopt the second form, which re- 
 quires it to contain a number of atoms. We are then to pro- 
 ceed with a molecule which contains a number of atoms, pos- 
 siblly a large number. In this case the absorbed motion which 
 gives rise to the liquid water, and which must be distributed 
 equally among all the molecules, but which is not heat, nor is 
 it a whirling motion of the individual molecule or its component 
 atoms, must be some form which enables it to act across the 
 interval between it and its nearest neighbors. We know that 
 there is no action thru empty space, so this action must be thru 
 a material medium, in fact we must admit a mechanical repul- 
 sive force exactly as described in §19. 
 
 The internal straight line motion of the atoms in the mole- 
 cule, is clearly a possible result of the absorbed motion. But 
 this, in itself, would not amount to a repulsive force, so we can- 
 not do without the inter-molecular medium, and this of course 
 is the ether already described as being composed of particles of 
 inert matter, and therefore governed by mechanical laws. And 
 this medium is not only necessary to bridge the space between 
 the molecules, but it is indispensible to the mechanical action 
 which promises to explain and harmonize a long line of other 
 facts of chemistry. General harmony is what we want. 
 
 38. Molecular Attraction and Repulsion. — As already 
 mentioned, chemists generally believe that the smallest chemi- 
 cal units of at least most of the elementary bodies, are real mo- 
 lecules, containing a number of atoms, and some of them a 
 large number. Since this theory is well supported by facts and 
 authoritive opinions, besides the evidence given in §37, we are 
 justified in accepting it here. 
 
 According to this view, a body of elementary gas, oxygen 
 or hydrogen for example, is a collection of insensiblly small 
 poitions of matter, properly called molecules, because each one 
 of them is a group of still smaller particles of matter, which, 
 for reasons to appear later should be called atoms. These atoms 
 
— 170 — 
 are supposed to be free from each other so far as to be capable 
 of relative motion; but they are held together by a force soon 
 to be described. Thus the molecule becomes at once an absorber 
 of wave motion from the general medium (light or heat) which 
 is continually passing in all directions. At least a considerable 
 part of this absorbed motion will take the form of a confused 
 right line motion of the atoms, thus expanding the molecule 
 and tending to scatter its atoms. The atoms being much smaller 
 than the molecule as a whole, are not able to communicate their 
 motion directly to other molecules as heat. The molecule, or 
 group of atoms, being immersed in the ether, there is a contin- 
 uous transfer of its absorbed motion to the ether. This trans- 
 ferred motion will necessarily take the form of a conf us ed right 
 line motion of the particles of the ether, like that of the atoms, 
 and which will expand the ether within and immediately around 
 the molecule. Each molecule is thus a radiator of motion in all 
 directions thru the ether, and the quantity of this motion will 
 diminish as the square of the distance from the center of the 
 molecule. The ether being thus expanded within and close around 
 the molecule, will exert a difference of pressure on the atoms, 
 tending to force them toward the center of the molecule. In 
 this way the atoms of each molecule are kept together, and the 
 individuality of the molecule is preserved. It will not be difficult 
 to see that the atoms in such a molecule cannot communicate 
 their motion to adjacent molecules as heat. 
 
 According to our general mechanical theory this difference 
 of pressure which keeps the atoms of the molecule together, is 
 the same that gives rise to weight or falling motion at the sur- 
 face of the earth; it is the same that keeps the moon, the earth 
 and all the planets in their orbits; it is the same that gives rise 
 to all the forms of electric and magnetic attraction and as will 
 be explained later, it is the same agent in chemical affinity. In 
 preceeding chapter this difference of pressure has been explain- 
 ed on a large scale and need not have further attention here. 
 
 The molecules being all alike thruout the body of gas or liq- 
 uid, each containing the same number of atoms and quantity of 
 matter, they would absorbe and radiate motion alike, hence 
 their atmospheres of expanded ether (electricity) would be uni- 
 formly the same. As already explained, the difference between 
 positive and negative electricity is a difference in degree of ex- 
 pansion in the ether, due to a physical difference in the molecules 
 of different bodies. Two bodies charged with the same electric- 
 ity, (either positive or negative) always repel each other, while 
 two bodies charged with different electricities, (one positive and 
 the other negative) always attract each other. Or, according to 
 the mechanical theory, two atmospheres of expanded ether due 
 to like molecules (those of the same substance) would repel each 
 
— 171 — 
 other, and two atmospheres of expanded ether arising from dif- 
 ferent molecules, (those of different substances) will attract 
 each other. A simple experiment in electricity will reveal this 
 action to the eye, so far as it can be seen. Suspend a number of 
 pith balls by fine silk threads, near each other, and electrify 
 them by rubbing a glass rod. They repel each other and take 
 positions at equal distances apart. Next charge them by rub- 
 bing a stick of sealing-wax. The result is the same. Now take 
 two of the balls, charge one from the glass and the other from 
 the wax. They immediately attract each other and stay togeth- 
 er as long as the charge lasts. From which it appears highly 
 probable that electric attraction and repulsion and molecular 
 attraction and repulsion are due to the same physical cause. To 
 make sure of this we have to carefully examine the general 
 facts of chemistry as now presented in the books. 
 
 Here it will be best to call attention to the median cal law 
 of segregation, in order to help us to a better understanding 
 of molecular phenomena. All ponderable bodies from the atoms 
 up, are continually moving and changing relations, and there 
 is always and everywhere a tendency toward uniform equilibrium 
 as a result of a uniform diffusion of motion. The most perfect 
 state of equilibrium is that in which mechanical uniformity is 
 reached thru this diffusion of motion. This is accomplished most 
 completely when particles, atoms, molecules or moler aggre- 
 gates, which are all alike in all respects are grouped together; 
 and there is always a tendency for bodies alike in this respect, 
 to get together and remain together. There are a number of ex- 
 amples of this truth presented to the eye and occuring under 
 the combined action of gravity and moving currents of air or 
 water. It is the agency which separates wheat from chaff, it is 
 the same that separates gravel from sand and mud in the beds 
 of rivers, also the different grades of sand and gravel, and it is 
 employed in separating the different grades of emery powder. 
 In the past history of the earth segregation was undoubtedly at 
 work in the formation of the different rock and soil deposits. To 
 account for this general truth under physical law it seems nec- 
 essary to proceed as follows. Motion always tends toward uni- 
 form diffusion among all bodies or particles of matter, whether 
 ponderable or imponderable. In the complete attainment of this 
 state of uniform diffusion, each body or particle would contain 
 a quantity of motion proportional to its quantity of matter. If 
 the smallest atom contains one hundred times as much matter 
 as the particle of ether, it will move with the same velocity, 
 but it will contain one hundred times as much motion and the 
 motion will be all in one direction while that of a hundred par- 
 ticles of the ether will be in all directions. All ponderable bodies 
 from the atoms up, are at all times subject to friction, because 
 
— 172- 
 they move thru the ether and other gases and liquids, hence they 
 are subject to more or less loss of motion. But the ether parti- 
 cles, moving thru empty space, and totally without friction, 
 must move with the greatest possible velocity. The ether is thus 
 a constant absorber of motion from all the ponderable bodies, 
 thru friction and in the forms of electricity, light and heat; and 
 the same motion is continually being returned to ponderable 
 matter from the ether as absorbed light and heat, and as ac- 
 celerated falling motion. The ether, owing to its form, (which 
 makes it a perfect medium) is thus a means for the diffusion of 
 motion toward uniformity; while it is thru the collision of the 
 atoms and their aggregates, which continually interferes with 
 the attainment of a complete uniformity. When motion is im- 
 parted to a ponderable body, large or small, it is necessarily 
 concentrated, because all parts of it must move in one direction. 
 When two such bodies meet in collision their motion is more or 
 less changed into a relative motion of their components, (if they 
 are compounds) and from these the motion is transferred to the 
 ether as heat, light or eleciricity; hence the concentration fol- 
 lowed by diffusion. 
 
 The difference in mechanical deportment between the ether 
 and the atoms, according to this theory, must be due entirely 
 to their difference of mass or quantity of matter. The ether par- 
 ticles must be very much smaller, perhaps thousands of times 
 smaller than the smallest atom. This great difference of mass 
 would give to the ether, as a medium, all the mechanical prop- 
 erties necessary to its playing the part we see in molecular 
 and electric phenomena. The particles of the ether would never 
 unite in groups to form molecules, because they are the smallest 
 and all the same in mass, hence the outside pressure necessary 
 to hold them together would be impossble. But the atoms being 
 much larger, and very likely moving slower in proportion to 
 mass, would be susceptible to the outside pressure of the me- 
 dium, and wonld form groups as in the elementary molecules. 
 As required by segregation, atoms of the same size would get 
 together and remain together, simply as a result of their phys- 
 ical likeness, while two atoms differing in this respect, would 
 carry different quantities of motion, and so would separate. In 
 this way a series of elementary bodies might exist in which the 
 ultimate molecules would contain a number of atoms all alike, 
 while in different elements they would be larger or smaller. In 
 the case of compounds, in which the molecules are composed 
 of atoms differing in mass, each molecule should contain the 
 same number of the different elementary atoms, and as required 
 by segregation, the most massive atoms would occupy the cen- 
 ter of the molecule, with the lighter and most numerous atoms 
 disposed around the outside like the atmosphere of a planet. 
 
-173— 
 
 To review the above, the elementary substances differ from 
 each other by reason of the difference of mass in the atoms 
 which compose their molecules, while the compounds differ from 
 each other and from the elements, because their molecules are 
 necessarily formed by the union of the different molecules of 
 the elements, and that the different atoms in each molecule are 
 only separated by placing the most massive in the center with 
 the lighter ones around the outside. The reason why the ele- 
 mentary molecules are all alike in number and size of atoms, is 
 simply a result of this universal tendency of like to seek like, 
 also the tendency toward a uniform diffusion of motion. If by 
 any chance one molecule should get more atoms than its neigh- 
 bor, it would absorb more motion and eventually by inside pres- 
 sure and self repulsion it would divide, as shown in electric ex- 
 periments; that is, the normal balance between outside pressure 
 from the medium and the inside expansive force of the atoms, 
 would be overcome, and the molecule would divide by the ex- 
 pansive action of its atoms and by the self repulsion of its elec- 
 tric atmosphere. But the growth of a molecule in this way is 
 not very probable. The intimate mixture of the atoms of a par- 
 ticular element with the ether, and the uniform diffusion of a 
 certain quantity of motion in the medium, would undoubtedly 
 bring about a state of stable equilibrium, in which the atoms 
 would be grouped into uniform molecules, each repelling its 
 neighbor as described, and as a simple result of the fact that 
 the atoms are larger than the particles of the ether. The mole- 
 cules being thus kept at regular distances apart, we would call 
 this the state of stable equilibrium upon which the gas depends 
 for its permanency within certainlimits of temperature; and the 
 same would apply to all gases and liquids. In the case of solids, 
 and to some extent gases and liquids, the law of segregation, 
 along with the outside pressure of the ether, would account for 
 the existence and stability of all solids or sensible bodies. 
 
 That the atoms are constituted as here described, seems to 
 me to be the only way to account for the facts. A certain con- 
 stant relation between the mass of the units of the ether, the 
 mass of the atoms of the molecule, and the quantity of motion 
 in the medium, would determine the number of atoms in the 
 molecule, its electric repulsive power upon adjacent molecules, 
 and the volume or specific gravity or density of the gas or liq- 
 uid at a given temperature. In each molecule the atoms should 
 be sufficiently numerous to make the molecule an absorber of 
 wave motion from the medium, and to permit of its being di- 
 vided into equal parts, as this is known to occur in the forma- 
 tion of certain compounds. As to whether the atoms of each ele- 
 mentary molecule, and the particles of the ether, are all exact- 
 ly alike, in each division, can only be inferred from the govern- 
 
— 174 — 
 
 ing law. This view agrees with Dalton's theory of atoms, but 
 the atom in this case is not the chemical unit because it belongs 
 to a lower plane of division. This theory is also in harmony with 
 the law of the conservation of matter and motion, and so far as 
 known to me it agrees with the chemical law of definite combi- 
 ning proportions. And more, it promises an explanation of the 
 deep mystery of matter itself, which involves the ultimate na- 
 ture of things. Chemical facts must be explained and harmonized 
 somewhat as here indicated, in order to bring this department of 
 science under general physical laws, and make of it in truth a 
 physical science. Next let us examine a few of the general facts 
 of chemistry and see if they fallinto line from this view point. 
 
 39. Record evidence.— It has been recorded by Kirchoff, 
 Tyndall and others, that the various gases and liquids show a 
 difference in capacity for absorbing wave motion from the me- 
 dium, and it has been inferred that some molecules are more in 
 accord with certain wave lengths than others, and hence better 
 able to absorb motion. But we might also infer that the mass 
 of the atoms in certain molecules is such as to enable them to 
 vibrate in harmony with the waves, hence they are to some ex- 
 tent transparent to the wave motion; while the atoms in other 
 molecules, owing to greater or less mass, are in discord, hence 
 they would obstruct and break up the wave, and absorb and con- 
 vert its motion into electricity by transferring it to the ether. 
 To explain further, if the molecule was in harmony or if its at- 
 oms would vibrate with the waves to some extent or more or 
 less, then it ought to be more or less transparent to the waves, 
 and to the same extent not as good an absoiber of their motion. 
 But the molecule must absorb some motion in order to maintain 
 its individuality as a molecule. If on the contrary, the molecule 
 was in discord with the wave length, then it would intercept 
 the motion and convert it into the confused motion of the atoms 
 and then impart it to the ether as electricity. This difference in 
 capacity for taking in motion should be attended by a corre- 
 sponding difference in capacity for radiating motion; a good ab- 
 sorber being a good radiator and a bad absorber a bad radiator. 
 The quantity of motion radiated by a molecule would determine 
 the quantity of its electric atmosphere, and this again would 
 determine its power to act upon other and physically different 
 molecules, as in chemical changes. As to whether two molecules 
 would attract each other would depend upon their electric dif- 
 ference, and this, as already shown, would depend on molecu- 
 lar difference whereby plus or minus atmospheres of expanded 
 ether are produced. In some cases this electric difference might 
 be induced by electricity from an outside source. If one or a 
 small number of molecules at a given point in a body of gas, 
 
—175- 
 should receive a sudden increase to its electric atmosphere, it 
 would then bear to the others as yet unchanged the relation of 
 positive to their negative, and would attract them. In this case 
 the added electricity would not originate in the molecule itself 
 as transformed wave motion, hence the internal or atomic mo- 
 tion of the molecule would be increased but little if any, which 
 little might result from combining. In this way it seems highly 
 probable that like molecules might be induced to combine, thus 
 changing the properties of a substance; and in this way it may 
 be possible to account for the phenomena of allotropism, in 
 which such changes are known to occur. Several elementary 
 substances, notable among them being oxygen, carbon, sulphur 
 and phosphorus, have the peculiar power of changing their prop- 
 erties while their fundamental identity remains the same. Oxy- 
 gen for example, may be made to assume two other forms; 
 ozone and antozone. When an electric machine is put in opera- 
 tion the odor of ozone is often noticed as a result of the escape 
 of electricity in the air; this effect generally accompanying a 
 discharge of this form, one fifth of the air being oxygen gas. 
 Ozone is exceedingly unstable; being easily decomposed by the 
 least rise of temperature. Thus it is formed out of oxygen by 
 electricity, and changed back into oxygen by heat; or, as we 
 might say from the mechanical point of view, electricity makes 
 electric difference, which tends to combination without increas- 
 ing the atomic motion, while heat or molecular motion imparts 
 the atomic motion which results in internal expansion and sepa- 
 ration. Antozone is produced simultaneously with ozone and 
 both are produced out of pure oxygen and may be changed back 
 into pure oxygen. These facts may be readily understood from 
 our mechanical point of view. 
 
 But cases in which like molecules combine are rare in chem- 
 mistry, in fact it is generally the opposite. Chemical affinity, 
 with the few exceptions above mentioned, is exercised between 
 bodies possessed of opposite properties, and in most cases the 
 more unlike the molecules of two substances, the more they are 
 apt to combine. In this respect chemical affinity is remarkably 
 unlike cohesion, or that molecular likeness which, under segre- 
 gation, tends to bring like molecules together and keep unlike 
 molecules apart. The metals freely mix together when fused, 
 as in the alloys, they adhere powerfully as in welding and to 
 effect their solution, the only way is to mix them with mercury, 
 which is the only liquid metal at ordinary temperatures. The 
 salts disolve in water most readily when they resemble it by 
 containing water in the crystallized form. Inflammable bodies, 
 like phosphorus and sulphur, do not disolve in water nor in acids, 
 but in liquids themselves inflammable, like sulphuric ether, bi- 
 sulphate of carbon and the various oils, they disolve readily. The 
 
-176 — 
 resins and solid fats also require for their solution similar oily 
 and spirituous liquids, and finally, in perfect accord with the law 
 of segregation, the most perfect solutions are obtained by mix- 
 ing two portions of the same substance, in which there is per- 
 fect molecular likeness, as water with water. So we have as a 
 very general thing, the truth, that the molecules which are the 
 nearest alike are most apt to mix freely without chemical union, 
 while the molecules which are most unlike, are least disposed 
 to mix together, while they are most apt to attract each other 
 and form new compounds. And this must be admitted from the 
 mechanical point of view. 
 
 It seems that the most general comparison in illustration 
 of this truth, is that of the metallic and nonmetallic elements. 
 The metals as a rule are not soluble in water, alcohol, or any 
 of the liquid compounds of the nonmetallic elements; but the 
 metals promptly combine with the nonmetallic elements to form 
 compounds, many of which are soluble in these liquids. Carbon 
 may seem to offer some exception to this rule, perhaps because 
 of its middle position between the metallic and nonmetallic ele- 
 ments. In all its forms carbon is an infusible solid, not affected 
 by the highest temperature. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 
 and in some of its varieties it closely resembles the metals. Gas 
 carbon is a solid, hard, brittle, substance, with the metallic lus- 
 ter, and it conducts electricity like the metals. In its chemical 
 deportment it is still more like the metals, as it combines at 
 once with most of the nonmetallic elements. With hydrogen, 
 oxygen or nitrogen, or with two or all three of these elements, 
 it combines in the most varied proportions, giving rise to a great 
 variety of compounds, some of them highly complex. It is a 
 noteworthy fact in view of this theory, that many of these com- 
 pounds exist as gases or liquids at ordinary temperatures, and 
 that all of them are fusible. A study of carbon in view of this 
 theory, seems to indicate that its molecule contains only a few, 
 and most likely only one atom. Tho it enters into many com- 
 pounds it is never the active agent. This fact, with the fact that 
 it is infusible, seems to make it very plain that its molecule is 
 incapable of absorbing the motion which can be changed into 
 an electric atmosphere of its own, (and which incapacity would 
 result directly from a molecule containing but one atom) hence 
 its molecules are not able to repel each other, so makeing the 
 body to assume the form of a gas or a liquid. A molecule with 
 one or only a few atoms would also have the shape best suited 
 to unite with the more active elements. Oxygen is one of the 
 most active of the chemical agents and with carbon alone it 
 forms two compounds. When carbon is heated in air or in oxy- 
 gen gas, the oxygen molecule promptly engulfs the carbon unit, 
 each one of the former taking one of the latter, as in carbon 
 
— 177- 
 protoxide (CO) ; or two of the former taking one of the latter, 
 as in carbonic anhydride (C02). Both of these compounds are 
 gases at ordinary temperatures. It is therefore evident that the 
 carbon molecules, which cannot be separated by the most intense 
 heat, are quickly separated by their union with oxygen, which 
 simply gives each one of them an atmosphere of smaller atoms 
 by which they are able to absorb motion, convert it into elec- 
 tricity, and thus by repelling each other assume the form of a 
 gas. Who could wish for anything more convincing than this? 
 
 We might even venture so far as to suppose that when 
 carbon is heated to the incandescent point, its internal motion 
 which is changed into light, is purely atomic; that is, its solid 
 units move in all directions, strike together and rebound, thus 
 expanding the ether between them thruout the body, and so in- 
 creasing the outside pressure from the medium, which secures 
 the body in its solid form. A sensible mass of carbon would then 
 resemble somewhat the molecules of a semi-fluid, but very much 
 larger, and its units or atoms would also be larger, thus sustain- 
 ing the outside pressure necessary to maintain the rigid form 
 of a solid. The three allotropic forms of carbon, plumbago, char- 
 coal and diamond, indicate a tendency of its units to form into 
 groups or molecules; and why they do not succeed, even so far 
 as to produce a fusible body, seems explainable only by admit- 
 ting that the units are too massive and slow in taking up the 
 motion which would give the small groups of atoms the electric 
 atmosphere necessary for them to repel each other. They seem 
 to be just heavy enough to vibrate in mass with the ether wave, 
 and so when heated to white heat, they are able to impart the 
 same wave length to the ether. The fact that carbon in its trans- 
 parent and translucent forms, as in the diamond, may be ex- 
 plained on the supposition that its atoms vibrate in harmony 
 with the ether waves. The motion which passes thru the body 
 as light, does not change into electricity, hence there is no 
 tendency to form molecules. The body is thus a homogeneous 
 solid, of crystalline structure similar to glass but much harder, 
 and with its physical pores filled with ether, the density of which 
 is close to that of the body. The diamond is not affected by the 
 strongest acids or alkalies, and the only element capable of act- 
 ing upon it is oxygen, and this only under a high temperature. 
 When heated in oxygen gas it burns to carbonic acid gas (C02) . 
 If heated between the white hot charcoal points of a powerful 
 voltaic battery, it softens and swells up, forming a black brittle 
 mass like coke. Thus the most highly prized form of ordinary 
 matter may be changed to a comparatively worthies form, by 
 the simple action of heat. Besides the three principal varieties 
 of carbon, there are a number of sub-varieties which differ more 
 or less in color, hardness, lustre specific gravity, behavior toward 
 
— 178 — 
 chemical agents, power of conducting heat and electricity and 
 in other respects; but they are all alike in the fact, that, when 
 heated in oxygen they unite with it to form the same compound 
 (C02). Now we can fairly suppose that these varieties differ 
 from each other as a simple result of a difference in the number 
 of atoms in their molecules; and which atom are differently com- 
 bined as a result of a difference in the initiating temperatur. 
 But when once combined they tend to maintain that form as a re- 
 sult of the general inertia of matter and persistency of motion. 
 The transparency of the diamond would result from its uniform 
 mass and power of transmitting the waves of light unbroken. 
 
 Of all the chemical elements fluorine, whose combining num- 
 ber is 19, is the most energetic. It is difficult to obtain it in the 
 free state, for as soon as expelled from one compound it imme- 
 diately attacks the nearest substance, and disappears in a new 
 compound. Oxygen (16), ranks next to fluorine in chemical en- 
 ergy, and in this respect, these two are nearer alike than any 
 two elements known. In view of the present mechanical theory 
 it is worthy of remark that these two are the only elements in 
 the list which refuse to unite chemically. They will mix inti- 
 mately, but their molecules repel each other and keep apart. 
 Nitrogen (14), and oxygen (16), are close to each other in mo- 
 lecular weight, but they differ widely in chemical energy. While 
 oxygen is always active and even aggressive, nitrogen is noted 
 for its indifference to other substances. These two elements com- 
 bine in five different proportions, forming five different com- 
 pounds. This fact at first sight may seem to forebode the fallacy 
 of our theoiy, but we must not forget that the present scale of 
 combining weights indicates nothing as to the actual weight 
 of the atoms, or the number contained in the elementary mole- 
 cules. The molecule of nitrogen may contain a small number of 
 large atoms, while the molecule of oxygen may contain a large 
 number of smaller atoms. The two elements may also differ in 
 the power of absorbing the wave motion of the medium, and 
 this no doubt is the direct source of their difference in chemical 
 energy. Oxygen must absorb more motion than nitrogen, but 
 why? If its atoms are more in accord with the ether waves, it 
 seems certain that they would vibrate more freely with them, 
 like the atoms of carbon in the diamond, and so the oxygen mol- 
 ecule would be more transparent to the motion. On the other 
 hand, if the oxygen atoms were more in discord with the ether 
 waves, they would interfere to some extent, and all motion 
 thus intercepted would be communicated directly to the ether 
 as electricity; hence the superior power of oxygen as a chem- 
 ical agent. The same, of course, applies to all the active agents. 
 
 There is a series of compounds of carbon and hydrogen, fully 
 described in the books, which are interesting in this connetion. 
 
-179 — 
 Beginning with methyl hydride or marsh gas, and giving only 
 the formulas, which indicates the relative mass of the different 
 molecules of nine compounds, they are as follows: 
 
 CH4 a gas; C2H6 a gas; C3H8 a liquid, boiling point 30° be- 
 low zero; C4H10 b. p. 0° zero; C5H12 b. p. 30° above zero; C6H14 
 b. p. 60°; C7H16 b. p. 90°; C8H18 b. p. 120°; C9H20 b. p. 160°. 
 
 It will be noticed that each member in the above series after 
 the first, differs from the one preceding, by CH2; and that as 
 the quantity of matter in succeeding members increases at a 
 uniform rate, there is a corresponding increase in their boiling 
 point. This is all I can learn from the books about this series, 
 but this much is exactly what we ought to expect from the pres- 
 ent theory; and from the same theory we might infer that other 
 properties, as specific gravity and perhaps chemical energy, 
 should show a similar gradation. Thus, molecular mass, boiling 
 point and specific gravity, should increase from the first member 
 downwards, while chemical energy would most likely increase 
 from the last member upwards, but there may not be a uniform 
 increase in chemical energy from the bottom up. Since the first 
 two in the series are gases, those occupying the middle of the 
 series should be liquids, gradually changing downward from the 
 lightest toward the heaviest, which approach the solid form. 
 
 A further illustration of the same truth may be found in 
 the well defined group of elements known as chlorine, bromine 
 and iodine. These elements have very little affinity for each 
 other, but for hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and the metals, they 
 manifest a strong affinity. With hydrogen they all combine in the 
 proportion of equal volumes to form acids, which are all solu- 
 ble in water besides possessing general properties that closely 
 resemble. With nitrogen they each form an explosive compound 
 which exhibits the mechanical series very plainly. That of chlo- 
 rine is the most explosive, that of bromine less so and that of 
 iodine the least. The combining weight of chlorine is 35. 5, of 
 bromine 80, and of iodine 127. At ordinary temperatures chlo- 
 rine is a gas, bromine a liquid and iodine a solid. The chemical 
 energy of chlorine is the greatest, that of bromine second best 
 and that of iodine the least; and so with all their properties, 
 chlorine and iodine being at the beginning and the end of the 
 series with bromine in the middle. All this is what we ought to 
 expect in view of the mechanical theory. 
 
 There are other natural groups of the elements which jus- 
 tify this view. The following has the added interest of exhibit- 
 ing the gradual transition from the non-metallic to the metallic 
 form of the elements. They are nitrogen (14), phosphorus (31), 
 arsenic (75), antimony (122), and bismuth (210). The metallic 
 character is entirely absent in nitrogen, hardly discernible in 
 phosphorus, more marked in arsenic, quite distinct in antimony 
 
— 180 — 
 and most decided in bismuth. The metallic character thus evi- 
 dently depends on increased molecular mass, which in turn is 
 due to increased atomic mass, and consequent inability to absorb 
 the motion which may change into electricity. The metals gen- 
 erally seem to resemble carbon in so far as to suggest the prob- 
 ability that their molecules contain only a few, and possibly 
 only one atom. Like carbon they are good conductors of both 
 heat and electricity and they do not absorb heat or light and con- 
 vert it directly into molecular electricity. Generally they seem 
 to be transparent to heat just as the diamond is transparent to 
 light. While they are all good conductors of heat and electricity, 
 they are equally good as radiators, and this is to be expected. 
 The capacity to impart motion must be equal to the capacity to 
 receive it. Somewhat unlike carbon the metals are all fusible, 
 but most of them require a high temperature and some of them, 
 platinum for one, can be fused only in the most intense flame 
 of the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe. It is a noteworthy fact, already 
 aluded to, that the non-metallic elements, which are generally 
 good absorbers and bad conductors of motion, combine readily 
 with the metallic elements, which are generally bad absorbers 
 and good conductors of motion. And as would be expected the 
 compounds from such unions generally resemble the non-metallic 
 elements as they are good absorbers and bad conductors, besides 
 being active chemical agents, and many of them are soluble in 
 water and other liquids. It is very obvious that when the metals 
 combine with the non-metals, they acquire the atmospheres of 
 smaller atoms, which enables them to convert heat and light in- 
 to electricity, by which their molecules are able to attract their 
 opposites and repel their likes. 
 
 According to some authorities, lead, tin and zinc are the 
 worst conductors, and it is worthy of notice that, excepting mer- 
 cury, their melting points are the lowest. In order to assume 
 the state of liquid fusion the molecules, or at least the ultimate 
 atoms of such bodies, must have some way of receiving the mo- 
 tion which enables them to keep apart and to vary their distance 
 apart as the temperature varies. But are the atoms in such 
 bodies really grouped into molecules, or are they uniformly dif- 
 fused thruout the body? In the first case the absorbed motion 
 might be changed into electricity and so aid in bringing about 
 the state of fusion by molecular self repulsion. In the second 
 case the atoms may be kept apart by their individual motion 
 in straight lines, striking together and rebounding, as required 
 by the laws of motion (§20). This last named view seems to me 
 to be most apt to be true, and if so then the metallic elements, 
 including carbon, may be supposed to have for their chemical 
 units single solid atoms, while all the non-metallic and active 
 elements, should have groups of smaller atoms. 
 
— 181- 
 
 In view of the law of segregation and of our present ideas 
 of the form of the elementary molecule, we can arrive at some 
 idea of the makeup of the compound molecule. For example, in 
 the molecule of ammonia gas (NH3) , we would have an interior 
 portion composed of one equivalent of the heavier atoms of ni- 
 trogen (N) , entirely enveloped by three equivalents of the light- 
 er atoms of hydrogen (H). Many similar examples maybe men- 
 tioned, as the following: (OH2), (CH4), (S03), (SnS2), (PtC14), 
 (C20H6), (C18O15H30), and hundreds of others, the most mul- 
 tiplex of all being (C75So22N18H112). Among the few apparent 
 exceptions to this rule maybe mentioned (P2H), Ag20), CN2S) 
 and (KC1). But in these compounds the active elements are H, 
 O, S and CI, among the most active of all. If we can conceive 
 it as possible that one molecule of hydrogen (H), may be able 
 to completely envelop two molecules of potassium (P) , or one 
 moleculo of oxygen (0) , to engulf one molecule of silver (Ag) , 
 there is no difficulty in view of the present theory. 
 
 The behavior of compounds among themselves seems also 
 to justify the mechanical theory; but since they are very numer- 
 ous and complex a careful study of them without a more thor- 
 ough knowledge of chemistry, is impossible at present. Perhaps 
 the most noticeable relation is that between acids and bases. 
 There is a well known class of compounds called acids, and an- 
 other called bases, which readily unite with each other to form 
 a third class of bodies called salts. Acids are generally compos- 
 ed of hydrogen and oxygen with some one of the non-metallic 
 elements of greater weight, as nitrogen or sulphur. Bases are 
 generally composed of the same hydrogen and oxygen with some 
 one other of the metallic elements, as potassium, sodium or cop- 
 per. Nitric acid (HN03), and sulphuric acid (H2S04), are ex- 
 amples of the acids. Potassium hydrate (KHO) , sodium hydrate 
 (NaHO) and copper hydrate (CuH202), are examples of the 
 bases. It is therefore quite possible that the relationship of the 
 acids and bases is the same as that of the metallic and non-me- 
 tallic elements; but with the compounds the scale of magnitudes 
 is somewhat greater. The molecules of a base would possess a 
 more massive interior than the molecules of an acid, hence as 
 in other cases would have a different atmosphere of electricity, 
 either positive or negative to that of the other. When we com- 
 pare the formula of potassium nitrate (KN03), a base, with 
 the formula of nitric acid (HN03), it may be seen that the acid 
 molecule with its one volume of nitrogen for an interior, envel- 
 oped by three volumes of oxygen and one of hydrogen, is a much 
 lighter molecule than the base with its one volume of potassium, 
 one of nitrogen and three of oxygen. The difference in molecu- 
 lar weight is 63 for the acid to 101 for the base. For this and 
 other reasons which give to the acid molecule a more complex 
 
— 182- 
 atmosphere (since the potassium element is replaced by the more 
 active hydrogen element) it is most likely that the acid is the 
 positive agent. 
 
 I have now reviewed a few of the most general and conspic- 
 uous facts of chemistry in view of the present theory. The facts 
 have been obtained from a brief reading of a few books and no 
 practical experience has been attempted, as this was impossible. 
 It is not claimed that what I have offered here is sufficient to 
 establish the truth that all chemical changes are accounted for 
 as the simple movements of one inert substance, divided into 
 particles or atoms which differ in mass, and which are governed 
 in all their movements by the motion which comes from inertia. 
 It should be evident however, that some mechanical theory of 
 chemistry must be devised in order to harmonize these facts 
 with a complete mechanical theory of the physical universe. 
 
 40. Experimental Research by Others.— The extensive 
 experiments of Prof. John Tyndall with radiant heat, as a means 
 of determining the nature of the molecule, it seems to me are 
 highly important as bearing evidence for the mechanical theory. 
 His experiments were numerous and varied, with expensive ap- 
 paratus, and every possible precaution was taken against error. 
 I will mention a few of his results, in his own words, and as 
 bearing on the present theory, and will refer the reader to his 
 large work, "Contributions to Molecular Physics", New York, 
 1873. I have quoted these passages not to swell the volume of 
 my own book but to make it plain that the ablest men of the 
 last century have done something to prepare the way for a gen- 
 eral mechanical theory. On the subject of molecular absorption 
 and radiation, Prof. Tyndall says at the end of a long series of 
 experiments, (page 47) : 
 
 ''From the existence of absorption, we may infallibly infer 
 a capacity for radiation; from the existence of radiation we may 
 with equal certainty infer a capacity for absorption, and each of 
 them must be regarded as a measure of the other. This reason- 
 ing founded simply on the mechanical relations of the ether and 
 the atoms immersed in it, is completely justified by experiment. 
 Great differences have been shown to exist among gases as to 
 their power of absorption, and precisely similar differences as 
 regards their power of radiation". 
 
 Comparing the absorbing powers of a number of the ele- 
 mentary gases with the like capacity of a number of the com- 
 pounds of these elements, the Prof, says: 
 
 "The elementary gases, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and 
 the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative 
 powers for radiant heat beyond comparison less than those of 
 the compound gases, Thus we see that hydrogen and nitrogen, 
 
-183 — 
 when mixed together, produce a small effect, when chemically 
 united to form ammonia (NH3), produce an enormous effect. 
 Oxygen and hydrogen, when mixed in their electrolytic propor- 
 tions, show a scarcely sensible action, when chemically com- 
 bined to form aqueous vapor (OH2) exert a powerful action. So 
 also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our 
 atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly, when united to form 
 oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide (N20), have their pow- 
 ers vastly augmented. Pure atmospheric air, of 5 inches mercury 
 pressure, does not effect an absorption equivalent to more than 
 one-fifth of a degree, while nitrous oxide of the same pressure 
 effects an absorption equivalent to fifty-one degrees. Hence the 
 absorption by nitrous oxide at this pressure is about 250 times 
 that of air. No fact in chemistry carries the same conviction to 
 my mind, that air is a mixture and not a compound, than that 
 just cited. In like manner, the absorption by carbonic oxide (CO) 
 of 5 inches pressure is nearly 100 times that of oxygen alone; 
 the absorption by carbonic acid (C02), is about 150 times that 
 of oxygen; while the absorption by defiant gas (C2H4), is 1000 
 times that of its constituent hydrogen. Even the enormous ac- 
 tion last mentioned is surpassed by the vapors of many of the 
 volatile liquids, in which the atomic groups are known to attain 
 their highest degree of complexity." 
 
 I have supplied the chemical abbreviations in the above quot- 
 ed passage. It is very plain from the above that absorption and 
 radiation are equal and opposite; the quantity of motion received 
 being the same as that given out. It is also perfectly clear that 
 the combination of the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, ni- 
 trogen, which absorb very little heat when uncombined, have 
 their capacities greatly increased when combined; in particular 
 if they are combined with more different elements as carbon or 
 the metals. For example, the absorption of oxygen and hydro- 
 gen when combined to form the vapor of water (OH2), is less 
 than when nitrogen and hydrogen are combined to form ammonia 
 (NH3). For defiant gas (C2H4), the absorption is still higher, 
 and for a number of the volatile liquids it reaches the highest 
 point. Molecular complexity as a result of the combination of 
 widely different elements, clearly seems to increase the power 
 of absorption for radiant heat. All this must be expected from 
 our mechanical point of view. Prof. Tyndall also took the view 
 that the phenomena of radiation and absorption may be reduced 
 to physical laws. But he did not draw the same conclusions from 
 his experimental results and from physical laws that I have, 
 and this is the more unfortunate forme because, to many it will 
 look like pure presumption on my part to differ with perhaps 
 the most capable and best equipped investigator of modern times. 
 His conclusions are plainly set forth in the following: 
 
-184 — 
 
 "But besides molecular complexity another important con- 
 sideration remains. All the gases and vapors hitherto mentioned 
 are transparent to light; that is to say, the waves of the visible 
 spectrum pass among them without sensible absorption. Hence 
 it is plain that their absorptive power depends on the periodicity 
 of the undulations which strike them." 
 
 As to molecular complexity being a potent factor in absorp- 
 tion, I agree with the Prof, but that absorption is due to peri- 
 odicity more than to a very small degree, I doubt. He says: 
 
 "Now, besides presenting broader sides to the ether, the 
 association of simple atoms to form groups must, as a general 
 rule, render their motions through the ether more sluggish, and 
 tend to bring the periods of oscillation into isochronism with the 
 slow undulations of obscure heat, thus enabling the molecule to 
 absorb more effectually such rays as have been made use of in 
 our experiments." 
 
 The above is a correct statement of the truth as I under- 
 stand it. The grouping of atoms would make a more sluggish 
 molecule, which would tend to vibrate more in harmony with 
 the waves of heat, bnt it is only a tendency. The complete at- 
 tainment of accord or harmony of vibrations, between the mol- 
 ecule and the heat wave, would make the body transparent to 
 heat and there would be no absorption. It appears that Prof. 
 Tyndall was not wholly satisfied with the view of absorption 
 mentioned above. In his analysis of memoir I, he says: 
 
 "One of the speculative notions in this section subsequent 
 experience has caused me to modify. Radiation and absorption 
 are here regarded as the act of the molecule as a whole, where- 
 as I now hold them to be mainly the work of the constituent 
 atoms of the molecule. Experimental reasons for this change 
 of conception will be given subsequenly. " 
 
 But so far as I can learn from his book he did not give up 
 the idea that synchronism or coincidence in time, is a factor in 
 absorption. Now, from my own conception of the laws of mo- 
 tion as derived from the inertia of matter, the one thing which 
 strikes me as the true explanation of absorption and radiation, 
 and its difference with regard to elements and compounds, is 
 simply this: Absorption and radiation are due, both to the mol- 
 ecule as a whole and to its constituent atoms. As a whole, the 
 combination of a number of atoms would make a molecule more 
 sluggish in proportion to the number of atoms combined and 
 the closeness of their union; whereby the molecule would tend 
 to vibrate as a whole with the waves of heat. This tendency to 
 vibrate as a whole, must, at first, be only partial; thus starting 
 a confused motion of the atoms in the molecule, which internal 
 motion has been absorbed from the waves and which may accu- 
 mulate up to a certain point, at which it will be communicated 
 
— 185 — 
 to the ether as electricity. The longer waves of heat would be 
 the first to shake up the molecule as a whole, because their 
 length comes nearer to the diameter of the molecule. Since the 
 elementary gases are transparent to light, it seems certain that 
 the shorter ether waves must coincide more closely in length 
 with the diameter of the single atoms; hence the atoms would 
 be more apt to vibrate with the waves of light. It is this accord, 
 or harmony of vibration, between the medium and the atoms, 
 which I would regard as the true physical explanation of trans- 
 parency in all ponderable bodies. The ether is transparent to all 
 wave lengths simply because its particles are the smallest of 
 all, and so must be able to vibrate in harmony with the shortest 
 and quickest of all wave lengths. This extreme lightness of the 
 ether particle would not interfere with its forming the medium 
 of the longer waves, even those of water. 
 
 As mentioned before, all the gases and vapors used in these 
 experiments were transparent to light. As I would suppose, the 
 short vibrations of the visible spectrum are able to pass thru, 
 not only the ether, but the molecule unbroken; so there is little 
 or no absorption. The longer and slower waves of heat (also the 
 more powerful because, including more matter they have more 
 momentum) would tend to throw the molecule as a whole into 
 vibrations, and being composed of atoms differing in mass and 
 in close proximity, a confused relative motion of the atoms fol- 
 lows. Owing to difference of mass these atoms would not have 
 the same periods of vibration, hence their confusion. The com- 
 bination of a number of atoms differing in mass would certainly 
 make not only a more massive and sluggish molecule, with the 
 tendency to vibrate as a whole, but a more complex molecule, 
 which would tend to break the heat waves into a confused mo- 
 tion of the atoms, resulting in a direct communication of the 
 motion to the ether, followed by the expansion of the ether, dif- 
 ference of pressure from the ether, preservation of the individ- 
 uality of the molecule, its power of repelling like molecules and 
 attracting unlike molecules and its power of radiation. 
 
 Thus we are able to follow the chain of cause and effect 
 from radiant heat, thru molecular absorption and thru every 
 connecting link to molecular radiation. The true explanation of 
 absorption must of course include the true explanation of radi- 
 ation, for both should be a simple result of molecular form. 
 
 All the facts of chemical and physical science known to me 
 clearly enforce the view that the more massive the atom, the 
 molecule or the sensible body, the slower it must vibrate when 
 it receives its due share of the motion of the general medium. 
 The reason of this is very plain for it comes directly from the 
 general law of the communication and diffusion of motion. A 
 given quantity of motion imparted to a given quantity of matter, 
 
— 186 — 
 will result in a certain velocity of the mass of matter. The same 
 quantity of motion imparted to double the quantity of matter, 
 will reduce the velocity to one half, simply because the motion 
 must be communicated to double the quantity of matter. Hence 
 if two atoms are placed side by side in the ether, and if one of 
 the atoms contains double the quantity of matter contained in 
 the other, the larger atom will vibrate once while the small one 
 vibrates twice. 
 
 Since this view does not agree with that of Prof. Tyndall, 
 it will be well to give the matter some further attention. He 
 maintains, (and he mentions other well known scientists to jus- 
 tify him) that the power of absorption depends on agreement 
 in length and time of vibrations, between the ether waves and 
 the vibrations of the atoms or the molecules. On page 217 he 
 says regarding transparency and opacity to light or heat: 
 
 "To what, then, are we to ascribe the deportment of iodine 
 towards luminous and obscure heat? The difference between 
 both qualities of heat is simply one of period. In the one case 
 the waves which convey the energy are short and of rapid re- 
 currence; in the other case they are long and of slow recurrence; 
 the former are intercepted by the iodine, and the latter are al- 
 lowed to pass. Why? There can, I think, be only one answer to 
 this question — that the intercepted waves are those whose peri- 
 ods coincide with those of the dissolved iodine. Supposing waves 
 of any period to impinge upon an assemblage of molecules of 
 any other period, it is, I think, physically certain that a tremor 
 of greater or less intensity will be set up among the molecules; 
 but for the motion to accumulate so as to produce sensible ab- 
 sorption, coincidence of period is necessary. Briefly defined, 
 therefore, transparency is synonymous with discord, while opac- 
 ity is synonymous with accord between the periods of the waves 
 of ether and those of the molecules of the body on which they 
 impinge. The transparency, then, of our solution of iodine to the 
 ultra- red undulations demonstrates the incompetency of its at- 
 oms to vibrate in unison with the longer waves." 
 
 The above is the most complete statement of TyndalPs the- 
 ory of molecular absorption that I can find in his work and I do 
 not think we can fail to understand it. A tremor of more or less 
 intensity is admitted in the above, and this, of course, is partial 
 absorption; 'but' he says, 'for the motion to accumulate so as to 
 produce sensible absorption, coincidence of period is necessary. ' 
 
 It is affirmed of course that this theory will apply to the nu- 
 merous class of bodies which are transparent to light, but opaque 
 more or less to radiant heat. Water is mentioned as a notable 
 example of this class of bodies. According to Melloni's experi- 
 ments a film of water one-twentieth of an inch thick is compe- 
 tent to intercept all degrees of heat under incandescence. The 
 
— 187 — 
 transparency of pure water to light, is a well known fact. The 
 same is true of the atmosphere, and in less degree of a number 
 of solids and liquids, as glass, alum, mica, diamond and a num- 
 ber of liquids. The atoms or molecules of all these, according to 
 Prof. Tyndall, are more or less in discord with the waves of the 
 visible spectrum, while they are all more or less in accord with 
 the ultra-red or heat waves of the spectrum. On page 49 he ad- 
 vances the supposition that the waves of light have the power 
 of gliding around the molecules of transparent bodies without 
 disturbimg them but little, while the molecules of such bodies 
 have the power of gliding thru the ether without communicating 
 their motion to it, hence such bodies are not absorbers or radi- 
 ators of the wave form of motion. 
 
 It is well known that the waves of light are projected in 
 straight lines in all directions. Would it be possible to project 
 imaginary straight lines in all directions thru a plate of glass, 
 without touching a single molecule? I think not: our common 
 sense plainly teaches us that opaque bodies cast shadows. It is 
 not easy to understand how the waves of light can glide around 
 the molecules of a body of water and it is more difficult to see 
 how they can dodge here and there among those of glass or di- 
 amond, which latter is the hardest substance known. There is 
 certainly far less difficulty in the supposition that the waves of 
 light pass unbroken thru the molecules of water as well as thru 
 the ether which surrounds them, leaving little or no motion be- 
 hind; while the waves of heat, being longer, s lower and more 
 powerful, tend to throw the molecule as a whole into vibrations 
 corresponding in period to those of heat, but not wholly suc- 
 ceeding, the atoms in the molecule are confused in their vibra- 
 tions to the extent that they differ in mass, hence the wave mo- 
 tion is broken in form, absorbed and changed into electricity. 
 
 Taking this view we can understand how water is changed 
 from a solid to a liquid by the absorption of heat, (§37), and 
 even how the absorption of heat converts it into steam; but in 
 this case it seems most likely that the expansive force of steam 
 is due, not to its molecular electric repulsive force, but to the 
 projectile force of the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen which are 
 supposed to be the solid constituents of its molecule. In this case 
 the solid units of both the ether and the water would be free to 
 move as required by the laws of inertia. We can take this view 
 or we can suppose that the molecules of water remain intact 
 while the water plays the part of steam, but the latter view 
 seems the more difficult. 
 
 The diamond is transparent to light while it is almost com- 
 pletely impervious to heat. Being the hardest substance known, 
 it seems impossible to avoid the idea that its atoms are in con- 
 tact, forming a body rigid enough to account for its hardness, 
 
-188 — 
 yet flexible enough to permit some motion and having its phys- 
 ical pores filled with ether, thus forming a medium of nearly 
 uniform density and internal mobility thru which the short un- 
 dulations can pass with little obstruction. Mercury, on the con- 
 trary, is impenetrable to light while it is a most perfect absorber 
 and radiator of heat. How can we suppose that the atom of 
 mercury, which must be more tham 200 times heavier than the 
 atom of hydrogen, be in accord with the waves of light? It is 
 surely more consistent with our ideas of inertia, to suppose that 
 the atoms of mercury are heavy enough to make the short waves 
 of light rebound as we know they do, while they would be most 
 apt to receive the motion of the longer waves. If we suppose the 
 smallest portion of the body of mercury is a solid atom, strictly 
 obeying the laws of motion and just massive enough to be in ac- 
 cord with the waves of heat, thus vibrating and bumping to- 
 gether with very rare ether between them, then how easy it is 
 to understand why mercury expands in exact proportion to the 
 quantity of motion it receives. 
 
 With the habitual caution of the trained scientist, Tyndall 
 does not attempt to describe the actual movements of the atoms 
 in the elements or in the compounds, as might be inferred from 
 mechanical laws, tho he freely admits the general application of 
 such laws. In the following remarkable passage he gives a very 
 complete summary of the unexplained questions involved: 
 
 "What are the specific qualities which cause one body to 
 radiate copiously and another feebly? Why, on theoretic grounds, 
 must the equivalence of radiation and absorption exist? Why 
 should a highly diathermanous body, as shown by Mr. Balfour 
 Stewart, be a bad radiator, and an athermanous body a good 
 radiator? How is heat conducted? and what is the strict physi- 
 cal meaning of good conductors and bad conductors? Why, in 
 general, should good conductors be bad radiators, and bad radi- 
 ators good conductors? These, and other questions, referring 
 to facts more or less established, have still to receive their com- 
 plete answer. It was less with a hope of furnishing such than of 
 shadowing forth the possibility of uniting these various effects 
 by a common bond, that I submitted the following reflexions to 
 the notice of the Royal Society." 
 
 It seems to me that several of these questions, if not all, 
 may be answered at present from our more comprehensive me- 
 chanical point of view. The specific or physical form which may 
 cause one body to radiate more than another, is of course the 
 same that would cause one body to absorb more than another 
 and both are due to the internal form of the molecule. As al- 
 ready explained, the combination of atoms differing in mass, 
 would form a molecule in which the atoms could not vibrate in 
 harmony with each other, hence the confusion within the mole. 
 
-189 — 
 cule, resulting in absorption and radiation. The equivalence of 
 absorption and radiation is thus a matter of course. Why good 
 conductors are generally bad radiators and bad conductors good 
 radiators, is the same question in other words. The motion ab- 
 sorbed by the molecule is transformed and radiated in some dif- 
 fused form, as heat or electricity, hence is not conducted thru 
 the body. A good conductor is transparent to the motion, either 
 as waves or in the confused form of heat. A bad conductor is 
 one in which the motion is confused in the molecule (absorp- 
 tion) and transferred to the ether as electricity. In so far as the 
 body is a good absorber it is not a good conductor or not trans- 
 parent and to the same extent it is a good radiator. The subject 
 of conduction has been considered to some extent in §27 and §31. 
 
 It may be that Tyndall was misled in his theorizing by a 
 too close adhesion to Dalton's theory of atoms. According to 
 Dalton, the ultimate chemical unit is a single solid atom. (§36) . 
 This form of the units of the elementary gases would unfit them 
 as absorbers of motion when uncombined, and even to a great 
 extent when combined. The following passage (page 49), will 
 make his views on this subject perfectly clear: 
 
 "Many chemists, I believe, are disposed to reject the idea 
 of an atom, and to adhere to that of equivalent proportions mere- 
 ly. They figure the act of combination as a kind of interpene- 
 tration of one substance by another. But this is a mere masking 
 of the fundamental phenomena. The value of the atomic theory 
 consists in its furnishing the physical explanation of the law of 
 equivalents: assuming the one, the other follows; and assuming 
 the act of chemical union as Dalton figured it, we see that it 
 blends harmoniously with the perfectly independent conception 
 of an ether, and enables us to reduce the phenomena of radia- 
 tion and absorption to the simplest mechanical principles. ' 
 
 But the "law of equivalents" (the general fact that every 
 chemical element has but one least combining weight, which is 
 always the same no matter what other element it combines 
 with, and that the combining weight of a compound is always 
 equal to the sum of the weights of the elements which enter 
 into its molecule) is, to my notion, just as much in harmony 
 with the theory that the smallest portion of any element which 
 can enter into combination with another element or compound, 
 is not in all cases a single solid atom, but at least in the case 
 of the non-metallic elements it is a group of smaller atoms. This 
 view does not make the law of equivalents dependent upon a 
 single unchangeable atom, but it does make it dependent on the 
 universal laws of the motion of inert matter; and more than 
 this, it opens the way to an explanation of all the other facts 
 of chemistry. This, tho only a speculaton, appears to me to be 
 the only theoretical road to universal harmony. 
 
— 190 — 
 It is not known to me that any one else has attempted to 
 continue for further results, the experimental work so ably be- 
 gun by Prof. Tyndall; but it seems that a very important fur- 
 ther step would be to determine whether there is a difference in 
 absorptive power corresponding to the known difference in chem- 
 ical energy among the elements. Oxygen (16), for example, is 
 a very active chemical agent while nitrogen (14), is remark- 
 ably inactive. Accordingly oxygen ought to be a much better 
 absorber and radiator than nitrogen. The following from Prof. 
 Tyndall's "Molecular Physics," plainly shows the great differ- 
 ence in absorptive energy between the gaseous elements and 
 their compounds, but reveals no difference between oxygen and 
 nitrogen. 
 
 Air a mixture, 01 N4. . . Absorption per 100, 1 
 
 Oxygen, O 1 
 
 Nitrogen, N 1 
 
 Hydrogen, H 1 
 
 Chlorine, CI 60 
 
 Bromine, Br. ........ 60 
 
 Carbonic Oxide, CO 750 
 
 Hydrobromic acid,HBr 1005 
 
 Nitric Oxide, NO 1590 
 
 Nitrous Oxide, N20 1860 
 
 Hydrogen Sulphide, H2S 2100 
 
 Ammonia, NH3 5460 
 
 Olefiant gas, C2H4 6030 
 
 Sulfureous acid, S02 6480 
 
 The chemical symbols have been added to the above table. 
 Concerning these results Prof. Tyndall remarks: "Air, oxygen, 
 nitrogen and hydrogen are all set down as equal to unity in the 
 above table. I do not mean thereby to affirm that there are no 
 differences between these gases, but that the most powerful 
 and delicate tests hitherto applied have failed to establish a dif- 
 ference in a satisfactory manner." 
 
 From inertia it follows that the ether should be transparent 
 to all wave lengths, simply because its particles are the small- 
 est of all. The atom of hydrogen being the smallest of the atoms, 
 ought to form a medium which should be transparent to all wave 
 lengths except the shortest. Admitting it to be too massive to 
 vibrate in perfect harmony with the shortest waves, (partial 
 discord) we can then understand why the atoms of hydrogen 
 are grouped into molecules. Being too sluggish to vibrate with 
 the shortest waves they tend to get together as required by the 
 law of segregation. (38). The union of atoms is a concentration 
 of motion, hence the atomic energy of impact is greater. The 
 molecule thus formed becomes at once an absorber of motion 
 from the shortest waves, which absorbed motion must be radi- 
 
— 191 — 
 ated and the ether of course is its medium, hence the expansion, 
 difference of pressure and other results must follow. Tyndall 
 used only radiant heat in his experiments and the results are 
 just what we ought to expect from physical laws. The atoms in 
 the molecules of hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, being the 
 smallest and lightest of the atoms, are in partial discord only 
 with the shortest waves, hence they may absorb and radiate 
 enough motion to account for the gaseous form of matter, while 
 they may vibrate with the next longer yet visible waves to ac- 
 count for the transparency of these gases both for light and heat. 
 But when these molecules unite to form the vapor or liquid com- 
 pounds, they then begin to be sluggish enough to intercept the 
 longer waves, as plainly shown in the above table. 
 
 From other sources it seems that we have experimental 
 evidence in support of this conclusion. Prof. S. P. Langley, the 
 astronomer, in his researches on solar radiation and atmospher- 
 ic absorption, claims to have established the following as fact: 
 
 1. "After the passage of the solar rays thru the atmosphere, 
 the maximum of heat in the diffracting spectrum lies near the 
 wave length 0.0006 of a millimeter, and therefore in the orange 
 portion agreeing with the maximum intensity of light. (2) , Be- 
 fore its passage thru the atmosphere, the maximum of heat in- 
 tensity was near the blue. (3), The red and ultra red rays, espe- 
 cially the latter, suffer the least absorpton by the atmosphere, 
 while the blue and ultra blue suffer the most." Smithsonian 
 Report, for 1884. 
 
 I have asked a trained scientist to carefully read the above 
 and this is what he said about it: This means in substance, that 
 the elementary gases nitrogen and oxygen, with a small pro- 
 portion of the compound vapors carbonic acid and water, which 
 compose our atmosphere, do absorb a considerable part of the 
 wave motion from the sun, and that the blue and ultra blue 
 (the visible and shortest waves) suffer the most absorption, 
 while the red and ultra red suffer the least. This is just what 
 we ought to expect from physical laws. 
 
 There are other experimental facts which support this the- 
 ory. Prof. W, R. Grove long ago discovered that a white-hot 
 platnum wire, when plunged into pure hydrogen gas, is instant- 
 ly chilled to blackness. Prof. G. Magnus of the Berlin Academy, 
 in 1860 commenced a series of experiments to learn something 
 about the conductivity of gases; and he was led to believe that 
 hydrogen conducts heat like a metal. Prof. Tyndall's experi- 
 ments plainly show that dry air (pure oxygen and hydrogen gas) 
 is a much better conductor or transmitter of heat than moist 
 air. In some cases the absorption of the moisture ladened air 
 was 90 times greater than that of dry air. All this is to be ex- 
 pected if our general theory is true. The hydrogen atom must 
 
— 192 — 
 be the smallest of the atoms hence it should come nearest to 
 the ether as a transmitter of all wave lengths, absorbing only 
 the shortest. The oxygen and nitrogen atoms coming next in 
 size should come next in transparency to all wave lengths but 
 the shortest. But so far I have found nothing to show that oxy- 
 gen is a better absorber than nitrogen when in the free state. 
 In certain compound vapors, however, its presence seems to sen- 
 sibly increase the power of absorption, as appears in the follow- 
 ing table from Prof. Tyndall's Molecular Physics. 
 
 Carbon bisulphide, CS2, Absorption per 100. 4.7. 
 
 Chloroform, CHC1, . . . . . . 6.5. 
 
 Iodide of methyl, OH3I, 9.6. 
 
 Iodide of ethyl, C2H5I 17.7, 
 
 Benzole, C6H6 20.6. 
 
 Amylene, C5H10 27.5. 
 
 Alcohol, C2H60, 28.1. 
 
 Formic ether, C3H602, 31.4. 
 
 Sulphuric ether, C4H10O 31.9. 
 
 Acetic ether, C4H802 34.6. 
 
 Boracic ether, BC6H1503, .... 300. 
 
 It will be noticed that the absorbing capacity of the vapors 
 named in the above table, increases as the number of elements 
 or equivalents which enter into their molecules is increased, for 
 the first six vapors; thus making it highly probable that capac- 
 ity is dependent on molecular complexity as due to an increase 
 in the number and variety of the atoms which make up the mol- 
 ecules. Compare the two iodides, both of which contain the same 
 elements but one has five and the other eight equivalents. Be- 
 ginning with alcohol, there is a new element added which is ox- 
 ygen, and here notice that there is a very marked increase in 
 the absorption of heat. Compare amylene, whose molecule con- 
 tains 15 equivalents but no oxygen, with alcohol, whose mole- 
 cule contains only 9 equivalents but one of which is oxygen. 
 Also notice that all the following ethers possess large capacity 
 and that all of them contain oxygen. By making other compari- 
 sons in this table it will be seen that oxygen asserts its presence 
 at every point, which fact is at least in harmony with the supe- 
 rior chemical energy of oxygen. 
 
 41. Artificial and Natural Clouds.— There are certain 
 phenomena of our atmosphere which are not classed as chemi- 
 cal, but which have an interesting bearing on this subject of mo- 
 lecular mechanics, and which may now receive some attention. 
 
 Prof. Tyndall in his molecular physics describes certain ex- 
 periments in which the concentrated electric light, or ordinary 
 sun-light, is made to act upon the volatile vapors of a number 
 of liquid compounds. Exposing these vapors in an exhausted glass 
 
-193 — 
 tube mounted horizontally, and sending a beam from the elec- 
 tric lamp thru the tube from end to end, a cloud was precipi- 
 tated in the light and thru its action upon the vapors. A great 
 number of vapors were tried in this way and in every case and 
 with all substances found susceptible to the action of light, the 
 cloud made its appearance by first reflecting the blue or shorter 
 waves, then gradually extending to the longer waves. This is a 
 noteworthy fact in view of our theory. The effect in a particu- 
 lar case is described as follows: "Slowly and gradually upon the 
 condensed beam a cloud was formed, which passed in color from 
 the deepest violet thru blue to whiteness. To this record of my 
 note book the remark is added, connect this blue with the color 
 of the sky." 
 
 These clouds were invisible in diffused day light, but in the 
 dark they appeared by the light reflected from the particles com 
 posing them, in some cases gradually and in other cases quite 
 suddenly, and in the manner described. Passing the light, before 
 it entered the tube, thru a red or yellow glass, greatly dimin- 
 ished the effect but did not extinguish it. But when a plate of 
 blue glass was interposed before removing the red or yellow, 
 then on taking away the latter, the effect was immediately and 
 considerably increased; thus showing that the short waves were 
 most effective in producing the clouds. Upon examination the 
 light from these clouds was found to be polarized, and the di- 
 rection of maximum polarization was at right angles to the 
 illuminating beam. Concerning the cause of the formation of 
 these clouds Prof. Tyndall says: "No phenomena of this kind 
 have, I believe, been hitherto observed. The necessary conditions 
 for their production are, first, that the light should decompose 
 the vapor, and secondly, that one or more of the products of 
 decomposition should be either a solid, or should possess a boil- 
 ing point so high as to insure its precipitation when set free. 
 For though chemical action might occur, and be even energetic, 
 if the products o* decomposition be vaporous and colorless they 
 will remain unseen." 
 
 The above is the only reason given for the claim that the 
 decomposition of the vapors is necessary to the formation of 
 the clouds. .Whether this is true or not it seems to me certain 
 that some form of lose composition or temporary aggregation 
 of molecules, either elementary or compound, (and I suspect 
 most likely the latter) must take place in order to form aggre- 
 gates massive enough to reflect light as required by the laws 
 of inertia. The fact that the light is polarized and all other ob- 
 served effects, clearly proves that it is reflected from something 
 formed out of the previously invisible vapor, and which to some 
 extent approaches the state of aggregation which we call con- 
 densation or precipitation. 
 
— 194 — 
 
 In view of the mechanical theory it seems possible to view 
 these molecules in the act of gathering into lose aggregates, 
 (something like snow flakes but much smaller) under the action 
 of light, somewhat as follows. As shown by these experiments, 
 the most brilliant effects were produced when two dissimilar va- 
 pors were mixed in the experimental tube in equal parts. For 
 example the nitrate of amyl and hydrochloric acid, when mixed 
 together, gave rise to a dense cloud which was quickly formed. 
 When either of these vapors were exposed to the light alone, 
 very little effect was observed. In such cases at least, it may 
 be supposed that the light is absorbed more or less by the unlike 
 molecules and converted into the unlike electricities. Attraction 
 would then follow. Whether there is any mutual decomposition 
 might be learned by experiment. But some form of assemblage 
 of the molecules into groups large enough to reflect light is nec- 
 essary. This action, if not the same, is very similar to chem- 
 ical affinity; perhaps differing only in the fact that the aggre- 
 gates are larger than the largest compound molecule. If this is 
 a mechanical action at all, it must be somewhat as described. 
 As to whether decomposition or precipitation first occurs, would 
 perhaps depend on the amount of electric difference between the 
 two compound molecules. If this difference was great enough 
 they might unite and then divide again, either into different com- 
 pounds or into the original elements; and whatever happened, 
 the products of the action would then gather into flakes large 
 enough to reflect light. If the electric difference is but slight or 
 none at all, there might be little or no sensible effect. The in- 
 fluence of temperature on these results is not mentioned. 
 
 Now the substance which would be most apt to produce sim- 
 ilar effects in our atmosphere, and under the action of light and 
 varying temperature, is the vapor of water. The form of the 
 molecule of water, its superior power of absorbing wave motion 
 and acquiring self- repulsion whereby it assumes the vapor form 
 and is diffused thru all the atmosphere, its ability to undergo 
 condensation by loss of motion, in fact all its properties fit it 
 most perfectly for the well known part it plays in our atmos- 
 phere. When the receiver of an air pump containing air in which 
 the vapor of water has been diffused, is exhausted, a cloudiness 
 due to the precipitation of the vapor, is produced. In this case 
 the air and vapor is rarefied without increasing molecular mo- 
 tion, and the ether becoming proportionally more dense, the 
 greater quantity of the ether as compared to the air and vapor, 
 would reduce by conduction the radiant motion of the water 
 molecule and so losing a part of their repulsive force would 
 unite mechanically to form particles large enough to reflect 
 light. The shortest waves would no doubt be reflected first but 
 further condensation would reflect the longer waves, hence the 
 
—195 — 
 white cloud. The ether being more dense and the atmosphere 
 more rare in its upper regions than near the earth, the same 
 conditions as in the air pump would prevail, and so the vapor 
 in that region may be condensed in the same way. The smallest 
 aggregates first formed and just heavy enough to reflect the 
 shortest waves would account for the uniform blue in the upper 
 air where the vapor is most likely uniformly diffused and not 
 very abundant. As the quantity of vapor at different points in 
 the atmosphere was increased, the condensation might reach 
 the point of reflecting the longer waves with the blue thus pro- 
 ducing the white cloud. A collection of these white particles 
 would form those delicate fleecy clouds called cirrus, and which 
 we often see floating high in the sky during fine weather. When 
 large volumes of warm air highly charged with moisture ascends 
 into the upper atmosphere, the vapor is condensed to whiteness 
 in the same way thus forming those large white clouds called 
 cumulus. It is worthy of remark that these clouds appear most 
 abundant and extensive at noon in warm weather, but disappear 
 as evening approaches. When lighted up by the sun they pre- 
 sent a spectacular display which is well calculated to excite 
 profound attention. These are undoubtedly actinic clouds, that- 
 is, produced by the action of sun-light. The clouds produced in 
 Prof. Tyndall's experimental tube would respond to the slightest 
 touch of the warm hand on the upper side of the tube, by rising 
 toward it. So with the cumulus clouds of our atmosphere; they 
 rise toward the sun thru his power of expanding the air and the 
 ether directly under the sun, thus diminishing the outside pres- 
 sure of the ether as in the case of the tides (§23) . As these clouds 
 settle toward the earth by the weight of their particles, they 
 soon arrive at a warmer region wherein the ether is less dense, 
 and being mingled with more dense air they do not receive the 
 outside pressure they did higher up; hence being more loosely ag- 
 gregated they cannot reflect as much light as before. A large 
 portion of the light being absorbed as heat or electricity, the 
 cloud takes on its dark, leaden or almost black appearance, as 
 the cloud of storm. These are called the nimbus cloud and they 
 generally precede rain. The particles which form the cirrus and 
 cumulus clouds may disappear entirely by settling down in this 
 way and dissolving into vapor again, instead of being condensed 
 into rain or snow. 
 
 In all these changes assumed by the vapor of water in our 
 atmosphere there is no indication that chemical action occurs. 
 In this way it seems that we can follow in imagination the tiny 
 molecule of water in all his skyward flights, from the time he 
 leaves the earth in the ascending column of warm air and vapor, 
 until he returns to earth again as rain or snow. We see them in 
 midsummer as the splendid blue of a clear sky, or again in the 
 
— 196 — 
 high flying cirrus or gorgeous cumuli, and finally they refresh 
 the ground and all life in the welcome shower. But more won- 
 derful than this is the great probability that the governing law 
 in all these changes is the inertia of matter. 
 
 42. Snow Crystals. — An examination of snow flakes will 
 often reveal in them, small star-shaped crystals from l-8th to 
 l-16th of an inch in diameter and formed after a variety of per- 
 fectly regular and beautiful patterns. These forms can be seen 
 to good advantage under a microscope or an ordinary magnifying 
 glass when allowed to fall on black cloth cooled below 32° F. 
 They do not appear in every snow-fall, only occasionally, and 
 sometimes very numerous and perfect. It is claimed that these 
 crystals exist in ice, but that their form is lost in the compact 
 mass; but this seems doubtful, The structure of ice is crystal- 
 line, but from the theory of the formation of these crystals here 
 described, they must be formed in the upper atmosphere, in 
 a medium less dense than water and under a freezing tempera- 
 ture. It is well known that the most common pattern of these 
 crystals is that of a six-rayed star or figure as shown below: 
 
 Of hundreds examined, this will be the fundamental form, 
 tho they may differ in certain parts added to this. Another com- 
 mon feature is, that all the rays of a single crystal will be ex- 
 actly alike, while those of different crystals may differ widely 
 in the added parts. There is thus a perfect equipoise of struc- 
 ture thruout; for which we will see a reason later. In a few 
 cases when the body of the crystal is large it may have twelve 
 small rays placed as if between the original six. While the ma- 
 jority of the common form have all their rays in one plane, there 
 is occasionally one which sends out rays in a polar direction. 
 But where there is one of these, there will be hundreds of the 
 common six-rayed form, on which the added branches may dif- 
 fer in different crystals, as shown below: 
 
— 197— 
 
 The above drawings are not intended to represent all that 
 others may see in these crystals, only the fundamental plan on 
 which they are generally built. Many of them have other archi- 
 tectural adornments reared on this plan, which, if true as re- 
 presented in illustrations of them, must be difficult to explain 
 on any physical theory known to me. In this section I will only 
 attempt to apply the mechanical theory as far as it seems to go 
 from present knowledge of the facts. 
 
 When these crystals are melted together nothing but pure 
 water is the product, and we know that they come from the up- 
 per atmosphere when the temperature is at or below freezing. 
 Hence we suppose that they are built up by bringing together 
 the previously scattered molecules of water diffused in the up- 
 per air. But how do they get together in such admirable order? 
 Here is a molecular problem which seems to defy the mechan- 
 ical theory and even to make for intelligent design. Is it possi- 
 ble for the unconscious inertia of matter to do a thing like this? 
 It may be seen at once that this question must be important, 
 because, if the mechanical theory is true to the limit prescribed 
 for it in this book, (§16) we should have in this a most impor- 
 tant test for that truth. 
 
 The fact that these crystals almost invariably conform to 
 the primary plan of six rays, implies the existence of a law of 
 their formation which is the same for each crystal. If we can 
 discover this law and find it reducible to the general law, the me- 
 chanical theory will then receive an important justification. In 
 the first place, these crystals must be formed in the upper at- 
 mosphere as above described. Secondly, the temperature of the 
 medium must be reduced to the freezing point of water, 32° F. 
 or more. These are the primary conditions required by the law 
 of inertia, they are the same as required in the condensation 
 of clouds, rain and snow (§41) , and they are not only necessary 
 but they are known to exist. When the temperature of the me- 
 dium is reduced, the molecules will loose some of their inde- 
 pendent repulsive force, (which is necessary to maintain the va- 
 por state) hence, they are brought together by outside pressure 
 as in other cases. Now it is mechanically possible that these mol- 
 ecules, in the act of combining to form small particles, may give 
 to the particle a rotary motion as a result of their collisions. A 
 part of this rotary motion would be communicated to the sur- 
 rounding ether, producing in it a circular current around the e- 
 quator of the particle while in the act of its first formation. 
 This is very likely the beginning of our crystal, since it will be 
 seen that succeeding steps in the operation which ends in a fin- 
 ished crystal, are not only as simple as this but in perfect har- 
 mony with it. To begin with then, we have a small aggregate 
 of molecules of water with a rotary motion and a circular cur- 
 
-198 — 
 rent of ether moving in the same direction around its equator. 
 Now it is evident that molecules floating around outside this 
 small aggregate would be repelled from its equator by this cur- 
 rent, but they would be at liberty, in fact compelled, to attach 
 themselves on either pole by outside pressure. It is not difficult 
 to see that this revolving body would communicate from its e- 
 quator a centrifugal motion to molecules approaching it on that 
 plane, while it would communicate a revolving motion to mole- 
 cules approaching it from a polar direction. The molecules ap- 
 proaching the poles would whirl in the same direction, hence 
 outside pressure would force them upon each pole, the same as 
 in magnetic attraction (§34). In this way the revolving body 
 would lengthen out in a polar direction while its revolving cur- 
 rent of ether would widen out in the same direction thus assum- 
 ing the form of a cylinder. This cylindrical whirling current of 
 ether, according to this general theory, is an elongated body of 
 electricity which must be divided into two equal parts by out- 
 side pressure as in other cases (§23 and §30). This division will 
 occur when the body has reached a length sufficient for the divi- 
 sion and for the perfect balance of the two opposite ends. If 
 the body should continue to increase in length, the current most 
 likely would divide again and break away from the original body 
 and so form the nucleus of another crystal. The current being 
 thus divided outside molecules would have a chance to attach 
 themselves to the revolving nucleus at its center between the 
 currents and on opposite sides of it. This would very likely put 
 a check to its revolving motion, besides, the deposit of mole- 
 cules on two opposite sides of the center would tend to set up 
 other whirling currents on the two sides and at right angles to 
 the first two, or rather the molecules depositing at these points 
 would bring whirling currents with them. This operation would 
 result in building out other rays from the center. Right here a 
 little consideration will disclose the fact that just four rays, on 
 more, can be attached to the center, two on each side and all 
 in the same plane with the first two. This would not only pro- 
 duce a six-rayed crystal but it would permit the only possible 
 harmony of revolving currents. 
 
 To be more explicit, the first two currnts must turn the 
 same way because they are formed by the division of the orig- 
 inal current. The next two currents formed at the base in the 
 center, would most likely form on opposite sides of the base and 
 in order to be in harmony with each other they would also have 
 to turn one way. But it must be evident that these four rays 
 with their whirling currents could not stand at right angles to 
 each other, for the reason that the direction of the moving cur- 
 rents would be such that the ray on one side of the base would 
 be attracted and would lean toward the one of the first two rays, 
 
-199 — 
 (marked 1 and 1 in the drawing below) between which and it, 
 the particles of ether would move in the same direction; while 
 the ray on the other side of the base (one of those marked 2) 
 would incline toward the other end of the first two, for the same 
 reason, thus forming a figure like this: 
 
 Now in the two remaining gaps on opposite sides of the base, 
 chere would be not only just room for two more rays, one in 
 each gap, making six in all, thus: 
 
 but it would be impossible to crowd in more than two, or get 
 along with less than two, without spoiling the harmony of the 
 currents. The direction of the currents necessary to secure this 
 harmonious relation, is shown by the arrows in the above cuts. 
 I have examined these crystals carefully for many winters, 
 but have failed to find any completely formed, in which there was 
 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 rays. In the Popular Science Monthly 
 for August 1874 may be found a page of cuts containing 96 dif- 
 ferent patterns of snow crystals, figured by Captain Scoresby, 
 and among which, with but one exception, there is none having 
 any of the above numbers of rays, while there are 70 having six 
 rays each, 8 having 12 rays and 18 having no rays. These facts, 
 in view of what has been said above seem to indicate the oper- 
 ation of a law in the formation of crystals which may be stated 
 as follows: 
 
 1. Snow Crystals are due to the aggregation of the mole- 
 cules of water, diffused in the upper atmosphere as aqueous 
 vapor, and under a freezing temperature. 
 
 2. The first small aggregate acquires a rotary motion in 
 the act of its formation, and so communicates a whirling current 
 to the ether, as described above. 
 
 3. Thru the mechanical action of the ether upon these cur- 
 rents, and thru their action upon each other, the six rays of a 
 
-200 — 
 normal crystal are built up; and in which action the currents 
 running around opposite rays must turn in the same direction, 
 while currents running around adjacent rays must turn in oppo- 
 site directions; as indicated by the arrows. 
 
 This formula may not answer to all the minute structural 
 details in these crystals, (most of which I have seen only in pic- 
 tures) but it certainly will apply to all that I have been able to 
 carefully observe, and it seems to me to be about the only view 
 that can be conceived from the mechanical relationship of the 
 ether and the molecules as applied elsewhere. If we imagine a 
 crystal having 3 rays, it is easy to see that adjacent currents 
 would not harmonize all the way around and tho there is one 
 of this number shown in Captain Scoresby's collection, I have 
 not yet found one as a natural product. In a 4 rayed crystal the 
 currents would harmonize all the way around, but opposite cur- 
 rents would have to turn in opposite directions thus spoiling the 
 harmony. In a crystal having either 5, 7, 9, or 11 rays, the re- 
 sult would be the same as in one of 3 rays and in one of 8 rays 
 the result would be the same as in one of 4 rays. But in a six- 
 rayed crystal contiguous or side by side currents would all turn 
 in opposite directions, while opposite currents would turn in the 
 same direction, thus forming the only combination of whirling 
 currents in which there is perfect harmony. 
 
 A crystal of 10 rays could have currents all in harmony, 
 but so far I have not found one of this number and it seems 
 highly probable that a 10 rayed crystal could not develop from 
 a first small nucleus because there would not be room for 10 
 primary currents. I have met with a few 12 rayed crystals, but 
 to which the same objection would apply. But so far it seems 
 that all 12 rayed crystals have well enlarged bodies thus afford- 
 ing a convenient foundation for six extra rays between the orig- 
 inal six. But the currents around 12 rays would not harmonize; 
 so it seems that the only way to account for the extras would 
 be to suppose that they are formed after the original six have 
 been dissipated. 
 
 But here is something more confirmative. Referring to the 
 lower cut on page 196 it will be seen that the common six-rayed 
 crystal is nearly always supplied with small branches at the 
 ends of the original six. The number of these small branches is 
 always 3, 5 or 7, most often 3 or 5, but very seldom or never 
 2, 4 or 6. And further, the number of branches in each crystal 
 will be the same for each ray, while these numbers may differ 
 in different crystals. Now, if we mentally compare the num- 
 ber of whirling currents that would be necessary to encircle 
 these branches, it will be seen at once that these numbers of 
 branches are just what would be required to accommodate a 
 harmonious system of whirling currents of ether. 
 
—201 — 
 Altogether it seems that we have here the most satisfactory 
 evidence of the existence of an inert medium like the ether, 
 moving in which is the molecules composed of solid inert atoms 
 as described. We must have the atoms in whirling groups and to 
 keep them going they must have inertia, and to keep them to- 
 gether we must have the ether with its difference of pressure. 
 The whirl of the bunch of atoms must be communicated to the 
 ether hence the whirling currents of ether. The fact that just 
 six whirling currents can be matched in complete harmony, re- 
 sulting in the six- rayed figure as described, is highly suggestive. 
 So far as it goes this theory is the same molecular electro-me- 
 chanical theory applied in the three preceeding chapters and al- 
 together they certainly bring us close to the insensible activi- 
 ties of the molecules and the ether. 
 
 43. Modern Views of the Ether and of Electricity. — 
 In October 1911, while setting the type for page 200 of this 
 book I noticed in the Denver Public Library a copy of "Modern 
 Views of Electricity", (second edition) by Oliver J. Lodge, Pro- 
 fesser of Physics in University College, Liverpool. I remem- 
 ber seeing a notice of this book somewhere, but I made no ef- 
 fort to get a copy and I am sorry because it seems to be a very 
 complete exposition of the most recent advances, by the best 
 known specialists on this subject. The language of modern sci- 
 ence is not always lucid to my mentality, and what I say about 
 this book may not do it justice; but I will be careful and make 
 the best effort I can after a hasty reading. 
 
 In his preface Prof. Lodge says: "The doctrine expounded 
 in this book is the ethereal theory of electricity. Crudely one 
 may say that as heat is a form of energy or a mode of motion, 
 so electricity is a form of ether, or a mode of ethereal manifes- 
 tation. * * A rough and crude statement adapted for popular 
 use is that electricity and ether are identical; but that is not 
 all, for there are two opposite kinds of electricity, and there 
 are not two ethers. * * they may be two aspects * * two com- 
 ponents of the ether. * * Anything which can be sheared (and 
 ether is sheared by every electromotive force applied to it) 
 must consist of two parts sufficiently different to travel or to 
 be displaced in opposite directions." 
 
 The meaning of the word 'sheared' as applied to the ether 
 in the above passage is not quite clear to me. If taken in the 
 ordinary sense it would mean that the electromotive force is a 
 sort of cutting instrument which divides the ether into its two 
 supposed components. When I first read the above I thought it 
 might be some new scientific way of referring to my idea of 
 ether expansion, and I felt some alarm; but I have found no 
 indication in this book that they have got on to this yet, tho 
 
— 202 — 
 they seem to be close to it as appears in the following. 
 
 "That which has now to be investigated is not the nature 
 of electricity, but the nature of the ether, * * And a question 
 it is indeed: THE question of tbe physical world at the present 
 time. But it is not unanswerable: it is, in my belief, not far 
 from being answered." 
 
 He thinks that this question is probably a simpler one than 
 the question, what is matter? * simpler, partly because ether is 
 one while matter appears to be many, and partly because the 
 "presence of matter so modifies the ether that no complete the- 
 ory of the properties of matter can possibly be given without 
 a preliminry and fairly complete knowledge of the properties 
 and constitution of undisturbed ether in free space." 
 
 When the question as to how the two electricities, positive 
 and negative, are generated, has been answered, there is no 
 doubt in my mind but that the true answer will be a far reach- 
 ing one. It will be one of a system which takes care of every- 
 thing in the physical universe. When the last passage quoted 
 above was written the Prof, no doubt had in mind the vortex 
 sponge theory, proposed by Fitzgerald, Hicks and W. Thomson, 
 and which postulates an universal liquid consisting of interlaced 
 vortex filaments like a sponge, which, it is claimed, is capable 
 of doing all that is required of free ether. But when these sci- 
 entists begin to talk about a medium composed of interlaced 
 vortex filaments, and about "fibrous ethers," and about shear- 
 ing the ether into this and that constituent, I am not able to 
 follow them. And when they assert that such a medium will 
 answer for all the electric properties of free ether, and for its 
 incompressibility, elasticity, power of penetrating all solids and 
 of permitting all bodies from the atoms up to move thru it with 
 little or no resistance, and when it is asserted that they have 
 the figures to back such theories, then I am wors confounded, 
 and I begin to think that I don't kuow a thing about the ether. 
 The truth is I do not understand such theories from the simple 
 mechanical principles which I first learned of in the old books 
 and the truth of which has been soaking in little by little all 
 my life. If they were talking about weaving cloth or sheaing 
 sheep I might understand them. Such theories do not seem to 
 spread beyond the free ether of outer space. They do not apply 
 them to this ponderable world, and why? Perhaps they are too 
 much in the air; built only to fit some mathematical formula. 
 
 On page 7 there are some plain words about the nature of 
 electricity; what it is in itself. 
 
 "Electricity may possibly be a form of matter — it is not a 
 form of energy. * * Understand the sense in which I use the 
 word electricity. Electrification is a result of work done, and is 
 most certainly a form of energy; it can be created and destroy- 
 
—203 — 
 ed by an act of work. But electricity — none is ever created or 
 destroyed; it is simply moved and strained, like matter. 
 
 As I understand it the word 'strain' cannot properly be 
 applied to any known liquid or gas. It applies only to solid or 
 semi-solid bodies To strain a body is to stretch or draw it out 
 in some one direction, thereby displacing its components and al- 
 tering its shape. If electricity or ether is a solid, we might talk 
 about straining it. If there is any strain in this case it is in the 
 theory more than in the electricity. The purport of the above 
 quoted passage is, that electricity is a kind of matter; not a 
 form of ordinary matter, not a form of motion or energy, but a 
 distinct kind of matter, the exclusive substance of all the man- 
 ifestations of electricity. Now, in my view it is impossible to 
 imagine how any manifestation, any action, any movement on 
 the physical side, can have any effect in a conscious mind on 
 the mental side, unless it be a manifestation, action or motion 
 of a space occupying substance; and any space occupying sub- 
 stance is properly called matter. Electricity must be a physical 
 thing. Ultimately, there are but two physical things, matter 
 and motion. Electricity must be one or the other of these. Now 
 if we decide that electricity is a kind of matter, then we must 
 suppose that motion can change into matter; as shown in the 
 transformations of light, heat and sensible motion thru friction 
 into electricity. But if we decide that electricity is a form or 
 a class of forms of motion in the ether, in its close association 
 with the molecules, then our transformation theory is complete 
 and it is the only theory that will harmonize with the rest of 
 the physical universe (§16 and §17). 
 
 Page 8. "No one ever exhibited a trace of positive electric- 
 ity without there being somewhere facing it, an equal quantity 
 of negative." 
 
 In other places it is affirmed to be "impossible to charge 
 one body alone. Whenever one body is charged positive, some 
 other body is ipso facto charged negative, and the two equal 
 opposite charges are connected by lines of induction, (page 417) . 
 
 This is certainly not true in all cases and I doubt whether 
 it is true in any case. Two non-conductors exactly alike can be 
 rubbed together and electricity is produced. Now if there is no 
 conductor withn a mile or a thousand miles of the charged body 
 there will be no negative electricity within a mile or a thousand 
 miles of it. But if a conductor be placed close to the charged 
 body, then, the negative electricity already in the conductor 
 (and always in all conductors more or less) will move towards 
 that end or part of the conductor which is nearest to the posi- 
 tive field; as a result of the outside pressure of the medium in 
 all directions. The electromotive force or the communication of 
 motion to the ether does not give rise to the two electricities 
 
—204- 
 at once. Neither can the two be the same in quantity. In my 
 view positive and negative simply means more or less expan- 
 sion of the ether. Two bodies charged equally always repel each 
 other. (§30). The following simple experiment will make this 
 plain. Cut two strips from an ordinary newspaper about six in- 
 ches wide and eighteen inches long, lay them on the bare table, 
 one on top of the other and hold the ends of both between 
 thumb and finger of left hand. Rub the top strip briskly two or 
 three strokes with right hand and lift the strips both from the 
 table and notice that they attract each other; which shows that 
 the top strip is positive and the bottom negative. To prove this 
 hold both strips close to the wall of the room and notice that 
 the top strip attracts the wall much stronger than the other 
 does. Now place the strips again on the table as before and rub 
 them both, first one side then the other, by turning them over 
 quickly, then hold them up; they repel each other. This shows 
 that both strips are positive and equal. To prove it, hold both 
 strips to the wall and see both attract the wall equally. The 
 table and the wall are conductors; that is the ether in them is 
 more expanded than in the air. But their ether is negative to 
 that of the strips of paper when excited by friction. When the 
 top strip is rubbed its positive ether exerts pressure outwards 
 against the medium and the medium reacts inwards against the 
 positive and negative ether in the two fields, hence the two 
 fields tend to unite and as a result we have the electric current 
 or electric attraction (§30 and §31). 
 
 Since the above was set up, I have found a copy of a third 
 edition (1907) of this book, in which the statements and page 
 numbers have been changed somewhat; also new matter added. 
 
 Page 11. "Electricity always, under all circumstances, flows 
 in a closed circuit, the same quantity crossing every section of 
 that circuit, so that it is not possible to exhaust it from one 
 region of space and condense it in another." 
 
 If electricity is an incompressible inexpansible substance 
 filling all space in the universe, the above statement is undoubt- 
 edly true; but if electricity is nothing but motion in a compres- 
 sible expansible ether medium filling all space in the universe 
 not occupied by the atoms and having empty space between its 
 particles, then the above statement is not true. Two expanded 
 fields in the ether, positive and negative, will flow into each 
 other thru a conductor. As this motion of expansion and a por- 
 tion of the ether is transported thru the conductor, the extra 
 motion (e. m. F.) is gradually communicated to the surrounding 
 medium while the ether is gradually condensed in and around 
 the conductor, thus forcing back to the neighborhoods of the 
 expanded fields, not the same but the equivalent of the motion 
 and the ether which was transported thru the conductor. But 
 
-205 — 
 this is not a closed circuit in the sense used above. The E. M. P. 
 or motion which is communicated to the ether in the positive 
 field is not returned to that field again thru some round about 
 course. It is simply rushed into the negative field and diffused 
 in the surrounding medium. 
 
 Page 14. From this view regarding closed circuits and for 
 other reasons, it is believed that electricity "behaves like a per- 
 fectly incompressible substance or fluid, of which all space is 
 completely full. * * Not a simple fluid, but a fluid in a violent 
 state of spin — a vortex-sponge, as it has been called— is what 
 the ether is going to turn out to be. * * But as this conception 
 is difficult at present, we can vaguely say that ether contains 
 electricity as a jelly contains water; and that the rigidity con- 
 cerned in its transverse vibrations belongs, not to the water 
 in the jelly, but to the way in which it is entangled in its meshes. ' 
 
 The above will perhaps be sufficient to convey some idea of 
 this incompressible all including all penetrating fluid like elec- 
 tricity. This theory, which has been elaborated by a number 
 of eminent scientists, is now believed to be the most promising 
 one, for it seems to be regarded as capable of affording an ex- 
 planation for matter itself; and hence all the mysteries of the 
 physical universe. The atoms according to this view would be 
 inconceivably small vortices in the ether, and their combinations 
 and separations would account for all the rest; that is when the 
 theory has been worked to the end. But returning to electricity; 
 it seems to me that the facts do not show that it behaves like 
 an incompressible fluid. Every one knows that a room can be 
 warmed on a cold day by having a good fire in the stove. When 
 the room is hot there is more motion in it than there is in the 
 air of an equal space outside. So with electricity and the ether. 
 If we put to work a powerful electric machine in a room full of 
 cold dry air, we will soon have more electricity in that room 
 than in an equal space outside. In the case of heat, by forcing 
 in the motion we crowd out the air. In the case of electricity, 
 by forcing in the motion we crowd out the ether. Just as the 
 air is expansible and compressible, so the ether is. The fact that 
 electricity is always found on, or just within, the surface of con- 
 ductors, and at their ends, is readily explained under our theory 
 of difference of pressure The more dense outside ether pushes 
 in or resists the expanded field, while the more dense ponder- 
 able matter within pushes out or resists the expanded field on 
 its inside; hence the field takes the only place and only form 
 between two opposing forces. For the same reason the electric- 
 ity of the sun is confined to its hot lower atmosphere, that of 
 the earth to its surface and lower atmosphere, that of a metal 
 sphere to its surface, that of a cylinder to its ends and that of 
 a magnet to its ends. 
 
— 206- 
 Page 87. The question whether electricity has inertia or 
 momentum is considered. Experiment shows that a current can- 
 not be started instantaneously; it takes time, tho generally a 
 very short time. And when started, it takes time to stop it, as 
 appears by the spark on breaking the circuit. This we should 
 expect if the electric current is a moving inert substance. But 
 we could hardly expect a current of expanded ether flowing thru 
 a long slender wire with a weaker current flowing in the oppo- 
 site direction, to have much effect. A sensible body of it moving 
 with great velocity must have some effect and undoubtedly it 
 is a moving body of inert matter when shot out from an elec- 
 trified cloud as in a flash of lightning; tho in such cases the 
 atoms may be mingled with the ether thereby increasing its mo- 
 mentum. The inertia of the ether may be confined for the most 
 part to its individual particles, which are supposed to move 
 with the greatest possible velocity (§19 §20). From this point 
 of view it follows that a sensible body of the ether must have 
 a sensible momentum if it moves fast enough; but the sensible 
 motion of such a body may be very slow when compared to the 
 motion of its particles. It is mentioned that a coil of wire carry- 
 ing a steady current does not maintain itself in a fixed plane 
 like a top or a gyroscope. But how is it in the case of whirling 
 currents of ether around the rays of snow crystals? (§42). Here 
 we have a case of six currents, all independent in their motion 
 (tho dependent in their origin and in their relations) and each 
 maintaining its own plane of revolution. Is it not the gyrostatic 
 action in this case which keeps the rays of each crystal all in 
 one plane? Each ray pointing in one direction all must have the 
 same plane and the whole comes under Newton's first law of 
 motion (§16). 
 
 Page 90. Electricity does not flow thru a conducting wire like 
 water thru a pipe. It plainly shows a disturbing effect in the 
 medium on all sides of the conductor. This action in all its de- 
 scribed forms appears to me to agree perfectly with the idea of 
 an ether medium, and of two differently expanded fields in it, 
 which tend to flow into each other, as a result of the outside 
 pressure of the medium at all points on the two fields and on 
 the conductor between them. If electricity was a substance like 
 a fluid or a gas, how could it flow thru other fluids or gases the 
 way it does without a pipe to keep it from mixing with the 
 others? Certainly in this respect it does not behave like a fluid. 
 As expanded ether under pressure on all sides but the one, it 
 can move only in that direction of least resistance; which of 
 course is thru the conductor containing negative ether. A cur- 
 rent like this it seems, might effect the medium on all sides 
 in the several ways described. But why does a conducting cir- 
 cuit tend to enlarge itself so as to inclose the greatest possible 
 
—207 — 
 area? Is it because the longer conductor affords more radiating 
 surface? All the facts plainly show that something is commu- 
 nicated to the medium from all points on the conductor. 
 
 Page 92. It is supposed that the molecules of the dielectric 
 medium are inseparably connected with electricity, and move 
 with it, and so it is supposed that electricity itself has no iner- 
 tia, that the inertia of the molecules gives it that appearance. 
 According to my view every molecule of a gas or a fluid is sur- 
 rounded by an atmosphere of expanded ether (electricity) on 
 which their mutual repulsion and the gaseous and fluid form of 
 matter depende. Very likely the molecules of the medium move 
 with the current in some cases, as those of a strong discharge, 
 and being more massive, their superior inertia would assert it- 
 self more than that of the ether (§38). 
 
 Page 94. It is said that the power which urges forward the 
 electric current thru the conductor is not applied at its end, but 
 at all points along its length and that we must distinguish be- 
 tween the flow of electricity and the flow of electric energy. 
 This is the discovery of Maxwell and Poynting, and in my view 
 there is some truth in it, but the true distinction is between 
 simple matter and motion, not between a mysterious electricity 
 and a mysterious energy. As I see it the power is applied at 
 the end and at all points along the circuit, but the initiation of 
 the power must be at the end. When motion is communicated 
 directly from ponderable matter to the ether it must be applied 
 at one point, hence the positive field. Connect this with a con- 
 ductor which affords sufficient radiating surface, and which may 
 or may not lead back to the positive field, and the circuit is com- 
 plete. The positive field exerts pressure outwards against the 
 surrounding medium. The medium exerts pressure not only on 
 the positive field but at every point on the negative field thru 
 the length of the conductor. The two electricities poeitive and 
 negative, are thus squeezed into each other by the pressure of 
 the medium at all points. Like young people in their courtships, 
 the squeezing is necessary to bring them together. 
 
 Page 106. The voltaic battery is explained by assuming an 
 unexplained chemical attraction between the atoms of different 
 substances. Hydrogen and oxygen in the free state are sup- 
 posed to be charged opposite, the former positive and the latter 
 negative. This holds them loosely together in the molecule of 
 water. If in a vessel of water is placed a strip of copper and a 
 strip of zinc, the metals will attract the atoms in the water, a 
 separation follows and the atoms find new partners among the 
 metallic brethren. Now it comes to pass that zinc and copper 
 both like oxygen, but zinc proves to be the successful wooer and 
 the copper gets left. But like a good copper he does the next 
 best thing and takes a mate from the hydrogen family and all 
 
—208 — 
 is well for a while. The atoms give up their electricity to the 
 metals and soon the metals have got enough and they refuse to 
 take any more; so the procedure stops. But if the two metals 
 are connected by a wire, then their electricities run together 
 and everything goes merrily on; hence the voltaic circuit. 
 
 This theory is interesting because it shows the tendency of 
 the modern scientific mind. It is now freely admitted that the 
 atoms may be charged with positive and negative electricity, 
 and that they may attract and repel each other; and it is also 
 admitted that the questions, how the atoms get their electricity, 
 how they attract and repel and what electricity is, in itself, are 
 still wanting an answer? (§33). 
 
 Page 117. To explain the origin of the thermo-electric cur- 
 rent it is supposed that the moving atoms in the heated ends of 
 the bars of metal have a to and fro vibration, moving fast in 
 one direction and coming back slow, thus giving the electricity 
 a hunch as it were, to make it hike for the cold end of the bars 
 of metal. Two bars of dissimilar metals joined together in the 
 usual way, and driving currents in opposite directions, would ac- 
 count for the thermo circuit. But this theory was abandoned 
 later and I am glad it was. If the atoms were in the habit of 
 behaving like this it might be very difficult to explain how they 
 do it. There is a passage here which I ought to quote because it 
 is suggestive of something more than appears on the surface. 
 "Whenever conduction is going on along a substance the atoms 
 are moving unsymmetrically. They are driven forward infinitesi- 
 mally quicker by the more rapidly moving atoms at the hot end, 
 than they are driven back by the less rapidly moving atoms in 
 front. And whatever the cause may be, such a slope of temper- 
 ature exerts a propulsive tendency; there is an electro-motive 
 force in a substance unequally heated". 
 
 This passage, like many others in this book, describes an 
 effect which reveals in unmistakable clearness that relationship 
 of heat and electricity which proves that the one changes into 
 the other. If heat is a mode of motion, and if heat can change 
 into electricity, then what is electricity? From whence comes 
 the electro-motive force in this case if not from the heat in the 
 metals, communicated directly to the ether in the metals, thus 
 expanding it and hence the current in the only direction of no 
 resistance; thru the circuit? Now which is the most in harmony 
 with established laws of motion; this view, or the view of an 
 unsymmetrical atomic motion, that is, vibrations which alter- 
 nate between slow and fast? (§34). 
 
 But here is a question from my point of view. Why does the 
 current in the thermo pair travel around thru the wire and not 
 direct from one metal to the other? Is it because the wire af- 
 fords a greater radiating surface for the diffusion of motion? 
 
—209— 
 
 There is reason to believe that the current travels both 
 ways. It is known that the mere contact of two unlik bodies, 
 when not heated or connected by a wire, will start a feeble cur- 
 rent. What would be the result if we take two bars of unlike 
 metals, connect both ends by conducting wires, then heat them? 
 Would the positive current travel one way around the circuit, 
 or would it travel both ways, thru both wires, from the positive 
 metal? If my view is right it would travel both ways. 
 
 Page 119. This means of generating a current is not con- 
 fined to metals; it is possible with non-conductors and it has been 
 called the contact force. It is supposed to be the source of fric- 
 tional electricity. The rubbing together of two dissimilar bodies 
 secures a rapid succession of contacts; hence the current. 
 
 According to my view frictional electricity is made to ap- 
 pear and is explained by supposing that the unlike molecules in 
 two dissimilar non-conductors, when rubbed together, impart to 
 the ether unlike degrees of expansion; and so becoming related 
 as positive and negative there is an interchange between them; 
 hence the current (§29 and 30) . 
 
 Page 123. The passage of electricity thru gases is consider- 
 ed. Gases and vapors may be divided into two classes; those 
 which conduct electricity and those which do not. Those which 
 conduct, do so electrolytically; that is, by the movement of e- 
 lectrified molecules, and it is supposed that the gases are de- 
 composed and their atoms reformed into little things called ions; 
 and so the gas or vapor is said to be ionised. It is not explained 
 what the ions are. Non-conducting gases and vapors are perfect 
 insulators until a passage has been forced thru them by disrup- 
 tive discharge. The density of a gas under pressure, effects its 
 conducting capacity; the more dense the better it will conduct. 
 
 According to my view (§32) the molecules of a gas or a va- 
 por may be singly and rapidly charged with expanded ether and 
 immediately repelled outward, like a comet from the sun, being 
 succeeded by others, thus projecting a stream which reaches 
 the negative field. Outside pressure or resistance from the me- 
 dium would keep such molecules in line and the line might ex- 
 tend several inches thru the gas or vapor. 
 
 Page 131. It is recognized that a coiled wire conveying a 
 current of electricity will behave exactly like a permanent mag- 
 net. Ampere's theory that megnetism is whirling currente of 
 electricity around the molecules of the magnet, is accepted as 
 true. The act of magnetizing a bar of iron or steel consists in 
 setting the axis of rotation of these revolving currents all in one 
 direction, and this is done by the application of a permanent 
 magnet or a coil of wire conveying a current of electricity. All 
 this seems to be in perfect harmony with the mechanical theory; 
 with the exception that it is not quite clear to me how the cur- 
 
—210 — 
 rents in the magnet are arranged so as to be in harmony with 
 each other. Prof. Lodge has devised a system of geared wheels 
 to explain the harmony of such currents, and this may be their 
 true relation. He has even applied his wheel system to the elec- 
 tric current to show how the two currents may slide past each 
 other; but in this case it seems to me unnecessary. If we think 
 of exceedingly fine streams of ether particles flowing or shoot- 
 ing in opposite directions thru the conductor, this is all that 
 seems necessary. But why is it that a magnet and a coiled wire 
 do not behave toward each other the same as two magnets or 
 two coils? There is an action between them but it is neither at- 
 traction nor repulsion. If either one is fixed, the other revolves 
 around it; and why? The only reason that I can think of is this: 
 According to my view the whirling currents of ether in the mag- 
 net are the only really closed circuits. In them there are not two 
 currents flowing in opposite directions; only one in one direc- 
 tion and the motive force is the inertia of the current alone. 
 Between two such currents the attraction and repulsion ought 
 to be stronger than between two currents of ether in coiled wires. 
 Now between a magnet and a coil, we would have one current 
 on the magnet side facing two currents on the coil side, one of 
 which is moving in the opposite direction. If we can suppose 
 that the repulsion due to the opposite currents is sufficient to 
 neutralize the attraction due to the currents in the same direc- 
 tion, then the two bodies would neither attract nor repel, but 
 might tend to rotate around each other as observed. But I am 
 not sure of this. My opportunities for experiment or study of 
 the literature of the subject have not been very good. There are 
 many things in this book about electricity that I never heard 
 of before. On the whole it shows a wonderful amount of close 
 observation and research, and no doubt it is one of the best. 
 
 Now what I say here about "Modern Views of Electricity," 
 is not said with any desire to find unreasonable fault with the 
 foremost promoters of exact science. But if I allow myself the 
 liberty of speech which all men claim as their own, and if I state 
 plainly what I have been led to think from reading this book, 
 I will have to say that many of the ideas or theories offered 
 here are conspicuously contrary to the most ordinary common 
 sense. The numerous facts are no doubt scientifically presented 
 so far as science goes, but the reasoning upon the facts, or the 
 speculative parts of the work, are often remarkably antago- 
 nistic to the common judgment of men. It would be impossible 
 for me to convey these ideas in my own words and feel sure 
 that I have them right for I am not sure that I understand them. 
 I must quote a passage or two, as little as possible, and judge 
 them the best I can from my point of view. Regarding the 
 structure of the ether it is stated: 
 
— 211 — 
 
 Page 319. "The material universe seems to consist of a per- 
 fectly continuous incompressible and inextensible medium, fil- 
 ling all space without interstices or breaks of continuity;— not 
 of a molecular or discrete structure, and as a whole completely 
 at rest: as frictionless moreover, and unresisting to all ordinary 
 motion of what we call matter through it, as is the mathemat- 
 ical conception — a perfect fluid. But in spite of immobility as a 
 whole, it possesses that 'rigidity' or elastic resilience to 'shear* 
 which is characteristic of what we ordinarily call a solid; where- 
 fore it would appear that it must be, throughout, in such a state 
 of fine grained turbulent motion as would confer this property 
 upon it. And the recilience is so complete and instantaneous, 
 without any delay or permanent set, that elasticity must be 
 described as 'perfect'. It is the gyrostatic kind of elasticity, 
 discovered dynamically and applied ethereally by Lord Kelvin, 
 whereby a perfect fluid can acquire some of the properties of a 
 perfect solid." 
 
 The first part of the above is clear to me if it means that 
 the material universe seems to be a perfectly continuous incom- 
 pressible, inextensible (or perhaps inexpansible, indilatable or 
 indiffusable) medium, filling all space, without breaks of con- 
 tinuity or interstices unoccupied, not atomic or molecular or of 
 a discrete structure, and as a whole completely at rest; yet un- 
 resisting to the motion of what we call ordinary matter; — a 
 mathematically perfect fluid. If it means this, I understand it 
 perfectly, and this is exactly what I would call an absolute solid. 
 A continuous medium is a continuous body of matter; no space 
 within its limits unoccupied. If it consists of parts or particles, 
 they must be packed so close together that no space between 
 them can be empty. But such a body cannot be thought of as 
 even having parts. It must be one continuous mass thruout; and 
 this is nothing less than an absolute solid. If there can be any 
 doubt as to this not being the correct meaning of the first part 
 of the above passage, the following will dispel that doubt. 
 
 Page 410. "When I say that matter is certainly atomic, I 
 do not mean that ether is atomic. I hold that ether is most cer- 
 tainly not atomic — not discontinuous; it is an absolutely contin- 
 uous medium, without breaks or gaps or space of any kind in it, 
 the universal connector; permeating not only the rest of space, 
 as I have just said, but permeating also the space occupied by 
 the atoms themselves. The atom is a something superposed upon, 
 not substituted for, the ether; it is most likely a definite modi- 
 fication of the ether, an individualization with a permanent ex- 
 istence and a faculty of locomotion which the ether alone does 
 not possess." 
 
 There is just one and only one construction to be put upon 
 the above words and no one can fail to understand it. And it is 
 
— 212 — 
 
 suggested as most likely that ordinary matter is a form of the 
 ether itself. Here a host of questions arise, and they are hard 
 ones too. How can the ether assume the many forms, and go 
 thru the many changes which we observe in ordinary matter, 
 if it is a continuous medium or an absolute solid as described? 
 How can we think of the Kelvin vortices, the magnetic whirls, 
 the electric currents, the multitude of chemical changes, the end- 
 less forms and movements of sensible objects or how can we 
 think at all in such a body of matter? What is that property of 
 rigidity or elastic recilience to shear, which is supposed to be 
 a characteristic of an ordinary solid and which belongs to the 
 ether? How can we think of a state of excessive fine grained 
 turbulent motion as would confer the property of elasticity to 
 a continuous medium? What is the gyrostatic kind of elastic- 
 ity discovered and proved mathematically by Lord Kelvin, and 
 how does it work in a continuous medium? Is it possible for a 
 continuous compact body of matter, substantially as described, 
 to possess any conceivable form of elasticity? No. Think of an 
 ordinary elastic solid moving and striking against an absolute 
 solid. What would be the effect on the latter? If it was too big 
 to receive motion as a whole there would be no effect. The mov- 
 ing body would rebound by its own elasticity and all of its own 
 motion except a small part which is absorbed and occupied in 
 the act of resilience. As I understand it, elasticity is possible 
 with all ponderable bodies which are composed of atoms and 
 molecules, which are not packed so close together as to fill all 
 the space between them. The physical pores in the solid, afford 
 room for the molecules to move more or less upon each other, 
 thus permitting the body to yield more or less to external pres- 
 sure or impact. Now the property of resilience, springiness or 
 elasticity, simply consists in the fact that the internal molecu- 
 lar framework can spring back to its former shape. This of 
 course would be impossible in an absolute solid simply because 
 there would be no room among the molecules for any amount of 
 displacement or reaction. With vapors and gases the physical 
 cause of elasticity is somewhat different. The molecules are not 
 in semi-rigid contact but are kept at regular intervals apart by 
 mutual repulsion, and in some cases, as those of super-expansion, 
 the motion and impact of free atoms may play a part in the ex- 
 pansive force or elasticity of the gas or vapor, But in regard to 
 the ether, we surely must not persist in harboring that monstros- 
 ity called a 'continuous medium' and which modern science is 
 now flaunting to the world. What excuse have they got for of- 
 fering it? so utterly contrary to reason and common sense. If 
 there is even a flimsy argument in its favor I have never seen 
 it. Perhaps it is the best they can offer and they do not believe 
 it themselves. When we can accept sea-serpents a mile long, 
 
—213— 
 and flying horses, and centaurs, and hydras and such like, then 
 we are mentally fixed to believe that we and all the other things 
 are living and moving within an absolute solid. 
 
 Now let us think of an atomic or not continuous medium 
 of ordinary inert matter. These atoms or particles are absolute 
 solids, perfectly indestructible and infinitesimally small; per- 
 haps the smallest that can exist. They may be so close together 
 that millions of them can occupy a space immeasurably small, 
 but we cannot expect them to be packed so close as to fill all 
 the space, for then, every atom and everything else, would be 
 bound in the embrace of an absolute solid, or next thing to it, 
 and relative motion would be impossible. So we must have them 
 distributed in space at regular intervals apart, and the space 
 between them must be empty, and to keep them apart we can- 
 not assume that they repel each other like the molecules, for 
 then, for obvious reasons, it would be impossible to explain 
 this repulsive force. Here we are facing a concept which I be- 
 lieve is worth our while to consider. These atoms or particles 
 of inert matter, may perform the part of ultimate units, of a 
 perfect physical medium, which, under established laws of mo- 
 tion as applied to ordinary matter, will do all that the most ex- 
 acting science can demand of the ether, if we simply admit that 
 they have motion. Only this to begin with; then every succeed- 
 ing step to a complete solution of every physical fact known to 
 science is as easy as chewing gum. 
 
 These atoms can never lose their motion because they move 
 in empty space, strike together and rebound, always receiving 
 as much motion as they give. The only way to deprive them of 
 motion would be to crowd them so close together that they could 
 not move, and under the law of the diffusion of motion, this, if 
 it could happen at all, must occur in parts of the medium so re- 
 mote from radiating ponderable bodies as to give the motion 
 the distance, thru which to travel, necessary to its complete dif- 
 fusion. But as will appear at the end of chapter seventh this is 
 unlikely. These atoms have nothing to do but vibrate and bump 
 together, and they never go on a strike. They can move slow or 
 fast according to the quantity of motion they receive from ra- 
 diating centers. When they go fast the medium is more rare, 
 when they go slow it is more dense. We can see how motion 
 may be communicated directly to this medium in at least five 
 different ways; heat, chemical action, friction, magnetism and 
 waves in all lengths. But waves may arise from heat or chem- 
 ical action, in short all are forms of the one thing motion. The 
 idea of expansion, and difference of expansion, comes in right 
 here as indispensable. As a means of accounting for the two 
 electricities positive and negative, it is just the thing. I re- 
 member well, it was about the year 1877 that this matter of the 
 
— 214 — 
 real cause and wherefore of the two electricities, occupied me 
 a great deal, and every line of speculation that I could follow 
 at all, led me straight to this idea of expansion in a medium of 
 ether as described. The extreme elasticity or springiness of vol- 
 ume, of such a medium, its extreme mobility and penetrating 
 power, the fact that all ponderable bodies down to the smallest 
 atom can move thru it, its perfection as a medium for wave 
 motion, the necessary part it plays in chemistry, electricity, 
 gravity, and as we shall see in the next chapter, in astronomy, 
 all this, it seems to me, comes directly and inevitably from the 
 idea of an inert atomic medium as described. (§19 and 20) ' 
 
 This I would call the common sense view of the ether. Now 
 let the trained scientist get industrious with his figure-pad and 
 pencil and show us why it is not true. But most likely not all of 
 the leaders in modern science have believed in a continuous me- 
 dium. Appleton's Annual for 1881 contains an account of late 
 theories of electricity in which there is no indication that the 
 writers believed in a continuous medium. These accounts were 
 copied, and the subjoined comments written, in the year follow- 
 ing and they were printed in the first small edition of this book 
 (1895). They ought to have gone into this book at the end of 
 chapter fifth but I left them out because I was afraid this book 
 already contained too many quotations. I will insert them here. 
 
 Prof. James C. Maxwell has proposed a theory of electric- 
 ity described as follows. — "The ground for this theory is the 
 explanation which the two states of electric energy, static and 
 dynamic, afford of the vibratory motion of light. Electricity 
 when passing through conductors, or revolving within the poles 
 of a magnet, is a dynamic force; and when dammed, backed by 
 an insulator, is a static force existing in a state of strain. Light 
 is a form of energy which alternates between the dynamic and 
 static forms. Its rapid motion through a transparent medium is 
 only comparable to the rate at which electricity travels through 
 a conductor. That the only known physical forces whose effects 
 are transmitted through such wide media and at such a high 
 rate of motion, should possess precisely the same velocity, proves 
 that the phenomena can only be referred to the same source. 
 It is stated that there are certain phenomena which, while show- 
 ing an intimate connection between light and electricity, have 
 not yet been explained in accordance with Maxwell's theory. 
 One of these is the remarkable effect of light in reducing the 
 electric resistance of selenium, the light of a candle being suf- 
 ficient to enhance its conducting power five-fold. Another is the 
 fact that light generates a current on striking the platinum 
 electrode of a voltameter." 
 
 The following was written in 1882 or '83, in reply to the 
 above quoted passage. — 
 
-215- 
 
 [This theory if I rightly understand the account of it, is in 
 harmony with mechanical principles as far as it goes. The ex- 
 panding part of an ether wave would be a dynamic force, some- 
 thing like a discharge of electricity, but the condensed part 
 would hardly represent our idea of static electricity, or expan- 
 ded ether confined in an unchanging place, surrounded by more 
 dense ether. The close resemblance in rate of motion between 
 light and an electric wave thru a conductor has long been recog- 
 nized, and it is consistent with laws of motion to suppose that 
 they are propagated in the same manner. The theory however, 
 does not include our mechanical conception of difference of den- 
 sity and pressure in the medium, due to radiation, which is nec- 
 essary to explain attraction and repulsion. Neither does it com- 
 prehend the molecular difference in the various bodies as a 
 source of the difference in density of the ether in them, which 
 is necessary in order to explain their differenc in conducting ca- 
 pacity. In fact, so far as I know, it does not attempt to apply 
 the laws of inertia to the phenomena of light and electricity. 
 The effect of light in enhancing the conducting power of selen- 
 ium, or in generating a current in platinum, would be simply 
 to impart molecular activity, which would increase the electric 
 difference between selenium as a conductor and some source of 
 electricity, and between platinum as a source and some conduc- 
 tor. This theory no doubt aims in the direction of the truth, and 
 it shows the tendency of the minds of our best thinkers.] 
 
 To the above comment I will add, that it does not appear 
 certain from the above quoted passage, what the two states of 
 electric energy, static and dynamic, are supposed to be. Hence 
 a comparison of them to the theory of wave motion described 
 in §27, would be impossible. The effect of light in increasing 
 the conducting power of selenium, should simply consist in an 
 increase in the molecular motion and ether expansion, making 
 it a direction of less resistance to some nearby expanded field 
 of ether opposite to its own. It seems clear that Maxwell held to 
 the view that electricity is a form of motion, or at least a form 
 of energy; but perhaps he was undesided as to what energy is. 
 
 Prof. S. P. Thompson and others have originated a theory 
 of electricity which makes it a kind of matter, or a third entity, 
 matter and energy being first and second entities. — 
 
 "Experiments appear to show that electricity in its relation 
 to matter and energy, acts only as a transmitter of energy, and 
 is not convertible into it. The quantity of electricity in a closed 
 surface, it has been demonstrated, cannot be increased or di- 
 minished without the entrance or outflow of electricity. It is 
 concluded then, that electricity is a third entity, distinct from 
 matter and energy, the total quantity of which in the universe 
 is conceived to be constant, as is the total quantity of matter 
 
-216 — 
 and energy. It resembles matter in that it requires the expend- 
 iture of energy to set it in motion, and when its motion is ar- 
 rested the energy appears again as an equivalent of light, heat, 
 or some other form. * * Electricity may be imagined to be a 
 physical entity which does not possess mass, but yet possesses 
 a quality corresponding to electricity, and can be the recipient 
 of energy in both the kinetic and potential forms; and which 
 tends to distribute itself equally throughout space, and exercise 
 a definite pressure on those ultimate particles of matter which 
 it does not penetrate. Under this supposition electricity would 
 fulfill all the functions which are ascribed to the intersteller 
 and intermolecular ether. The hypothesis of the imponderable 
 ether of space may be abandoned in favor of the immaterial 
 electricity which may be assumed to fill all space. Light would 
 then be the vibrations of this elastic imponderable medium." 
 
 The following comment on the above was written in 1882. 
 [This theory, like the other, is a move in the right direction so 
 far as it admits the close relationship of the ether and electric- 
 ity; as, for instance, the ether or electricity acts as the trans- 
 mitter of motion, and is not convertible into it; also the quan- 
 tity of ether in a closed place cannot be increased or diminished 
 without the inflow or outflow of ether; and further, that it re- 
 sembles matter inasmuch that it requires the expenditure of 
 motion to set it in motion, and when its motion is arrested it 
 appears in its equivalent of some other form of motion, as light, 
 heat, sound or sensible motion; and again, that it can be the re- 
 cipient of motion in both the kinetic and potential forms. But 
 like the other it comes short of any fundamental law which u- 
 nites electricity with all the universe; besides, it makes no at- 
 tempt to explain a host of facts of electricity, such as its re- 
 lations to conductors and non-conductors, and the nature of its 
 power of attraction and repulsion. The conclusion that electric- 
 ity is a third entity, distinct from matter and energy, involves 
 difficulties, since it is impossible to think of more than one kind 
 of matter. The laws of thought permit us to have only physical 
 ideas of matter, and these include nothing but forms, relations 
 and changes. Even if different kinds of matter did exist we 
 could not know them. The only consistent idea of electricity is, 
 that it is a class of forms of motion, light, heat, sound etc., 
 being other forms of the same motion.] 
 
 From the above quoted passages it seems that Maxwell was 
 disposed to regard electricity as a form of energy, while Thom- 
 pson supposed it to be a kind of matter; a physical entity which 
 does not possess mass, yet which maybe the recipient of energy 
 or motion, and Prof. Lodge thinks it may be a form of matter 
 but it is not a form of energy. The words 'energy' and 'motion* 
 are used by all of these writers in a way which indicates that 
 
— 217 — 
 no clear distinction has ever been made, between the two, and 
 this is to be expected, since it is admitted everywhere that sci- 
 ence does not claim to know what energy or even motion is. 
 
 The following from Prof. John Tyndall's life of Faraday is 
 more explicit as to what electricity is, than any statement I 
 have met with yet. While considering the resistance in the mag- 
 netic field, and its power of starting currents of electricity in 
 a wire he says. — 
 
 "When the wire approaches the magnet, an action is evoked 
 in it, which travels through it with a velocity comparable to 
 that of light. One substance only in the universe has been hith- 
 erto proved competent to transmit power at this velocity; the 
 luminif erous ether. Not only its rapidity cf progression but its 
 ability to produce the motion of light and heat, indicates that 
 the electric current is also motion. Further, there is a striking 
 resemblance between the action of good and bad conductors as 
 regards electricity, and the action of diathermanous and adia- 
 thermanous bodies as regards radiant heat. The good conductor 
 is diathermanous to the electric current; it allows free trans- 
 mission without the development of heat. The bad conductor is 
 adiathermanous to the electric current, and hence the passage 
 of the latter is accompanied by the development of heat. I am 
 strongly inclined to hold the electric current, pure and simple, 
 to be a motion of the ether alone; good conductors being so con- 
 stituted that the motion may be propagated through their ether 
 without sensible transfer to their atoms, while in the case of 
 bad conductors this transfer is effected, the transferred motion 
 appearing as heat." 
 
 In a foot note Prof. Tyndall mentions Maxwell as being en- 
 gaged in similar lines of investigation and he speaks of him in 
 the following highly complementary words. — 
 
 "Even in the non-mathematical portions of the memoirs of 
 Mr. Maxwell, the admirable spirit of his philosophy is sufficiently 
 revealed. As regards the employment of scientific imagery, I 
 hardly know his equal in power of conception and clearness of 
 definition.' ' 
 
 We might use exactly the same words in referring to the 
 mode of thought and expression of Tyndall himself. I know of 
 no scientific writer who has excelled him in this respect. He also 
 mentions Faraday as entertaining similar views regarding the 
 relations of light, heat, electricity and ordinary motion. — 
 
 "I do not know whether Faraday would have subscribed to 
 what is here written; probably his habitual caution would have 
 prevented him from committing himself to anything so definite. 
 But some such idea filled his mind and colored his language 
 through all the latter years of his life." 
 
 Faraday, Maxwell and Tyndall belonged to an age of sci- 
 
— 218 — 
 ence less modern than the present, and they have now gone to 
 the world of greater mystery. I am inclined to think that these 
 three men will be remembered with higher regard by future sci- 
 ence, than many of the leaders of the present day, and I am 
 rather proud of the fact that the following comment on the 
 first passage above, quoted from Tyndall's "Faraday as a Dis- 
 coverer," was written more than 30 years ago. 
 
 [Such expressions as the above, coming from the most in- 
 dependent and careful thinkers of the present age, shows us 
 the tendency of the scientific mind. Tyndall's advanced and 
 sound ideas regarding the nature of heat and light are well known 
 to the public, and they are briefly but clearly expressed in the 
 above passage where he says: "Not only its rapidity of progres- 
 sion, but its ability to produce the motion of light and heat in- 
 dicates that the electric current is also motion." If physical sci- 
 ence admits the proposition that light, heat, sound or any form 
 of energy is motion, it must admit the proposition that all forms 
 of energy are motion; for to think of motion changing into any- 
 thing which is not motion is impossible. A ray of light starting 
 from our sun continues its course thru the ether for thousands 
 of years, until completely transformed. If we ask why the mo- 
 tion thus continues after taking the form of light, the only an- 
 swer that can be given is, that it travels thru a medium of inert 
 matter. If electricity is a motion of the ether alone, then it per- 
 sists for the same reason that light or any motion persists; and 
 the governing law is the same for all; simple inertia.] 
 
 44. Meteorology. — If this earth was alone in the universe, 
 no outside body closer than the nearest fixed star, and if its 
 own surface was perfectly uniform as regards temperature, 
 distribution of land, water and atmosphere, then from the iner- 
 tia of matter as it applies to all parts of the universe, it may 
 be inferred that all the phenomena or changes in our atmos- 
 phere, with their dependent results, would be entirely absent 
 and the science of meteorology would have no business on this 
 planet. The edd and flow of the tides in the ocean being a re- 
 sult of the radiations of the moon and the sun (§23), a similar 
 movement may occur in the earth's atmosphere as due to the 
 same cause. As in the case of the tides the expansion of the air 
 would result from the electric radiation of the moon and the 
 sun, which expands the ether above the air thus reducing its 
 outside pressure on the earth at that point. Not only the ocean 
 and the air would be expanded in this way, but the mercury of 
 the barometer as well as all other fluids and gases should under- 
 go some degree of expansion. Experiment has shown that when 
 the moon is on the meridian at the equator the barometer is 
 higher by 6-1000th of an inch, than it is when the moon is six 
 
—219 — 
 hours from the meridian. In such cases if the expansion of the 
 mercury can be measured in a column 28 inches in length, it 
 ought to show a greater lengthening in a longer column, while 
 a column of air 50 miles in hight ought to show a much greater 
 elevation. So it appears that our atmosphere may be expanded 
 in two ways, (1), by heat as in any increase of its temperature, 
 and (2), by electric radiation, which expands the ether above 
 the atmosphere, thus diminishing outside pressure and permit- 
 ting it to expand by its internal motion. It is evident that the 
 barometer would indicate any decrease in the pressure of the 
 air as due to a rise of temperature, but would it indicate a de- 
 crease of pressure as due to the electric radiation alone? 
 
 It is known that the air always contains the vapor of water 
 and that its capacity for taking up this vapor increases with 
 its temperature. It is also known that water soon evaporates 
 when placed in the receiver of an air pump and the air above 
 it is exhausted by removing a portion of it, thus thinning it, and 
 relieving the pressure of the air on the water. By thus increas- 
 ing the rarity of the air, the moisture it contains may be conden- 
 sed into clouds or even rain. So it is highly probable that the 
 capacity of the earth's atmosphere for receiving and precipita- 
 ting moisture, may be influenced by the electric radiation of 
 the moon, the sun and even the planets. Such influence is known 
 to be a result of the radiation of heat, but whether any one has 
 been able to prove that there is an electric influence, is not 
 known to me. 
 
 It seems possible to designate all the mechanical agencies, 
 even to the most minute and obscure, which take part in pro- 
 ducing the great variety of meteorological changes which are 
 constantly going on in our atmosphere. Principal among these 
 may be mentioned; the earth's annual or yearly motion around 
 the sun; its daily revolution on its axis and the inclination of 
 the axis to the ecliptic, (which gives the changes of the seasons 
 and the alternations of day and night; the irregular distribution 
 of land and water on the surface of the earth, (which gives di- 
 rection and change of direction to the currents of air; the dis- 
 tribution of mountains, plains and forest land; the variations in 
 the moon's motion and distance, also the sun, and the changing 
 distance and position of the planets with reference to the posi- 
 tion of the sun and the earth, etc. In this intricate series con- 
 stantly at work, we have to look for all the causes and all the 
 explanations of all the changes of the weather, and difference of 
 climate in different parts of the world. Principal among these 
 are the storms of rain, snow, sleet, hail, wind storms, hurri- 
 canes or cyclones, dew, frost, fog, clouds etc, and the different 
 forms of climate, as cold, hot, mild, dry, moist etc. 
 
 Now in order to calculate the exact time of occurrence of a 
 
— 220 — 
 particular storm period, weeks or months in advance, it seems 
 very plain from the above, that it would be necessary to take 
 into account a great number of connected but exceeding com- 
 plicated and obscure qnantities; every one of which takes a nec- 
 essary part in the mechanical series which leads to the result at 
 a particular time, but many of which cannot be measured or 
 even known. When we make a correct estimate in figures we 
 must know at the start that each number that enters in, repre- 
 sents a definite quantity. An illustration of the difficulties in 
 such an attempt may be had in the following experiment.— 
 
 Go to the top of a hill with a long steep incline, select a 
 heavy round stone and let it roll to the foot of the hill. The stone 
 is an irregular mass, yet round enough to roll down hill and the 
 side of the hill presents many small inequalities, no two alike 
 and none so great as to stop the stone. At the end of a certain 
 time the stone will stop at a certain point on the level. This 
 much can be predicted in advance, and in the same way the so 
 called weather prophet can risk a guess as to whether a storm 
 will occur at a certain time. It is impossible to know in advance 
 the exact point at which the stone will stop; so it is impossible 
 to learn in advance the exact time at which a storm will begin. 
 To prove the extreme complexity of the operation let the same 
 stone roll down the same place several times from the same 
 point and notice that it will never stop twice on the same spot. 
 
 This is the problem which must always confront the student 
 of meteorology, as inferred from physical laws. The impelling 
 and counteracting forces which determine the exact time and 
 place of a coming storm, are too numerous and involved in ob- 
 scurity to be traced out by the mind of physical man; at least 
 a week or a month in advance with the same certainty that the 
 astronomer is now able to calculate the time of beginning, end- 
 ing and all the phases of an eclipse or the transit of a planet. It 
 is nevertheless possible to give warning of the approach of a 
 storm which is already in progress; and for this purpose the 
 weather bureau is a valuable adjunct to the public service. But 
 the weather prophet who claims to be able to give the dates of 
 an unusual storm a month in advance, and who declines to show 
 how he does it, most likely has nothing better than guess work 
 and whoes random shots may hit the mark sometimes. 
 
 [Note. My review of the late book on electricity in §43, 
 of this chapter, ought to have gone in at the end of chapter 5, as 
 it seems to break the line of the subject of this chapter; which, 
 beginning with the relations of the ether, the atoms and the 
 molecules, as we find them first in chemistry, then in artificial 
 and natural clouds, snow crystals and meteorology, thus leading 
 up to the universe as a whole which is the subject of the next 
 chapter. But electricity and ether are subject of the discussion.] 
 
CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
 
 THE PHYSICAL HEAVENS. 
 
 45. A General View of the Universe.— A clear sky at 
 midnight with no moonlight or sound to divert the thought, is 
 an inspiring picture which has no comparison. Long ago when 
 there was no science of astronomy to give instruction about the 
 heavens, there was wonder and veneration in the minds of men, 
 for this great expance of night with its countless stars, which 
 hangs in silence over all the earth. What would be the aspect 
 of this great firmament if there was no stars or moon? We can 
 imagine a black and formless void, adding a hundred fold to the 
 darkness of the earth and making of our nights a most suitable 
 time for ghosts and devils to stalk forth in all their diabolical 
 dignity; certainly not a cheerful prospect. The ancients could 
 look upon the heavens and speculate as to the secrets of nature 
 hidden there, but little did they think of the profound truths 
 which modern astronomy was destined to reveal. And of all the 
 revelations of this modern science there is nothing more won- 
 derful than the truth of the inconceivable immensity of the uni- 
 verse. A few comparisons will make this clear. 
 
 This earth on which we live is a globe so large that we are 
 not casually sensible of the rotundity of its surface, and if we 
 could walk around it once it would be a tramp of 25 thousand, 
 miles. Any one who has walked a mile and who has some idea 
 of the difference between a mile and a hundred or a thousand or 
 ten thousand miles, can perhaps arrive at some conception of 
 the size of the earth. A comparison of the volume of the earth 
 to some of the other members of our system will carry us still 
 further in this direction. The volume of Jupiter, the largest of 
 our system, is 1, 400 times that of the earth. But the earth and 
 even the monster Jupiter are paled into insignificance when com- 
 pared to our sun, a white hot globe 1,400,000 times the volume 
 of the earth. In view of these facts what must we think of the 
 vast intervals of space within our solar system, and which as- 
 tronomers have been able to measure. For example, the diame- 
 ter of the orbit of the outmost planet of our system measures 
 5,724 millionsof miles. This enormous circle, the orbit of the 
 planet Neptune, represents the diameter of our Solar System. 
 Now if we go outside this limit, and give the widest range to 
 the imagination in that vast region which contains the unnumb- 
 ered millions of stars, then perhaps we can begin to realize how 
 
-222- 
 it is possible that our sun with all his planets is comparatively 
 a mere point of light like a star in the great domain of God. 
 
 Astronomers have succeeded in estimating the distance to 
 a few of the nearest stars, and in referring to these immense 
 intervals, the smallest units of distance are expressed in mil- 
 lions. For instance the distance to the nearest star is said to be 
 20 millions of millions of miles. This is the bright star in the 
 constellation Centaur, which has been named Alpha, after the 
 first letter in the Greek alphabet. The star 61 in the Swan is 
 the next nearest, and the distance to this star is more than doub- 
 le that of the first. It has been found convenient to express the 
 intervals of space between the nearest stars and our earth, by 
 the time it takes a ray of light to travel from the star to us. 
 Thus the light from the nearest star requires three years and 
 eight months to reach us and light travels at the rate of 186,000 
 miles per second. From 61 in the Swan, light makes the journey 
 in 71-4 years; from Vega in Lyra, 21 years; from Sirius in the 
 Great Dog, the star well known to be the brightest in the heav- 
 ens, 22 years; from Alpha the bright star in Cannus Major or 
 the Big Dipper 25 years; from Arcturus in Bootes, 26 years and 
 from Auriga 72 years. 
 
 These stars are the principal ones among the few that are 
 near enough to have their distance computed by the means now 
 accessible. They are also among the brightest and they are dis- 
 tributed in all directions from us. It is believed that the light of 
 the most remote stars visible to us thru the largest telescopes 
 requires over 15 millions of years to reach this small planet. 
 Suppose that one of our astronomers with his big telescope was 
 transported to one of those most distant visible stars, and set 
 down easy on one of its planets and permitted to look beyond 
 in the same direction. What would he see? Perhaps nothing but 
 another equally great expanse of star spangled space, limited 
 like the present by the limits of vision; and we might assume 
 that the universe has no limits. But it would not be a sane con- 
 clusion to assume that a thing does not exist simpyl because 
 we cannot see it. 
 
 All the stars visible to us on succeeding nights during the 
 entire year, are supposed to belong to one great cluster called 
 the Sidereal System. By the labors of Sir William Herschel, 
 R. A. Proctor and others, the form of this cluster has been to 
 some extent traced out, and it appaers to have the shape of a 
 'gigantic spiral' or disk, its width being much greater than its 
 polar thickness. Our sun with his litter of young planets and 
 moons occupys a place near the center and in a region which 
 contains comparatively few stars. When we look at the great 
 arch of nebulous light which crosses the heavens and which we 
 call the Milky Way, we are looking into the greatest depths of 
 
—223 — 
 the Sidereal System. When the telescope is pointed in this di- 
 rection, that which appears to the naked eye as an undefined 
 cloud, is at once resolved into millions of stars apparently so 
 close together as to be hardly distinguishable, and beyond which 
 is more cloudy matter. Every increase in telescopic power has 
 enabled observers to penetrate deeper into this self uminous 
 mass of matter, revealing clouds after clouds, each in turn be- 
 ing resolved into stars, and tho in some directions something 
 like a limit to the clusters appears, in other directions there are 
 no signs of a limit. Mr Proctor was of the opinion that the out- 
 lines and form of the Sidereal System is not so well defined as 
 formerly supposed; that it is most likely a complicated spiral 
 shaped cluster of clusters of small stars, having out- lying arms 
 or branches which extend beyond the highest power of the tele- 
 scope. Also, that it contains vast bodies of true nebulae associ- 
 ated with its stars, and that it is connected with distant nebulae 
 and star clusters. 
 
 All the visible stars nave been classified according to their 
 relative brightness, called magnitudes; which implies nothing as 
 to their relative volume but may indicate something as to their 
 distance; the nearest being the brightest. There are 20 stars of 
 the first magnitude (brightest) ; 34 of the second; 141 of the 
 third; 327 of the fourth; 959 of the fifth; 4424 of the sixth, ma- 
 king in all 5905 visible to the unaided sight. By the use of the 
 telescope the classification has been extended to the ninth mag- 
 nitude; including about 200,000 stars in the different orders of 
 brightness. Beyond this they have not been classified with pre- 
 cision, but thru the best telescope the visible stars have been 
 roughly estimated as numbering over 20 millions. With every 
 increase in telescopic power the number of stars have been in- 
 creased and the field of view proportionally widened. 
 
 Among the interesting objects of the heavens, there is the 
 double and multiple stars. Before Sir W. Herschel commenced 
 his work only four double stars were known, but he succeeded 
 in increasing the number to more than five hundred, and later 
 observers have made it six thousand. In some cases the two 
 in a double are of equal brightness, but it more often happens 
 that one is brighter than the other, and sometimes the brilliancy 
 of one is so much greater than the other as to almost complete- 
 ly obliterate it; thus showing the possibility of a difference of 
 temperature. It is a noteworthy fact that in many cases one of 
 these stars revolves around the other, showing that they are 
 physically connected as the planets of our system are connected 
 with the sun. Of this number, 358 have been carefully examine 
 and their physical connection is considered not doubtful; and 
 there are 554 whose connection in this way is believed to be less 
 certain. There are also a number of stars having two, three, four 
 
-224 — 
 and even five attendants; and these for the most part have 
 been proved to be connected by a center of gravity exactly as 
 the planets of our system are connected. When the distance of 
 these star systems from our planetary system is known, it is 
 claimed to be possible to compute the diameter of the orbits of 
 these secondary stars. For example the attendant which delongs 
 to Alpha in Centaur is situated from its center of gravity about 
 4-5 ths of the distance of our planet Uranus from the sun. Also 
 when the relation between the dimensions of the orbit and the 
 time of revolution of the attendant, is known, it is claimed to 
 be possible to determine the mass of both the central body and 
 its attendant. The star 61 in the Swan has been found by this 
 means to contain about 1-3 the amount of matter in our sun. No 
 70 Ophiuchus also has a companion, and the mass of this star is 
 three times that of our sun. Lately it has been discovered that 
 Sirius has a small companion, and it has been learned that the 
 mass of this well known star is 13.7 times that of our sun. 
 
 It therefore appears certain that the stars do differ in mass 
 or quantity of matter; some far exceeding our sun, while others 
 are doubtless much smaller. It is also known that they differ in 
 temperature, in color and in other physical conditions. But these 
 are only physical differences which are readily accounted for 
 under physical laws. In many respects they resemble our sun so 
 closely that the theory of the same physical origin for all, is to 
 me, not doubtful. The light and heat of all of them has been 
 generated in the same mechanical way, to be described later. 
 The same mechanical gravity that rules in our Solar System is 
 applicable to these multiple star systems. In fact it seems most 
 certain that they differ from our sun and planets only in the 
 fact that their planets are still highly heated and self luminous 
 like the stars generally, thus making themselves visible to us. 
 
 From the evidence that the planets of our system, including 
 this earth, were at some time in the remote past highly heated 
 and self luminous like the sun, and that they have cooled down 
 to their present temperature during succeeding ages, we cannot 
 fail to see the close resemblance between these distant systems 
 and our own. That our sun like his neighboring stars was once 
 attended by smaller stars, which have since cooled off and come 
 to be planets, one of which we know to be inhabited, and that 
 in the slow march of physical changes these remote secondary 
 suns will also cool off long before their primaries and become 
 planets, possibly inhabitable like this earth, is certainly a high 
 probability. It must be also probable that at least the greater 
 part of the principal stars of the universe have planets attend- 
 ing them, and that owing to their great distance from our plan- 
 et we can see only the nearest, and of these only those which 
 are still hot enough to shine by their own light. The brilliant 
 
-225- 
 Sirius has one small self luminous planet, but what would pre- 
 vent him having two or three, or even half a dozen non-lumi- 
 nous planets which we cannot see, and which may be cool e- 
 nough to support life? It was not long ago that our big planet 
 Jupiter was hot enough to shine like a star, and it may be that 
 the astronomers of some far off world have already placed on 
 record the probability that our sun is a double star. 
 
 If the number of stars which we can see thru the best tele- 
 scope, may be counted by the millions, what must be the num- 
 ber of planets which may accompany these stars? If our sun, 
 not one of the largest, can support eight planets, with their 
 nineteen satellites, besides the 209 asteroids or very small plan- 
 ets, then the planets may even outnumber the stars. As shown 
 by the spectroscope, the composition of the stars is much the 
 same as our sun and planets; so we have the strong probability 
 that there is but one substance for all worlds and all life, and 
 that our sun, of which our own bodies was once a part, is also 
 a star like the others, only one of a congregation so great that 
 it may be forever impossible to count them. 
 
 And this is the Kingdom of God; if not, where is it? 
 
 46. Gravity Among the Stars.— From the preceding sec- 
 tion it appears that the mechanical theory of gravity will apply 
 to the binery star systems scattered thruout the heavens. Now 
 we will see how it works in its application to the universe as a 
 whole, or as far as known to us. 
 
 As already mentioned (§22), the law of the action of the 
 force of gravity as demonstrated by Newton, does not conflict 
 with the mechanical theory, when confined to the relative mass 
 of the planets and their distance from their common center of 
 gravity, when that center is maintained at a constant tempera- 
 ture. But Newton's definition of the force seems to be at fault 
 when it includes the mass of the central body without regard to 
 its temperature. It is also wrong when it assumes that every 
 particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle, 
 at all times and thru all distances. If the physical theory rep- 
 resents the truth there is nothing in gravity but mechanical 
 ether pressure due to the motion of inert matter as described 
 (§20), and this is not what is meant by the word attraction. 
 Suppose for arguments sake, that this theory of attraction is 
 true; let us look briefly at the consequence. 
 
 As required by its definition, the force of gravity which col- 
 lects ponderable matter into large masses like the sun and stars, 
 must have been active in all the past and thru all space within 
 the universe. The planets of our system and those of all other 
 systems, as well as all ponderable bodies large or small, should 
 have ere this been united with some center of aggregation This 
 
— 226 — 
 process could not have gone on forever. If it had a beginning it 
 would have an ending, and the end would be in the final collec- 
 tion of all such matter into these centers, and for these centers 
 the inevitable fate of darkness, silence and death would await 
 them in the radiaton of all their molecular motion into the me- 
 dium, save that which may come from outside bodies in the form 
 of waves. The next mechanical possibility would be the collision 
 of these dead suns. When two such bodies come together, which 
 they most certainly would in time; their collision would change 
 their mass motion into heat, light and electricity, converting 
 them into a fiery vapor or nebula. But after ages of slow radi- 
 ation and condensation the two dodies would form one, larger 
 than before but still a burned out sun. Each particle in this 
 mass would have to exert and obey this mutual attraction, and 
 the only other action possible for it would be its motion in a 
 straight line. That these two forces, attraction and motion, are 
 not equal and opposite, and that attraction must eventually put 
 an end to all motion, is plainly self evident. If a system of plan- 
 ets were formed in the condensation of such a mass, the end of 
 condensation would find them all united with their common cen- 
 ter, and this center might be free to move in any direction, and 
 exercise its power of attraction upon other centers, but nothing 
 more. Eventually it would unite with others and after the same 
 routine was thru, it would reach the same state as before, and 
 its mass would be considerably increased. This process going on 
 at a great number of widely separated points at the same time, 
 it must follow that in the course of immense ages the number of 
 such bodies would gradually grow less while the quantity of 
 matter in each would increase. Hence the certainty of the final 
 roundup would be only a question of time and time has no limit. 
 
 In the meantime the repeated collisions of these bodies and 
 the friction of the medium during condensation, would tend to 
 diminish their motion, both mass and molecular, so that when 
 the final concentration of all ponderable matter into one great 
 mass took place, which it undoubtedly would in time, the a- 
 mount of motion available for the rediffusion of this matter 
 would be almost nothing against the tremendous force of at- 
 traction which, according to its definition, would be called into 
 action by the concentration of so much matter. So it seems that 
 we can safely conclude that the theory that every particle of 
 matter in the universe attracts every other particle, as defined, 
 is not true; for if it was, this universe, in view of a past eter- 
 nity in which matter and motion was not created out of nothing, 
 ought to be dead and cold right now. 
 
 The idea that matter can exercise force without moving, is 
 so out of harmony with all common sense thinking that no one 
 but an unfortunate with an over-educated brain can entertain it, 
 
-227 — 
 and it was emphatically condemned by Newton himself. But if 
 we take the simple view that the power which manipulates the 
 heavenly bodies is a direct result of the motion of inert matter, 
 in fact, nothing in itself but such motion, as already described, 
 then this difficulty and others to be noticed not only disappear, 
 but as has been shown in other chapters we are able to explain 
 and harmonize the mysteries of astronomy, physics and chemis- 
 try under the same general law. This physical agent is here sup- 
 posed to handle the stars, planets, moons, comets nebula etc, 
 in the same way that it handles the pith balls in our electric ex- 
 periments or the molecules in chemical changes (§38). For ex- 
 ample, two stars of the same temperature or physically alike, 
 will repel each other for the same reason that two pith balls 
 charged by the same form of electricity, either positive or neg- 
 ative, will repel each other. Or to take an example in chemis- 
 try, two molecules of water or of any liquid or gas, mutually 
 repel for the same reason that two stars or two pith balls will 
 repel. In the case of attraction, a star and a planet, or two 
 stars differing in temperature, or two planets or a planet and 
 its satelite, between which there is a difference of tempera- 
 ture, will attract each other for the same reason that two pith 
 balls, one charged positive and the other negative will attract 
 each other. Or as in chemistry, for the same reason that two 
 molecules of different substances which have an affinity for each 
 other, will attract and combine as already explained. Or to state 
 the theory in the language of mechanics, a physical difference in 
 the atoms and molecules of ponderable bodies, as due to their 
 difference in mass and quantity of motion, will impart different 
 degrees of expansion in the surrounding ether. When there is 
 physical likeness between two such bodies of expanded ether, 
 there is always repulsion; when there is a certain degree of 
 physical difference between two such bodies there is attraction. 
 This applies to all aggregates of ponderable matter from the 
 smallest molecule to the largest star, and the process is me- 
 chanical thruout; and we shall now see that it plays a very im- 
 portant part in the relative activities of the heavenly bodies. 
 
 Over 5000 nebula and star clusters have been observed in 
 all parts of the heavens and their places are indicated in star 
 maps and catalogues. The most of theses have been carefully 
 examined by means of the spectroscope, and about one third of 
 the number exhibit a spectrum consisting of a few disconnected 
 bright lines which indicate certain well known gases. The rest 
 show a continuous spectrum like that of our sun and the fixed 
 stars. It is believed that these facts prove the former to be ex- 
 tensive bodies of incandescent gas or true nebula, and the lat- 
 ter to be extensive clusters of small stars very close together. 
 Some of these clusters are visible to the naked eye. In the con- 
 
—228 — 
 stellation Hercules there is one which, on a clear night may be 
 seen as a hazy looking spot, and when viewed in a good tele- 
 scope, its appearence has been described in such words as 'grand 
 beyond description.' No doubt is entertained but that these clus- 
 ters contain a great number of separate stars so close together 
 as to be hardly distinguishable. The well known Pleiades con- 
 tains six small stars visible to the eye and faint glimpses of 
 many more. In a telescope of medium power 188 may be count- 
 ed The luminous spot in Cancer, when viewed thru a telescope 
 is completely resolved into stars, and there is another similar 
 bunch in the sword-handle of Perseus. In the southern sky may 
 be found a number of such star clusters far exceeding these in 
 extent and number of stars. 
 
 Now it is generally believed, and with good reason, that 
 the stars in these clusters are close enough together to have a 
 strong attraction for each other, and being grouped together 
 as they are, the inference from Newton's theory of attraction is 
 irresistible, that they must promptly unite to form one great 
 mass. But since, to all appearance, they are not doing this, the 
 inference is equally certain that the theory of attraction is not 
 true. It has been supposed that the stars in these groups are 
 kept apart by a rotary motion of the whole around a common 
 center like the planets of our system. But we have no planets 
 in a polar direction from our sun and the reason is very plain as 
 inferred from physical laws. Since some of these clusters appear 
 to have the form of a sphere, what would prevent the stars in 
 a polar direction from uniting in the center? Besides, the great 
 extent and irregularity of form of many of these clusters pre- 
 cludes the possibility of them being kept apart by a rotary mo- 
 tion around a common center; and no other mechanical agency 
 seems to me possible. 
 
 But the theory of mechanical electricity described in pre- 
 ceding chapters, appears to me to be deficient in no respect, 
 as a means of accounting for all the forms of these star groups 
 as well as the fact that they are kept apart. And best of all, it 
 is the same mechanical theory which accounts for everything 
 on the physical side of the universe. The stars in these groups 
 are kept apart, not necessrially by a rotary motion, but by the 
 fact that they have a uniform or nearly uniform temperature, 
 so that each one is charged by the same electricity or expanded 
 ether, hence they repel each other just as the molecules of a 
 gas or a liquid, or the electrified pith balls do. 
 
 This theory being a part of the universal theory should of- 
 course help us to account for the origin of these star clusters 
 by simply supposing that they were condensed from the origi- 
 nal nebula by the usual process of cooling similar to that which 
 produced our solar system but without the rotary motion. 
 
—229 — 
 It seems impossible to look at the pictures of distant neb- 
 ula and star clusters, and read the accounts of them by careful 
 observers, and not be strongly impressed with the truth of the 
 mechanical relations of the ether and ponderable matter as de- 
 scribed. Some of these bodies show all the irregularities of form 
 which we see in the clouds of our atmosphere, which are purely 
 mechanical in their origin. They also assume forms which would 
 be impossible in our clouds of aqueous vapor, showing that most 
 likely they are composed of heavier material. Some of them 
 have assumed the spiral form with curved branches around a 
 common center, very clearly indicating their possible origin in 
 the colision of large masses. Others have the form of rings like 
 those of our planet Saturn, but with little or no matter in the 
 center, and in one case there are two rings one inside the other. 
 From their borders extend branches in all directions, obeying 
 no law of formation but that of the motion of inert matter. In 
 all these bodies there is the one striking fact; the separation of 
 their parts by the ether as described, and which alone seems 
 entirely sufficient to account for all their different shapes as 
 well as the fact that they are self-luminous. 
 
 47. The Universal Cycle. — In view of the facts and le- 
 gitimate inferrences so far adduced, and in view of a beginning- 
 less and endless eternity in the past and future, and of the fact 
 that the universe is not dead, but full of life and energy, it is 
 very plain that there must exist in the very nature of the con- 
 ditions of existence, a great endless cycle of physical changes 
 thru which ponderable matter is continually passing. 
 
 From the laws described in the first three chapters of this 
 book it follows that a series of physical changes which contin- 
 ue forever without once repeating itself, is, in no sense to be 
 entertained. Matter is everywhere in motion and always chang- 
 ing from old to new forms, its longest course being run always 
 brings it around to a new and similar course in which the same 
 old substance appears again in new form, and so on forever. A 
 series of changes which is most general and extended in time, 
 being inevitable, we are now to inquire as to its nature. 
 
 We see on every hand an immense number of centers of 
 aggregation for ponderable matter. The sun and all the stars 
 are engaged in this business and even the planets, their satel- 
 lites and the comets are fitted for the work of gathering up 
 smaller and colder bodies. As shown in other places it is only a 
 physical likeness which prevents two bodies from uniting, while 
 a physical difference will bring them together if they are not 
 kept apart as are the planets of our system. But even this, as 
 shown elswhere, cannot be regarded as permanent; so the ac- 
 cumulation of ponderable matter into larger centers must now 
 
-230- 
 be going on in all parts of the universe. Since this process does 
 not end in a dead universe, it must end in some process of re- 
 distribution, which separates the components of these large bod- 
 ies, returning the matter to some form from which it may pro- 
 ceed again thru a similar series of physical changes. We will 
 now attempt to trace out this endless round of changes and see 
 if it comes under the general physical law so far applied. The 
 one which seems to me to be most in harmony with the facts 
 naturally divides itself into three parts described in the three 
 following sections. 
 
 48. The Birth and Life of Planetary Systems.— The 
 nebula theory of the origin of our solar system, proposed by 
 Kant, Laplace and Herschel, has been universally accepted, so 
 far as I can learn, because it accounts for all the facts so far as 
 it goes. This theory applies to all other planet or star systems, 
 the same as to our own, and being an indispensable part of the 
 universal theory here described, a brief account of it will be 
 given as follows. 
 
 It is supposed, to begin with, that all the matter contained 
 in our solar system, was, at some time in the remote past, in 
 a state of vapor or gas, intensely hot and greatly diffused in 
 space so as to extend beyond the orbit of the outmost planet, 
 and that it had a revolving motion from west to east. Let us 
 remember that this nebula, heated, diffused and turning on its 
 axis, is necessary to the beginning of the mechanical process 
 which is the only means of transforming its material into a sys- 
 tem of planets like the one we inhabit. Or in other words, this 
 particular form of the body of matter and its motion, from which 
 the system is evolved, is absolutely necessary to the beginning 
 of the mechanical series which produces the system. The nebula 
 theory begins with this form of nebula, but so far as I know 
 it does not attempt to account for the nebula. 
 
 From the rotary motion of this nebula it follows that its 
 form must have been oval or perhaps double convex, for the 
 reason that the centrifugal force resulting from its rotary 
 motion would prevent the condensation of its material around 
 the equator, but would not prevent its contraction on either 
 pole; hence the oval form. This revolving mass being surround- 
 ed by a conducting medium would gradually cool off by radiat- 
 ing its motion (heat, light, electricity,) into this medium. As it 
 cooled it would gradually contract in volume under the outside 
 pressure of the medium. With this condensation there would 
 be a slight increase in the rotary motion, and as a result the 
 centrifugal force of that portion of the body which is outside 
 and directly over the equator would reach a balance, or rather 
 would maintain a balance with outside pressure, hence would 
 
—231 — 
 not contract further toward the center. As the main body con- 
 tinued to contract it would shrink away from this outside por- 
 tion, and so a nebulous ring would be formed around the equa- 
 tor of the revolving body. This process being continued, a num- 
 ber of rings within rings would be formed, finally leaving a por- 
 tion of the material in the center, which gives gravitating sta- 
 bility to the system and light and heat to the planets which are 
 formed by the further condensation of the rings. 
 
 These nebulous rings would continue to give up their mo- 
 lecular motion to the medium and shrink in volume; hence they 
 would either break up into small bodies, or the ring would part 
 atone side, — which parting would most likely occur at the thin- 
 nest point and perhaps on the side toward which the system is 
 moving if it has a proper motion in some equatorial direction. 
 In either case, whether a ring of small bodies or a crescent 
 shaped body should result, it is evident that one portion would 
 be more dense or greater in volume than the rest, and that the 
 lighter or thinner portion would gravitate toward the more 
 dense portion. In this case all that portion behind the point of 
 greatest density would have its centrifugal force augmented 
 with reference to the sun, while all that portion in advance of 
 the most dense part would have its centrifugal force retarded. 
 So it will be seen that while the ring is forming into one body 
 around the largest portion, all that part which is dehind this 
 largest portion will fall for the most part on the outside, away 
 from the sun, while all the material in advance will fall on the 
 inside; and as a result the body when completely formed will 
 have a rotary motion from west to east the same as the sun. 
 
 In this way, not only the planets, but their common rotary 
 motion from west to east is accounted for; with the exception 
 of the two outmost planets whose direction of rotation is not cer- 
 tainly known but supposed to be retrograde; that is, in the op- 
 posite direction, since their satellites are known to move in the 
 opposite direction. The orbits of the satellites of Uranus have 
 an inclination of 79° to the plane of the ecliptic; henc it is pos- 
 sible that the retrograde motion of these outmost planets might 
 have resulted from some outside influence, such as the precipi- 
 tation of a large mass upon the planet from the outside, and 
 whose line of approach was of the direction necessary to give 
 rise to the present inclination of the orbits of the satellites, as 
 well as their retrograde motion. So far the part of this theory 
 which aims to account for the rotary motion of the planets, and 
 the direction of motion of their satellites, is a speculation of 
 my own; all the rest is from the literature of the subject. 
 
 The planets formed in this way would still retain the nebu- 
 lous and highly heated form, and in all respects except in vol- 
 ume and in the fact that they move in orbits around a larger 
 
— 232 — 
 central mass, they would resemble the original nebula. After 
 some further condensation they would shine by their own light 
 like the sun and the fixed stars, and would of course be visible 
 at a great distance. The fact that just such star systems can 
 now be seen by the hundreds in all directions, is highly favora- 
 ble to a general mechanical theory. In the course of time these 
 nebulous planets would cool and contract as the original nebula 
 did and this cooling process would proceed more rapidly because 
 of their reduced volume. Rings would be produced as with the 
 planets and these would finally form moons just as we find them 
 with the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. 
 But in the case of our moon and those of Jupiter, no rotary mo- 
 tion has resulted from condensation, as with the planets. This 
 and the fact that these bodies have no atmosphere, has been 
 explained in (§24). 
 
 The nebula theory as above described, all but the part ad- 
 ded, has been accepted without hesitation by all astronomers. 
 It is not incongruent with a single known fact and science does 
 not furnish a better explanation of a large number of well 
 known facts nor a better example of the successful application 
 of theory. The fact that all the planets, ninety in number includ- 
 ing the minor planets, revolve one way and in one plane around 
 the sun's equator; the fact that the sun turns on his axis in the 
 same direction; the fact that the planets on the whole increase 
 in density as they are less distant from the sun; the fact that 
 all the major planets and their satellites have orbits of small 
 eccentricity; the fact that all the satellites so far as known re- 
 volve around their primaries in the same direction in which the 
 latter turn on their axis, and the evidence of a highly heated 
 condition of the earth at some time in the distant past obtained 
 thru a study of the earth's crust, all these facts and others of 
 less importance have been completely accounted for by the neb- 
 ular theory, leaving it only necessary for us to find the true 
 place of this theory in the most general theory. 
 
 Now let us remember that this entire process from the o- 
 riginal nebula to the present form of the system of planets etc, 
 is conducted thruout in exact harmony with the law of inertia, 
 and that, so far as it goes it agrees with the theories of gravity, 
 electricity, chemistry and others already described. Any theory 
 therefore, which aims to account for the possible future of this 
 system of planets, must conform to this theory. As for the fu- 
 ture of our world, all that can be said at present is, that it will 
 continue very much as it is for an immense length of time, but 
 its final dissolution seems to be asured for reasons to be de- 
 scribed in the following section and which are offered as simply 
 a further application of the same mechanical laws, 
 
-233- 
 
 49. The Dissolution of Planetary Systems. — The most 
 tenable theory yet proposed to account for the maintainance of 
 the present high temperature of our sun, is that originated by 
 Dr. R. J. Mayer. Prof. H. L. F. Helmholtz and others, and 
 which assumes the mechanical impact of ponderable bodies, im- 
 pelled into the sun by the force of gravity; also a slow process 
 of condensation continually active in the sun as a result of radi- 
 ation and the same force of gravity. There is much evidence 
 that the space betwen the stars and our sun contains numerous 
 bodies of matter which range in size from the meteors which 
 occasionally fall on the earth to bodies like the largest comet, 
 and even larger, and that such bodies may, and often do, fall 
 into the sun. Prof. Helmholtz has shown however, that the rate 
 of the sun's radiation during historic times cannot be wholly ac- 
 counted for by the fall of outside matter; but that the slow con- 
 densation of its volume is sufficient, according to mechanical 
 law, to account for its enormous expenditure of energy during 
 that time. This of course is the same process of condensation 
 due to radiation and gravity, which has been going on since the 
 beginning of the original nebula from which the system was 
 formed. And so it is evident that this process of condensation 
 and radiation is still going on. The sun's present density has 
 been estimated to be less than a fourth of the mean density of 
 the earth; hence it has been assumed as highly probable that, at 
 the present rate of condensation the high temperature of the 
 sun ought to continue as it is for at least 17 millions of years to 
 come. With this prospect in view the peoples of this planet may 
 have time to become thoroughly humanized before quitting, if 
 they can be made to understand the need of further progress. 
 
 A small mass of heated matter when isolated will cool fast- 
 er than a large mass at the same temperature. The age of a 
 planetary system therefore, will depend to a considerable ex- 
 tent upon the mass and temperature of its central sun. A sys- 
 tem like that of the star Sirius ought to live much longer than 
 our system because its central mass is more than a dozen times 
 as great as that of our sun. It is of course possible that the heat 
 and light of our sun, or that of any of the others, may be re- 
 newed from time to time by the precipitation upon them of un- 
 known bodies of matter which are still wandering about in space, 
 but are not known because they have cooled below the point of 
 emitting light. But it is a plain inference that since this space is 
 continually being cleared of such bodies, the time will surely 
 come when the renewals from such sources will be less than the 
 expenditure by radiation; hence the final cooling of the system 
 is only a matter of time. From Newton's theory of attraction 
 it has been inferred that the force of gravity and the friction 
 of the medium will eventually bring all the planets into the sun, 
 
-234 — 
 from which there is no resurrection. 
 
 But from the present general theory it is far more probable, 
 in fact as certain as certainty can be predicted from any theory, 
 that our sun and all the principle stars, are now and have been 
 from the time of their birth, active agents in clearing space of 
 loose fragments of ponderable matter; and that this process, 
 sooner or later, must end in a clean sweep of all this space. It 
 is a noteworthy fact in this connection, that the nebula are not 
 uniformly distribted in space; but are abundant in the polar re- 
 gions of the Sidereal System where stars are few, and rare in 
 the vicinity of its plane where stars are numerous. This of course 
 means that the stars are active centers of aggregation for neb- 
 ulous matter. An intensely heated mass is a source of difference 
 of pressure in the ether, hence the accumulation of outside mat- 
 ter in the stars, as required by the mechanical theory of gravity. 
 
 The sun and stars being thus active from the time of their 
 birth in clearing space of ponderable matter, a stage in the pro- 
 cess will be reached at which the incoming motion will be less 
 than that of radiation. At this point such centers will begin to 
 grow cold and contract in volume. Since a large body may get 
 just as cold as a small one if it has time to cool off, it follows 
 that all the members of our system including the sun, will ar- 
 rive at an even temperature; and this will be far more frigid 
 than that within the arctic circle. At this stage and in view of 
 the mechanieal theory of gravity, the separation of the mem- 
 bers of our system and its final dissolution, will be assured in 
 two ways. — (1), by electric repulsion due to an equalization of 
 temperature, or (2), the centrifugal force due to their motion 
 around the sun, which motion, not being dissipated by radiation 
 or friction would persist to the end. But more likely the planets 
 and their satellites, one by one would separate from the central 
 mass as a result of their centrifugal force before the system has 
 cooled sufficient to admit of repulsion. The rotary motion of the 
 planets and the sun, in particular the latter, might also give 
 rise to a dissipation of these bodies to some extent. Whatever 
 happened, the end of radiation would come in time, and with it 
 the dissipation of internal motion to the point of uniform diffu- 
 sion, and finally the certainty of the breaking up of the system 
 and the scattering of its parts in all directions in its equatorial 
 plane. Each separate part would pursue its own course thru the 
 universe in a straight line as required by the first law of motion. 
 
 This I would call the mechanical dissolution of planetary sys- 
 tems. It will be seen that this process is not only conducted 
 thruout in perfect accord with the laws of inertia, but it agrees 
 perfectly with all the minor theories so far described. And as 
 we proceed further its universal application will become more 
 and more apparent until we reach the end. 
 
—235 — 
 
 50. The Origin of Planetary Nebula.— Here I shall use 
 the words 'planetary nebula' to mean all nebula which, ow- 
 ing to their original formation, are capable of being developed 
 into planetary systems; and in this section I will try to describe 
 the manner of their formation. 
 
 There is no evidence that the great collection of stars cal- 
 led the Sidereal System has a revolving motion around a com- 
 mon center of gravity; but it has been found that many of the 
 stars, and possibly all, are moving in different directions and 
 with different velocities. Not only most of the bright stars are 
 moving, but our sun and all our planets are moving as one mass. 
 As estimated by Struve the motion of our system amounts to 150 
 millions of miles annually, and we are moving toward the con- 
 stellation Hercules. As a result of this general movement the 
 constellation figures are gradually changing in form; and which 
 change in the last 2000 years is plainly sensible to the eye. The 
 motion of Arcturus during this time has amounted to more than 
 one degree and that of Procyon and Sirius to three quarters of 
 a degree. It also appears that some of the stars are moving to- 
 ward us while others are moving away from us. 
 
 It thus appears that the stars of this greatest known cluster 
 have an irregular motion in all directions with different veloc- 
 ities, and in which motion there is no discoverable uniformity 
 which would imply their mechanical connection like the planets 
 of our system. What is true of the self-luminous bodies in this 
 respect may be equally true of the opaque bodies which are 
 invisible and which might result from the dissolution of planet- 
 ary systems as described in §49. According to our theory of me- 
 chanical repulsion, two stars equal in temperature would not be 
 united by the force of gravity because they would repel each 
 other like two electrified pith balls charged alike; hence the ma- 
 jority of the hot stars would remain apart. But between these 
 stars and a dead sun, or a live planet, or the fragments of a dis- 
 solved system of planets, there would be a strong affinity; and 
 we can expect with reasonable certainty that such bodies will 
 unite. There is no appearance of uniformity in mass or tem- 
 perature among the bright stars, neither is there any appear- 
 ance of uniformity in their age. On the contrary there is a very 
 marked appearance of difference as to age. There is a difference 
 of color among them, some being blue, others yellow and others 
 red. This difference of color is no doubt a result of difference 
 in temperature, the blue being the hottest, the yellow less so 
 and the red the coldest. Our sun is therefore rather young; 
 perhaps no more than 200 million years of age, or at least very 
 hot since the blue in his light predominates. Owing to the great 
 difference in the size and age of the numerous planetary or star 
 systems scattered thruout the universe, we cannot expect them 
 
— 236 — 
 to have a uniform period of dissolution. It is most likely that 
 old systems are dissolving and new ones forming all the time, 
 at different points and at irregular intervals. And now let us 
 see what takes place as required by mechanical laws, when the 
 new system makes a start in life. 
 
 It cannot be doubted but that collisions may, and do occur 
 between large masses of matter which have some physical dif- 
 ference, resulting in changing their mass motion into some oth- 
 er form. When two solids moving directly toward each other at 
 a high rate of speed, come in contact, they are at once conver- 
 ted into a very hot vapor, which expands to many times the 
 former volume of the two bodies. When a quantity of water is 
 heated to more than 212° F, it will burst into steam and occupy 
 1,700 times the space. A mass of matter weighing 772 pounds, 
 when allowed to fall thru a distance of one foot, will raise one 
 pound of water 1° F. This is Dr. Joule's experimental result by 
 which the mechanical equivalent relationship of heat and ordi- 
 nary motion was established. On this data Mr. James Croll the 
 mathematician, has calculated that in the collision of two bodies, 
 each one half the mass of our sun, and moving directly toward 
 each other with a velocity of 476 miles per second, a quantity 
 of heat and light would be produced sufficient to cover the pres- 
 ent rate of the sun's radiation for a period of 50 million years. 
 All this energy being let loose at once it must be supposed that 
 the ensuing mass would be converted into a glowing vapor, rap- 
 idly expanding to many thousand times its former volume. 
 
 Now in the event of a collision between two large masses, 
 whatever be their physical relations, we can think of but three 
 forms of motion as direct results of their impact; described as 
 follows; (1), heat or molecular motion more or less intense and 
 which would be communicated to the surrounding ether as light, 
 electricity and wave heat; (2), a rotary motion of the mass on 
 its axis; (3), a proper motion of the mass in a straight line thru 
 space. The first named would be sure to follow and the second 
 and third would follow dependent on how the two bodies came 
 together. If they were equal in mass and velocity, and if they 
 came together on a straight line, (which is possible but ex- 
 tremely improbable) no rotary motion nor proper motion would 
 follow; nothing but heat. If they were unequal either in mass 
 or velocity, but impelled together on a straight line, (which is 
 also possible but not very probable) no rotary motion would 
 follow, but there would be plenty of heat with a motihn of pro- 
 gression thru space. If they were more or less unequal in mass 
 and velocity, and if they came together more or less out of a 
 straight line, (which is by all odds the most probable) then there 
 would be a rotary motion and a straight line motion along with 
 a generation of heat proportional to the quantity of mass mo- 
 
-237- 
 tion transformed into it. This reasoning so far as I can see, is 
 in harmony with the laws of motion. 
 
 The intense heat thus suddenly evoked would give rise to 
 light, radiant-heat, electricity and difference of pressure in the 
 surrounding ether; and so the mass to some considerable extent, 
 would be converted into a glowing vapor (a true nebula) light- 
 ing up the universe to a great extent in all directions. The ro- 
 tary motion, which, in the majority of cases would be sure to 
 follow, would give place to a centrifugal force around the equa- 
 tor, and this, acting against outside pressure would impart to 
 the body the oval form. Thus we would have an oval or lense 
 shaped nebula revolving on its axis, which axis is at right an- 
 gles to the plane of its longest diameter 
 
 The reader can now see that this, in all respects, is exactly 
 what we want for the beginning of the simple mechanical pro- 
 cess of condensation described in §48, and which develops into a 
 complete system of planets like the one we inhabit. 
 
 In such cases the time required to effect the change from 
 the solid to the nebulous form, need not be very great; perhaps 
 in the case of the largest bodies not longer than a few hours, 
 and with smaller bodies less time. In the impact of two solids 
 no matter what their size or mass, the transformation of their 
 sensible mass motion into heat must be very close to instantane- 
 ous. During its period of greatest luminosity the body would out 
 shine the brightest of the stars, but being greatly diffused im- 
 mediately after the collision it would impart its extra molecu- 
 lar motion to the medium very fast, and so would cool down to 
 a lower degree of luminosity. Hence its period of greatest bril- 
 liancy ought not to last long; perhaps no more than a few days. 
 This must be inferred from the general fact that the rapid ex- 
 pansion of a gas or a vapor beyond the point of incandescence, 
 has the effect of quenching its luminosity to some extent by in- 
 creasing the amplitude of its atomic vibrations. If the amount 
 of heat generated was sufficient to convert the entire mass into 
 a vapor at once, then either a nebula having no condensed nu- 
 cleus, or perhaps a nebulous ring, which, in time would cool 
 and break up and scatter in all directions in its plane of revo- 
 lution. But most likely in the majority of cases a central and 
 most dense portion of the body would remain and around which 
 the incandescent parts would form as appears to have been the 
 original form of our system. From this revolving nebula having 
 a more dense interior a planetary system would certainly follow 
 as described and in strict obedience to the common law. 
 
 This would complete the third and last stage in the cycle of 
 material changes which begins in the nebulous form, runs thru 
 a long course of condensation which leads to the solid form and 
 from this to the nebulous form again. 
 
— 238 — 
 
 But we are not to suppose that this physical series is al- 
 ways and everywhere the same. It is highly probable that great 
 quantities of ponderable matter may exist for many ages of 
 planetary life, with hardly any change, if uniformly distributed 
 thru the ether in small parts and under conditions which would 
 permit of a uniform diffusion of motion. But such would not be 
 the case within the limits of the Sidereal System and we can 
 fairly suppose that the Universal Cycle is substantially true for 
 this part of the universe. In the next section we will look for 
 record evidence in support of this theory, 
 
 51. Record Evidence for this Theory.— Now it will be 
 evident that if this cycle of physical changes as above descri- 
 bed, is an actual fact in nature, that we ought to have some ev- 
 idence of its truth either in the present records of astronomy, 
 or thru a careful observation of the heavens in the future. The 
 main points on which we would require evidence thru observa- 
 tion are. — (1), The destruction of planetary systems thru the 
 dissipation of their substance in the form of solids of consider- 
 able mass, as described in (§49). (2), The collision of these bod- 
 ies, either with each other or with other bodies, under condi- 
 tions which would give rise to the incandescent revolying nebu- 
 la as described in (§50). It would of course be impossible to wit- 
 ness the dissolution of a planetary system, since the bodies com- 
 posing such a system would have to be almost completely des- 
 titute of molecular motion and therefore invisible to us. Besides 
 the process must be very slow, no doubt occupying many mil- 
 lions of years. The lifetime of even the present human race i3 
 far too short to witness nature's greatest changes and if we are 
 ever to know them we must conceive them in theory. But as to 
 the truth of the collision of ponderable bodies, large or small, 
 and that they may give rise to an incandescent revolving nebu- 
 la exactly as would be required for the beginning of the forma- 
 tion of a system of planets with a central sun, we have to all 
 appearances the very best of directly sensible evidence. 
 
 The records of astronomy furnish a number of instances of 
 the sudden appearance of what is called "new or temporary 
 stars." A common peculiarity of these stars is to blaze forth 
 with a great and sudden light, sometimes far surpassing stars 
 of the first magnitude, remaining so for a short time, then to 
 gradually die away until they become either invisible or greatly 
 reduced in brightness. The first on record of these new stars 
 was seen by the Chaldeans 134 years B. C. In the year 389 A. D. 
 another new star appeared in the constellation Aquilae which 
 shone as bright as the planet Venus for three weeks, then faded 
 gradually from sight and has never been seen since. In 1572 a 
 remarkably brilliant star appeared suddenly in Casiopeia, which 
 
— 239 — 
 at first equaled in brightness the star Sirius, and soon after at- 
 tained to a degree of splendor which made it distinctly visible 
 at noon time. In about a month it began to decline in brightness 
 and in six months entirely disappeared from sight. In 1604 an- 
 other new star appeared in Ophiucus, which excelled the planet 
 Jupiter in light, and remained visible for two years then disa- 
 peared; and in the same constellation, in the year 1848 another 
 star blazed up in a spot where no star had been seen before. It 
 equaled in brightness a star of the fourth magnitude, remained 
 thus for a few weeks, then declined to the twelfth magnitude 
 and still may be seen thru a good telescope. 
 
 According to Humboldt, the appearance of 22 such stars has 
 been found on record since 134 B.C. and since his list was com- 
 piled two more have been added to this number; one appearing 
 in 1866 and the other in 1867. An account of the two last, by a 
 number of observers has come to my notice and from which I 
 quote. In his "Familliar Essays Mr.R. A. Proctor says. — 
 
 "On the evening of May 12th 1866, a new star shown forth 
 in the Northern Crown with second magnitude brightness, in 
 a place where none had been visible with brightness above a 
 fifth magnitude star twenty four hours earlier. On ascertaining 
 however, the place of the new star, astronomers found that 
 there had been recorded in Argalander's chart and catalogue a 
 star of between the ninth and tenth magnitude in the same 
 spot. The star declined very rapidly in brightness. On May 13th 
 it appeared of the third magnitude; on May 16th it had sunk to 
 the fourth magnitude; on the 17th to the fifth; on the 19th to 
 the seventh, and to the end of the month it shone only as a 
 telescope star of the ninth magnitude. Examined by the spec- 
 troscope this star was found to be in an abnormal condition. It 
 gave the rainbow tinted streak crossed by dark lines, which is 
 usually given by stars with minor variations, which enables as- 
 tronomers to classify the stars into several different orders. 
 But superposed on this spectrum, or perhaps we should say, shi- 
 ning thru it, was seen four brilliant lines, two of which certain- 
 ly belong to glowing hydrogen. These lines were so bright as 
 to show that the greater part of the light of the star, at the 
 time, came from the glowing gas or gases giving these lines." 
 
 Here is satisfactory evidence for the sudden production of 
 a large amount of intense heat and light, and this is a necessary 
 factor in the physical series which maintains the life of the uni- 
 verse. A number of theories, says Mr. Proctor, were proposed 
 to account for the sudden appearance and gradual decline of 
 this star, among which was the supposition of the downfall of 
 some great mass, perhaps a planet upon a star, by which the 
 motion of the falling mass was changed into heat and light. Mr. 
 Proctor hinself was of the opinion that a great stream of me- 
 
— 240 — 
 toric stones traveling around the star might have come in par- 
 tial contact with it, the same way that the small flight of No- 
 vember meteors come into collision with our earth three times 
 in each century. The theory of the mechanical impact of solids 
 is therefor not objectionable to astronomers, and really it seems 
 to be the only theory to account for the facts. Those who would 
 explain the facts by supposing some chemical action or form 
 of combustion, should remember that all chemical changes are 
 also mechanical. The significant fact in this case is the sudden 
 production of a great body of glowing gas which rapidly cooles 
 and contracts. This with the revolving motion of the body is all 
 that's necessary for the making of a system of planets as des- 
 cribed. Concerning the other new star, Prof. R. S. Ball in the 
 Popular Science Monthly for June 1883 says. — 
 
 "On Nov. 24th Dr. Schmidt noticed a new star of the third 
 magnitude in Cygni. The discoverer was confident that no cor- 
 responding object existed on the evening of the 20th. The bril- 
 liancy of the new star gradually declined until Dec. 13th Mr. 
 Hind found it of the sixth magnitude. The spectrum of this star 
 was carefully studied by many observers, and it exhibited sev- 
 eral bright lines which indicate that this star differed from the 
 ordinary stars by the possession of vast masses of glowing gas- 
 eous material. This star was observed by Dr. Copeland at the 
 Earl of Crawford's observatory on Sep. 2nd 1877. It was then 
 below the tenth magnitude and of a decidedly bluish tint. View- 
 ed thru the spectroscope the light of this star was almost com- 
 pletely monochromatic, and appeared to be indistinguishable 
 from that which is often found to come from nebula. Bearing 
 in mind the history of this star from the time it was discovered 
 by Schmidt, it would seem certain, says Dr. Copeland, that we 
 have an instance before us in which a star has changed into a 
 planetary nebulae of small angular diameter. At least it may 
 be safely affirmed that no astronomer discovering the object in 
 its present state, would, after viewing it thru a prism, hesitate 
 to pronounce as to its present nebulous character." 
 
 In this case the spectroscope, in the hands of a seemingly 
 competent person bears testimony for the truth of the actual 
 production of a planetary nebula. If this nebula has the rotary 
 motion and if not interfered with, its natural course thereaft- 
 er would transform it into a system of planets like our own tho 
 possibly no larger than the moon system of Jupiter. 
 
 At the conclusion of his article on this star Prof. Ball says. 
 "This remarkable history might be edduced if we wished to pro- 
 cure evidence of the conversion of stars into nebula; but for 
 the nebula theory we require evidence of the conversion of neb- 
 ula into stars." 
 
 Here we have an astronmer of reputation giving his testi- 
 
—241 — 
 mony without intending it, in support of our mechanical theory 
 of the origin of the nebula from which planetary systems are 
 evolved. He seems to be seeking for evidence of the conden- 
 sation of nebula into stars, which stars may raise a family of 
 planets like that of our sun, and which, he seems to think, 
 would justify and extend the nebula theory now accepted. But 
 to observe the change of a nebula into a star would of course 
 be impossible in the life time of the human race, since it must 
 be a long, slow process of radiation and condensation which must 
 require millions of years; as, for example, our own system. The 
 explanation of the sudden appearance and rapid decline of this 
 new star, is no doubt the same as that for all the others; and 
 it seems certain that the only tenable theory is that of the col- 
 lision of large masses, one or more, with a small or very remote 
 star, by which it is at once converted into a nebula thru a sud- 
 den and considerable rise of temperature. If no star existed in 
 the same spot before, the new one must have been due to the 
 collision of opaque and invisible bodies. A shower of meteors, if 
 heavy enough might produce the same effect. The fact that the 
 light of the most brilliant of the new stars so far observed has 
 not much exceeded that of a first magnitude star, seems to in- 
 dicate that they were either small in mass or very far from this 
 earth. What would be the effect for us, of the direct impact of 
 a body as large as the earth or larger, upon the star Sirius? No 
 doubt our winter nights would be turned into days almost as 
 bright as our mid-days and our moon would have to quit busi- 
 ness. But what would be the effect of the fall of a similar mass 
 into our sun? Very likely this earth and the other planets would 
 do just what we would do when sitting too close to a hot stove; 
 get further away. But we would stand a good chance of being 
 scorched beforewe got far enough away. The planets would all 
 sink deeper into the surrounding ether for the same reason that 
 a float sinks deeper into a rare than into a dense fluid. The ether 
 becomes more rare as a result of the rise of temperature. 
 
 Lord Lindsay, at his observatory in Scotland, carefully ex- 
 amined the new star of Nov. 1876, and in a letter to the London 
 Times he says of it: "We have the extraordinary case of a star 
 appearing suddenly in the heavens, giving a bright lined spec- 
 trum, which proves incandescence, and in the course of a few 
 months its light becoming purely monochromatic. There is little 
 doubt bat that this star has changed into a planetary nebula of 
 small angular, diameter, though such a result is in direct oppo- 
 sition to the nebular theory." 
 
 Here we have another credible observer presenting facts in 
 support of the mechanical origin of the nebula which may in 
 time become stars with planets attending them; and he, like 
 the others, fails to understand the true relations of the facts 
 
-242- 
 to the nebula theory. When we look at these facts from the 
 more general and physical point of view, they very plainly show 
 us the only part that can be seen of a great mechanical cycle 
 of changes, (described in § 47, 48, 49 and 50,) by which nebula, 
 stars and planetary systems, are produced. 
 
 Commenting on the history of this star Mr. Proctor eays: 
 "Now though the new star in Cygni presents no sensible disk, 
 and still shines as a mere blue point in the highest telescope, 
 yet, inasmuch as its spectrum associates it with the planetary 
 and gaseous nebula, which we know to be much larger bodies 
 than the stars, it must be regarded in its present condition as 
 a planetary nebula, though a small one." 
 
 Mr. Proctor was known to be an experienced and careful 
 observer of star phenomena, and his opinions can be relied upon 
 as worthy of notic. So far there is substantial agreement in all 
 of the above results of observation by different persons; and 
 that it reveals the real manner of origin of the nebula which 
 lead thru a clearly traceably mechanical process to the forma- 
 tion of planetary systems like the one we inhabit, cannot be 
 doubted. If the astronomers of the future can learn that stars 
 which make a sudden appearance in this way generally give 
 rise to the incandescent gaseous nebula, the fact of their possi- 
 ble mechanical origin as described, would be established. 
 
 52. What are Planetary Nebula?— In different parts of 
 the heavens the telescope reveals small hazy spots called plan- 
 etary nebula. It seems that this name was given them simply 
 because they resemble the disks of the planets when viewed 
 thru a telescope. Sir John Herschel says of these objects: 
 
 "The planetary nebula have, as their name implies, a near, 
 in some instances a perfect resemblance to planets, presenting 
 disks, rounded or slightly oval, in some quite shaply termi- 
 nated, in others a little softened or hazy at the borders." 
 
 In view of this general theory the name given to these ob- 
 jects is perhaps more appropriate than was first thought possi- 
 ble; for if this theory represents the truth these bodies not only 
 resemble the disks of planets, but they, themselves, are the 
 actual nebula, which, at some time in the past appeared as 
 new stars, and which, after a long period of condensation will, at 
 least in many cases produce stars with planets attending them. 
 
 Near the star Beta in Uras Major is a splendid nebula of 
 this class. It is said that if this nebula was no further from us 
 than 61 Cygni, it would have a diameter seven times that of the 
 orbit of the planet Neptune, or 40,082 million miles; but it may 
 be much further away. Its apparent diameter is 22-3 minutes of 
 arc. Another nebula situated near the Cross has an apparent 
 diameter of about 12 seconds and is perhaps much smaller. The 
 
—243 — 
 disk of this one is slightly oval and well defined, its light about 
 equal to that of a star just visible to the naked eye and its color 
 a fine blue somewhat inclined to green. About twenty planetary 
 nebula have been found so far and astronomers all agree that 
 they must be great bodies of hot, self-luminous and diffused 
 gaseous matter. These object, sappearing as they do in different 
 parts of the universe, in view of our mechanical theory and of 
 the facts above mentioned, lead us directly to the inference that 
 they are now in the first stages of condensation, and will even- 
 tually produce lucid stars, and that at least some of them may 
 develop into planetary systems as described. The fact that some 
 of these bodies have the oval form proves that they have a ro- 
 tary motion. A great body of highly heated vapor or gas could 
 not have the oval form without having a rotary motion, which 
 would tend to flatten its poles as described (§48). If so flattened 
 it must revolve, and if viewed from its equatorial plane it would 
 appear more or less oval according to its velocity of rotation. 
 Those also which appear to us as a perfect circle may revolve 
 without showing the oval form, if the plane of their motion is 
 a right angle when joined to the line of vision. So it seems cer- 
 tain that some of these bodies have the rotary motion, and it is 
 quite possible that many of them, perhaps the majority, have 
 this motion. This is all that's necessary for a start in the evo- 
 lution of a system of planets which may support life. 
 
 There is another class of bodies called nebulous stars, which 
 seem to reveal a more advanced stage in the condensation of 
 planetary nebula. In different directions may be seen stars 
 which are surrounded by a faint halo or nebulocity. Some of 
 these have well defined borders and others gradually merge 
 into darkness. This nebulous envelope cannot be resolved into 
 small stars by the highest power of the telescope. It may be 
 inferred from physical laws that these bodies are either further 
 advanced on the road of reduction to stars, from the original 
 nebula, or that they are stars, which, to some extent have been 
 set back toward the original nebulous form by the precipitation 
 upon them of large masses of outside matter. In this way, it is 
 very clear that a star may be changed into a nebula in a few 
 days or weeks, but for the change of the nebula into a star or 
 a group of smaller stars, either revolving or not, must require 
 a much longer time. 
 
 Now as visible examples of the necessary stages in the great 
 cycle of physical changes which is not only possible to matter 
 because it is strictly within the law, but indispensable to the 
 life of the universe, we have displayed in the heavens in the 
 order suggested by this theory, the following: (1), new or tem- 
 porary stars: (2), planetary nebula which revolve: (3), nebu- 
 lous stars: (4), the rings of the planet Saturn: (5), our system 
 
— 244 — 
 of planets with the sun, the moon systems of Jupiter, Saturn 
 and Uranus, also several hundred star systems which are known 
 to revolve around a radiating star center. 
 
 So we have actually presented to the eye an example of each 
 link in the series but one, and this one, from the essential na- 
 ture of the process must be invisible because it must be conduct- 
 ed in the dark. This apparently missing link is the one that 
 brings about the complete dissolution of planetary systems as 
 described in (§49). But that this part of the series is just as in- 
 dispensable as any other part, must be plainly evident; and we 
 do not have to deny its existence because we cannot see it. Now 
 in conclusion let us briefly pass in review the principal details 
 of this series in the mechanical order of their occurence. 
 
 1. A great volume of intensely heated ponderable matter in 
 the highly diffused gaseous form, is the first thing necessary 
 for the start. There is just one way to obtain this large amount 
 of heat in a large mass, and this is thru the collision of solid 
 bodies large enough and moving fast enough to produce the ef- 
 fect witnessed. The more solid or the greater the specific gravity 
 with a given velocity of the colliding bodies the better. Natural 
 gases, unless they moved very fast in a body, would be deficient 
 in momentum. Liquids would do better, but ordinary solids, in 
 particular the most dense, would carry the striking force which 
 would be certain to generate the degree of heat necessary to 
 effect the disassociation of the most of the compounds, and to 
 vaporize all solids. In this heated and diffused condition the 
 body would be in all respects a planetary nebula like those de- 
 scribed. The two new stars just described appear to give us a 
 most satisfactory illustration of the way such nebula are pro- 
 duced; both in their sudden appearance and rapid decline, and 
 most of all in the spectroscopic evidence of their nebulous char- 
 acter. Concerning the sudden appearance of new stars Sir John 
 Herschel says: "It is worthy of special notice that all the stars 
 of this kind on record, of which the places are distinctly indicated, 
 have appeared without exception, in or close upon the borders of 
 the Milky Way." Thisisanoteworhy fact in view of the theory 
 here described; since it is in this part of the heavens that stars 
 and planetary systems most abound, and where their dissolution 
 is most apt to occur, that we should expect to find moving solids 
 large or small, and that their collisions with each other or with 
 stars, would be most apt to take place, resulting in the planet- 
 ary nebula of the form required. 
 
 2. This nebula would have to revolve upon a central axis in 
 order to produce a system of planets; otherwise it would pro- 
 duce only a star; or, if entirely converted into the gaseous 
 form, leaving no central nucleus, it might produce a cluster of 
 small stars which would have to repel each other for a time in 
 
-245- 
 order to keep apart. Such a star cluster would never produce 
 inhabitable planets because, before the outside ones had cooled 
 far enough to support life they would fall into the central mass 
 by reason of the greater outside pressure of the ether as due 
 to the difference of temperature between the outside bodies and 
 those within. The rotary motion of the original nebula would 
 therefore be indispensable to the production of a life-supporting 
 system of planets, and this, in possibly the majority of cases, 
 would result from the collision of the solids necessary to pro- 
 duce the heat and light of the new star. The fact that we have 
 in our own system seven different examples of this rotary mo- 
 tion, (namely, that of the whole system, that of the earth and 
 moon and those of the five superior planets Mars, Jupiter, Sat- 
 urn, Uranus and Neptune,) makes it clear that it may follow in 
 the majority of cases. 
 
 3. During a long period of radiation and condensation this 
 revolving nebula would produce a number of nebulous rings and 
 these a number of revolving stars, and finally planets as de- 
 scribed in §49. 
 
 4. These planets would stand a good chance to live thru an- 
 other long period; and right here is where we and the other an- 
 imals get in on the scene. Judging from the fact that we are 
 now living on just such a planet, it may be inferred that the 
 others possibly may pass thru a similar evolutionary process, 
 producing vegetables and animals, and even those creatures we 
 call men, who want a private monopoly of the whole earth, and 
 who profess the doctrine of love one another while they prac- 
 tice the doctrine of eat one another, and who are the necessary 
 progenitors of a superior human race. But eventually the same 
 process of cooling and shrinking would break up the system and 
 scatter its parts in all directions in its equatorial plane, as shown 
 in §49. These scattered parts might be of all sizes from the vis- 
 ible lump of earth or rock to bodies as large as our moon or 
 perhaps as large as any of our planets. 
 
 5. These bodies would still have motion, and it would be 
 their motion of mass that would persist to the end because it 
 would not be dissipated by radiation as would their molecular 
 motion. For this reason, they for the most part would be in the 
 solid form; and this is the form that fits them best to enter in- 
 to the formation of new systems, since it is in the collision of 
 solids that the required degree of heat is assured. It is also in 
 the coming together of solids large or small, that the rotary 
 motion is most apt to be produced. And so the process ends in 
 the beginning of a new and similar process, which goes on and 
 on, how long we cannot tell. 
 
 Since the above was written another new star has suddenly 
 appeared in the Constellation Perseus near the famous variable 
 
-246 — 
 star Algol. Here are some interesting facts about this star. Two 
 nights previous to the night of its discovery the region in which 
 it was discovered had been photographed, but no star brighter 
 than those of the tenth magnitude appeared in its immediate 
 neighborhood. On the night of its discovery the new star shown 
 as a star of two and seven tenths magnitude. Its heat and light, 
 therefore, had increased in two days, to more than 5000 times. 
 It continued to increase rapidly in brightness until on the second 
 night after discovery it had reached its highest point, which 
 was three tenths brighter than stars of the first magnitude. 
 After this it declined slowly. A few days ago (March 9th, 1901) 
 it was of the 4th magnitude and was expected to disappear from 
 sight in a few days. This star was first noticed by Prof. T. D. 
 Anderson of Edinburg, Scotland, on Feb. 21st, 1901. Prof. T. J. 
 See, the U. S. government astronomer at Washington, D. C. has 
 expressed the opinion that this star was a dark sun in rapid mo- 
 tion, which had plunged into a cloud-like mass of nebulous mat- 
 ter, the friction in which had suddenly raised its temperature. 
 But what is a dark sun? If such a thing exists it can only be 
 accounted for under the theory here advanced. It must be a 
 large mass of matter, possibly as large as our sun, which has 
 cooled down so far as to be incapable of emitting light. The rap- 
 id rush of such a body thru a swarm of small meteoric stones, 
 would no doubt produce the effect witnessed and we might expect 
 a similar result even in a dense body of vapor. This is the me- 
 chanical impact required and in perfect accord with the present 
 theory, and this form of contact called friction will no doubt ap- 
 ply to this case best because it agrees with the gradual rise of 
 temperature, which required at least four days and nights from 
 its beginning to its highest point. 
 
 In the "Popular Science Monthly" for April, 1901, appears 
 a brief comment on this star, in which the writer says: "Any 
 theory which aims to explain the phenomena must at least ac- 
 count for certain leading facts. The increase of light is very 
 sudden and very great. The decrease is slower and sometimes 
 irregular, but no collision can have occurred such as would change 
 a solid body into a gaseous, otherwise ages, not weeks would be 
 required in the cooling. ** It appears probable that the phenom- 
 ena are due either to some outburst in the dark world itself, or 
 else to the collision of a solid dark world passing thru a dense 
 meteoric swarm." 
 
 The rapid passage of a dark world thru a dense meteoric 
 cloud as an explanation, is not inconsistent with physical laws 
 nor with the observed facts in this case; but if all physical ac- 
 tivities are reducible to the laws which govern the motion of 
 inert matter, it is not clear what would cause an outburst like 
 this in the dark world itself. It could not have been a chemical 
 
— 247 — 
 explosion on a scale so large. Physical nature does not compound 
 explosives in such large quantities. If the collision of two or 
 more small bodies with each other or with a larger body, is pos- 
 sible, the collision of two solids equal in mass to this earth or 
 even to our sun must be equally possible. If their momentum 
 was great enough to convert the largest part of the material in- 
 to a glowing gas, the effect would necessarily be attended by a 
 very great expansion and diffusion of the material into the sur- 
 rounding ether in all directions. This diffusion in the medium 
 would of course be attended by a very rapid communication of 
 the extra molecular motion to the medium, and hence a rapid 
 reduction of the temperature to the point at which stable equi- 
 librium between the internal expansive force of the body and 
 the outside pressure of the medium had been reached. After 
 this the cooling and condensation would proceed much slower 
 simply because there is a more complete separation of the atoms 
 and the ether. The atoms are gathered together in the central 
 mass, the ether between them is much more rare, their vibra- 
 tions are shorter and more rapid, and moving thru a nearly free 
 space they retain their motion longer; and so it is that the lucid 
 star may shine for ages with little diminution, while the new 
 star may at first and for a short time undergo a considerable re- 
 duction of temperature. Looking at the matter in this way it 
 does not seem necessary to exclude (at least in all cases) the 
 collision of solids of great mass in order to account for the rapid 
 decline of the heat and light of new stars. 
 
 53. CONCLUSION. — Several questions concerning the universe 
 as a whole are now raised, and at least five of which may re- 
 ceive a brief notice before ending the book. 
 
 1. Is the universe limited in space? If the most powerful 
 telescope yet invented can reveal stars so far away that their 
 light must require millions of years to reach this earth, and if 
 in this way we can sound the depths of the star-strewed space 
 in every direction yet see no limits, then of course it requires 
 some courage to even ask this question; and to attempt to an- 
 swer it, will no doubt seem to many persons to be the wildest 
 of speculations. The knowledge possessed by the animal world 
 is limited to the sphere of sense and to what they can remem- 
 ber of sense experience. If the animals could make the attempt 
 to answer this question they would most likely say that the uni- 
 verse is not limited. The majority of the people today will make 
 the same answer. They do not seem to know that the old, nar- 
 row, animal habit of thinking is still upon them. If we cannot 
 see the limit, there is no limit. Sense experience first, reason 
 next; but the majority of the people never get beyond sense ex- 
 perience; hence they cannot reason. The law and method de- 
 
— 248 — 
 scribed in chapters one and two will give us a decisive and final 
 answer to this question. It was there shown that time and space, 
 viewed as not related to anything else, are nothing; when view- 
 ed in their true relations to existing things, they are necessary 
 objects of thought. Whatever exists, must exist in, or occupy, 
 time and space. That which occupies space cannot exceed the 
 limits of space nor can it co-extend with space because space in 
 itself being nothing, is neither limited nor extended. So it fol- 
 lows that whatever exists must be limited in space. So with 
 time. Whatever exists must have a time or period of existence 
 which is inseparable from the thing existing. Time is not some- 
 thing apart from existing things; for if it was it would be some- 
 thing which does not exist. So it follows that whatever exists 
 requires time and must be limited in space. This limited thing 
 we call the universe of matter; with its mind and motion, the 
 fundamental thing of all things. This foundation reality must 
 co-endure with time because its duration without beginning or 
 end is time itself. But its numerous changes of form, state, 
 conditions or new creations, may be limited in time because 
 they are only changes in this one everlasting thing. Herein we 
 have the deepest of all relations, and it proves to be simply 
 nothing-something. Beyond or deeper than this couple, right 
 thinking cannot take us, because there is nothing deeper than 
 nothing; nothing beyond or outside of time and space. So this 
 universe must be limited in space, but unlimited in time. 
 
 The same conclusion may be reached from a different prem- 
 ise. From the inertia of matter and from sense experience, it 
 appears that all sensible bodies are in constant motion and that 
 motion persists because matter is inert. In order to explain all 
 known physical facts it has been found necessary to assume the 
 existence of an ether medium governed by the same physical 
 laws, and which medium must be bounded on all sides by abso- 
 lutely solid matter. With this assumption everything is readily 
 explained; without it, this physical universe is a maze of discon- 
 nected bewildering facts. This way of regarding the question 
 is simple common sense or ordinary judgment applied to things 
 on the largest scale. Yet among all the critics to whom this idea 
 has been submitted I do not recall one who has been able to ac- 
 cept it. All seem to understand the idea perfectly. They under- 
 stand why a hen's egg must have a shell; some of them can 
 even see why a stout iron boiler is necessary to retain and util- 
 ize the steam in a locomotive; but to apply the same idea to a 
 thing so great as this whole universe, wy, its just awful, and I 
 am told that my shell theory of the universe is no good. But to 
 be true to my conviction that natural law is universal, that to 
 know the universal truth we have only to learn the same truth 
 on a sensible scale, I must hold to this view. 
 
-249 — 
 
 2. Is the universal cycle described in this chapter, perma- 
 nent? It is upon this vast series of changes that the life of the 
 universe depends, but since it is a series which, as we shall see, 
 may be made, to deviate from a fixed routine, in fact that it is 
 something which might have been created, the question wheth- 
 er it is permanent or not, is a far more difficult one to answer. 
 While it is at present and very generally possible within the re- 
 gion of bright stars, it is not an universal fact. As already men- 
 tioned, large quantities of ponderable matter may exist for im- 
 mense ages without any change, or at least without undergoing 
 such a series of changes. But that all ponderable matter is li- 
 able to this manner of change, that it can be established as a 
 series and maintained permanently or discontinued by the inter- 
 vention of mind, will be made sufficiently clear as we proceed. 
 Accepting the theory that it is simply a difference of mass be- 
 tween the small particles of the ether and the ultimate atoms of 
 ponderable matter, also a difference of mass between the atoms 
 of the different elementary bodies, which secures all the mechan- 
 ical relations of the ether and the atoms, also the atoms and mole- 
 cules among themselves, and under which theory we are able 
 to explain and harmonize all physical facts, (chapters 3. 4. 5. 6 
 and 7), our nextstepisto consider certain relations between the 
 ether and the atoms which have never been noticed before and 
 which may afford some light on this question. 
 
 All ponderable bodies from the smallest atom up to thelarg- 
 est star, must meet with more or less resistance from the ether 
 in their motion thru it. This resistance means the transfer of 
 motion from ponderable matter to the ether, and this transfer 
 is much more rapid from the atoms and molecules than it is from 
 the large cold solids. The present motion of the earth in its orbit 
 and on its axis, will no doubt continue with little diminution for 
 many millions of years. But if all of this motion were suddenly 
 transformed into heat, and if the earth was prevented from fall- 
 ing into the sun, all this heat would be transferred to the ether 
 in a much shorter time. But whether the motion be that of a 
 large solid or a small atom it is continually being transferred to 
 the ether. Now the constant friction of the atoms, molecules 
 and all their sensible aggregates in this ether, and the necessity 
 that every center of aggregation of sensible size and larger, 
 must result from the union of smaller aggregates, makes it 
 highly probable if not certain, that, since the motion in such 
 centers is being continually given to the ether thru friction and 
 radiation, that the formation of such centers must gradually be- 
 come less frequent, until finally all ponderable matter will have 
 come to a stand still or nearly so, and all motion will have been 
 uniformly distributed among the atoms and the ether. It thus 
 appears that each unit of the ether, each atom and each larger 
 
— 250 — 
 solid will contain a quantity of motion proportional to its quan- 
 tity of matter, resulting in a state of universal mechanical equi- 
 librium, wherein aggregation and separation as in the described 
 cycle of physical changes would be impossible. Such a state 
 would violate no physical law. The uniform diffusion of motion 
 in all movable bodies would be the final result and the present 
 round of physical changes upon which the planetary life of the 
 universe depends would be out of the question. 
 
 But in view of certain facts next to be considered, such a 
 result, if not impossible, must at least be deferred to the end of 
 a period of time far greater than we can estimate. As a plan- 
 etary system undergoes condensation its most dense material 
 will form solids, in some cases of great magnitude. The pres- 
 sure of the ether would prevent the breaking up of such solids 
 by their rotary motion. A cold solid displaces the ether in pro- 
 portion to its density, and the more ether displaced the greater 
 the pressure of the ether on the outside of the body. The units 
 of the ether being the smallest of all the distinct portions of 
 matter, and being immediately surrounded by empty space, 
 must receive and retain motion until nearly or quite all of it has 
 been transferred to the ether. It is therefore evident that the 
 components of a system, at least the more dense portions, will 
 remain intact until the last of their motion, even that of the 
 whole mass has been dissipated. But the motion which would 
 remain with them longest would be their motion of mass and 
 this would certainly survive long after the system had been bro- 
 ken up and its parts scattered. These moving solids would stand 
 a good chance to take part in the formation of new systems as 
 already described. Now, tho it is true that the ether is continu- 
 ally absorbing the motion of ponderable matter thru friction 
 and radiation, principally the latter, it is equally true that the 
 ether is continually increasing the motion of ponderable matter 
 thru acceleration due to radiation and difference of pressure. 
 The law of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies has 
 been described in §21. The question now is; does this accelera- 
 tion return to ponderable matter an equivalent of the motion 
 imparted to the ether thru radiation and friction? 
 
 As already mentioned mathematicions have shown that if 
 two solid bodies, each equal to one half the mass of our sun and 
 moving directly toward each other under the force of gravity 
 and at the rate of 476 miles per second, thus meeting in a head 
 on collision, heat enough would be produced to cover the pres- 
 ent rate of the sun's radiation for a period of 50 millions of years. 
 If it is possible to estimate the quantity of motion transformed 
 into heat in such cases, it ought to be possible to estimate the 
 quantity of motion gained thru acceleration when two bodies 
 fall together in this way thru a given distance; also to estimate 
 
-251- 
 the time required in gaining the motion. We can form some idea 
 of the enormous gain which would be sure to follow when we 
 consider the fact that, according to this law, a body falling 
 from a high place will pass thru 16 feet in the first second of 
 time, three times that distance in the next second and so on at 
 the same rate of increase. It has been shown that if the motion 
 of mass in our earth was instantly changed into heat, the tem- 
 perature of the whole earth would be raised to a point equal to 
 that of the rapid combusion of a mass of coal 14 times the mass 
 of the earth or 11,200°. Then, after being warmed up in this 
 way, if the earth should fall into the sun, (which it would, not 
 having any centrifugal force to hold it back) its temperature 
 would be increased to 400 times that amount or 4,480,000 times 
 the present temperature of our planet. How long it would take 
 the earth to fall into the sun is not known to me, but from the 
 above facts it ought to be possible not only to estimate this time, 
 but also to measure the quantity of motion gained thru acceler- 
 ation during the fall. How long it would take the eun to expend 
 the heat gained by the fall of the earth is also a mystery; but 
 this too is a question which the man of figures might readily an- 
 swer, and with this answer it must be possible to compare the 
 time required in gaining by acceleration a given quantity of 
 motion, to the time required in expending by radiation the same 
 quantity of motion after it had been converted into heat; and 
 what would be the difference? No doubt it would be like com- 
 paring a few days or perhaps no more than a month, with a 
 million years. 
 
 So it would seem that while it requires millions of years to 
 communicate a given quantity of motion to the ether by radi- 
 ation, it requires an almost incomparably shorter time to return 
 the same quantity of motion to ponderable matter thru differ- 
 ence of pressure due to the same form of radiation. From which 
 we might assume that all the motion derived from the ether as 
 due to acceleration, at the time of the formation of the original 
 nebula from which our system was evolved, including that which 
 its components already possessed and that which might have 
 united with the system since the beginning of its development, 
 may, at the time of its dissolution, be the exact equivalent of 
 all that which was radiated from the system during the same 
 time and that which it retains for the purpose of its dissolution. 
 In short it must be a simple case of receiving and giving the 
 same quantity of motion. The system cannot radiate more than 
 it absorbs, neither can it absorb more than it radiate; allowing 
 for that which is retained for its dissolution. 
 
 But how about the universe as a whole? It appears that 
 while one system is dissipating its matter and the last part of 
 its motion, as in its dissolution, another system just born or 
 
— 252 — 
 much younger, would be accumulating matter and motion by 
 dissipating the first part of its motion as in radiation and differ- 
 ence of pressure; and that these agencies are reciprocally bal- 
 anced, the ether returning to ponderable matter thru difference 
 of pressure and the acoeleration due to falling motion, at differ- 
 ent times and places, an equivalent of the motion continually 
 being lost by radiation at other points. So it seems that what 
 is true of our system in this respect may be true of the universe. 
 
 Granting all this as entirely possible for a very long time, 
 we are nevertheless not at liberty to accept it as an eternally 
 enduring mechanical series. The present mechanical order of 
 the universe has been shown to depend upon a certain differ- 
 ence between the atoms and the particles of the ether, also be- 
 tween the atoms of one element and another. This admirable 
 arrangement which is necessary to the life of the universe, is, 
 as we shall see later, most perfectly adapted to the operation 
 of physical laws and to this great cycle of physical changes, and 
 the question is pressing hard for an answer; is it permanent? 
 
 Chemists have put forward the claim that they are able to 
 reduce the atoms to a point which they call a fourth state, in 
 which they elude all tests for their presence. The fact that enor- 
 mous quantities of hydrogen now exist within and above the 
 photosphere of the sun, might be explained on the theory that 
 it was manufactured there by the reducing action of intense 
 heat, from larger elements, more readily than on the theory 
 that it was left there by the slow condensation of the original 
 nebula. It must at least be admitted as possible that the atoms 
 are reducible to even that finest form of matter which we call 
 the ether; hence no sure conclusion based on physical laws, can 
 be accepted as to the eternal duration of the present order of 
 physical changes. 
 
 But such questions must seem idle to many people because 
 they are so far outside the range of the ordinary comprehension. 
 Here we contemplate a mechanical system so extended in time 
 and space as to be wholly beyond our most enlarged conception 
 of things. We can approach it only on the supposition that what 
 is true of a given mechanical process on a small and sensible 
 scale, must be true in like manner of the whole. If law is uni- 
 versal then of course such speculations are warrantable. Besides, 
 there is a fascination in them, for the speculative mind, which 
 is well nigh irresistable. One question raises another, and that 
 another, and the more we think the more we are impelled to 
 think; and of all the questions yet brought up in this discourse, 
 there are none more attractive, and as I believe more worthy 
 of the serious regard of all men, than the one next to be con- 
 sidered; and the answer to which may serve as an answer to 
 the present question. 
 
-253 — 
 
 3. Is there anything in this great material system which is 
 superior to physical laws and more worthy of the name Energy 
 or Mind? Is there any evidence of design in the system itself 
 which would implicate the work of a Supreme Mind? It seems 
 perfectly clear to me that every step in this (what I would call 
 a rigidly exact inductive process from the beginning of the book 
 to the last page), has been leading directly to an affirmative 
 answer to this question. And here I want to mention that I have 
 not followed this line of reason with any preconceived theory to 
 justify. My sole object has been to find the universal harmony 
 of facts as required by the recognized rules of inductive science. 
 Following is a brief outline review of the principal steps which 
 have led to the answer to this question of all questions. 
 
 In chapters first and second it was shown that nothing exists 
 but things, that the Universe is all things and that Philosophy 
 is their explanation. It was explained that Matter is the one 
 universal thing in which it was necessary to create Difference 
 and Relations, in order to permit the existence and the creation 
 of all other things. In chapter third it was explained that the 
 two first and most fundamental distinctions in matter are Motion 
 and Mind; and that all further distinctions or thing, are due to 
 difference in the Forms, States, Relations and Changes in Mat- 
 ter, Motion and Mind. It was also shown that Physical Energy 
 is the motion of Inert Matter and that the law of its conserva- 
 tion is the Law of Inertia. And further, it was shown that Inertia 
 and Consciousness are two opposite properties of the one sub- 
 stance Matter, that they are convertible into each other, the 
 one disappearing when the other appears, and hence, that when 
 matter is conscious it is not inert, and so may control its own 
 motion, thus being able to act for self as in ordinary conduct, 
 and thus to some extent being independent of physical laws. 
 
 This power of mind to control the motion of matter has been 
 carefully considered and justified in book 2. Now, if this power 
 belongs to the life of a planet it may also belong to a Supreme 
 Spirit, and so there may be an Universal Spirit or Mind which 
 is above and superior to the inertia of matter and which at any 
 time may interfere with it so far as to control the direction of 
 motion just as we do within our own brains every day we live. 
 That such power has been at work in this physical universe at 
 large, admits of no doubt simply because there is no other way 
 to account for this material arrangement. We cannot regard it 
 as a thing of chance, nor is it a physical accident; so it must 
 be a creation of Mind, and this too on a scale of magnitude far 
 greater than that possible for any being of planet life. 
 
 This is impressed upon us in a way that we cannot fail to 
 understand, by a general survey of the facts in their systematic 
 order. In all the conceivable arrangements of the substance of 
 
— 254 — 
 the universe there is really but one, in which the existence of a 
 conscious mind as we know it on this planet, is possible; and 
 this is in the differences, similarities, transformations and uni- 
 formities, which we perceive in the surrounding material world. 
 We naturally ask; did all this come about by mere chance? And 
 we might ask the same question in many other cases. How did 
 we get this particular difference in mass between the atoms and 
 the particles of the ether, upon which depends the difference, 
 and hence all the important mechanical relations and results, in 
 short, the entire physical universe as we see it at present, if it 
 is not the w r ork of an intelligent being with a definite object in 
 view? Or how did we get the difference of mass by which the 
 atoms are distinguished, and from which comes all the chemi- 
 cal properties of matter, all the colors, tastes, smells and forms 
 of sensible objects, if there is no designing mind in nature? 
 And how about this? If the universe of moving matter is inclosed 
 on all sides by an absolute solid (and it surely must be) how did 
 the motionless matter get outside and all around the matter 
 which has motion? or, how did the motion get thru this solid 
 shell and into the ether and the atoms, formed as they are to 
 allow free space in which to move? How did the parts of a clock 
 or a watch get together in that one particular way which was 
 necessary to make a good time-keeper? It requires only the 
 most ordinary common sense to answer any of these questions. 
 Physical laws tho accessory to this systematic arrangement, 
 could never have produced it alone. There is no chance for the 
 sceptic to dodge, nor the careless to overlook this point. 
 
 This physical system is not only perfectly adapted to the 
 operation of physical laws, but more significant, it is perfectly 
 adapted to the evolution of life under necessary physical con- 
 ditons. There are many different chaotic forms in which matter 
 might exist quite as well as it now exists, but in which the pres- 
 ent orderly arrangement would not exist. This is, without doubt, 
 the one material construction and operation in which living be- 
 ings clothed in flesh like ourselves and the others, could exist 
 and be able to pass thru the evolutionary stages which raise 
 them from the lowest to the higher forms of life. The two ex- 
 treams of heat and cold are not adapted to the development of 
 living organisms such as we have on this planet; hence the need 
 of an intermediate temperature, along with all the other essen- 
 tials, and this is brought about by instituting a mechanical seri- 
 es which repeatedly brings about and maintains for a time a 
 planetary system like the one we now inhabit. The doctrine of 
 design in nature has been opposed on the plea that living forms 
 have adapted themselves thru natural selection and survival of 
 the fittest, to existing and accidental physical conditions; and no 
 doubt this is true to some small extent; but to a much greater 
 
-255- 
 extent it is evident that there must have been this arrangement 
 of materials under physical conditions as necessary to give op- 
 portunity to the exercise of mind thru all its evolutionary stages. 
 We cannot expect that a heated mass like our sun would be a 
 fit place for planetary life. Our earth affords ample proof that 
 the tropical and temperate zones are well suited to the require- 
 ments of life while the arctic regions are much less so, and these 
 regions are warmer than the ethereal sea above our atmosphere. 
 So we have examples within our own solar system, of the two 
 extremes of heat and cold between which planetary life is pos- 
 sible, and nowhere else, and these are secured and maintained 
 for a time by the present arrangement. No one would expect 
 that a locomotive could have acquired its own perfect adapta- 
 tion to physical laws and to human use, without the help of 
 some thoughtful person who had some ideas about railroading. 
 
 Briefly stated, we have here a community of facts or me- 
 chanical elements, each one playing a necessary part in bring- 
 ing out a result which is no other than the evolution of planet- 
 ary life; the great variety of forms of life on this planet being 
 examples. As evidence for the existence of a Supreme Mind, this 
 seems entirely satisfactory, indeed it is hard to understand how 
 anyone could wish for anything more convincing. If any reason- 
 able person should discover a construction like this, here on 
 earth on a small scale, they would certainly not hesitate to pro- 
 nounce it the work of men; but we fail to see how any ordinary 
 person could accomplish so much on a scale so immence. And 
 another thing: it must have been a Great Spirit that did all this. 
 No mind in the flesh could do it. 
 
 As to the future of the life of the universe we may now 
 venture with a few conjectures. From the premise that mind 
 is something which could not create itself, it follows that the 
 Supreme or Universal Mind never was created. Being the soul 
 Creator of all the forms of matter, motion, mind, (except those 
 created by man and the lower animals, book 2), He could not 
 create Himself without preexisting self in some other form of 
 mind; and so on without limit. But will beings like ourselves 
 and the others always continue to live, reproduce and die, under 
 physical conditions as at present, or will there be a change? 
 Without a doubt the duration of the present order which brings 
 in the planets with their swarms of life, is immeasurably great, 
 but we cannot say it is eternal unless the power of the Almighty 
 is exercised to make it so; and as to His future plans of course 
 we know nothing. If He is able to create He must be able to 
 destroy or renew perpetually. 
 
 But in this view we can make at least one legitimate infer- 
 ence from physical laws. It was mentioned (page 252) that we 
 have reason to believe that the atoms, which are the mechani- 
 
— 256 — 
 cal unitsof the present order, are reducible to smaller particles. 
 Adopting this view, which is at least a possibility, it follows that 
 a time will come when all ponderable matter will be reduced to 
 a form of minute division similar to that of the present ether. 
 In this universal medium all motion would be uniformly diffused 
 and sensibly lost to the physical universe; in fact, there would 
 be no physical universe. If this medium was bounded on the out- 
 side by an absolute solid, as it must be at present, it is then 
 certain that the universe will have reached a state of absolute 
 permanence; since it is impossible to see from physical laws 
 that any further change could take place. At this very remote 
 time the present physical order with its life, would be inpossi- 
 ble; and would have long before ceased to exist. And thus would 
 end the most remote possibility of planetary life. Now, is this 
 the end of all life? Does our theory of Mental Evolution lead us 
 to nothing better than a dead universe? 
 
 As we shall see in book two there are hundreds of mental 
 facts on record and now being gathered in all parts of the world, 
 and which, when completely systematized and understood, will 
 reveal a theory of mind and life, which is not complete until we 
 admit as a necessary part of it, a future spiritual life for the 
 inhabitants of this and all other life-supporting planets. When 
 rightly put together these facts plainly show us the truth that 
 the mental organism of man and perhaps that of all life, sur- 
 vives the death of the material body, and thereafter continues 
 to live a purely mental or spiritual life, in which, physical con- 
 ditions are absent and unnecessary. They are unnecessary be- 
 cause the external objective world in spirit life is purely mental, 
 and created by mind alone. Being separated from this material 
 objective world, and having no further use for its physical con- 
 ditions, this purely mental life would be perfectly suited to a 
 homogeneous ethereal medium, toward which the present physi- 
 cal universe is now to all appearance progressing. 
 
 So it would seem that by the utmost stretch of the spcula- 
 tive imagination, we can reach at least the possibility, that this 
 Physical Universe and its life, will, in the end, be transformed 
 into a purely Mental or Spiritual Universe, in which all living 
 things are one with God. 
 
 4. What are the attributes of God? We have now reached 
 the answers to three important questions. 1st. The physical uni- 
 verse is limited in space and bounded on the outside by an ab- 
 solute solid. 2nd. The physical universe contains a vast mechan- 
 ical system, perfectly calculated to serve the needs of the evo- 
 lution of planetary life, but which may not be permanent. 3rd. 
 The form and mechanical perfection of this physical universe, 
 and its complete adaptation to the evolution of life, proves the 
 intervention of a Supreme Mind, properly called God. 
 
—257— 
 
 Now, the next question in order concerns the personality of 
 this Supreme Mind. Is He a real person? What is the nature of 
 His creative power, ecc? According to the Bible and other au- 
 thorities, God is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient Be- 
 ing. These are said to be His three chief attributes. The first 
 means that He is possessed of unlimited or infinite power; the 
 second, that He is present in all places at the same time, and 
 the third, that He is possessed of infinite wisdom— knowing all 
 things. As mentioned in the preface, it has been my object thru- 
 out this work to use Human Reason, as I understand it, as a 
 test for all questions concerning God, Nature and Man. Here 
 are the results of my reasoning on the attributes of God. 
 
 In book two it is shown that every living thing, from the 
 most simple up to man, then thru all social states or forms of 
 government up to God, is, and must be, a Mental Organism. A 
 mental organism is an association of active mental elements, 
 united thru a common center and always striving for agreeable 
 relations. In the individual man or animal, the mental elements 
 are called memories, faculties, organs and other parts of mind. 
 In the society, the mental elements are called animals or men. 
 In God, the mental elements may be called Humanized Men. In 
 man and the lower animals the mental organism is essentially 
 an individual — an association of active mental elements which 
 cannot exist alone, and the relations of which, to some extent, 
 must be agreeable. In society the mental organism is likewise 
 an individual —an association of active mental elements (men or 
 animals) which cannot exist alone, and the relations of which to 
 some extent must be agreeable. Now, in the Supreme Mind, we 
 have the highest form of the mental organism; and it must be 
 an individual exactly the same, governed by the same law (§9, 
 book two) as the lower individuals. If God is a conscious, think- 
 ing, rational Being, He must be an individual mental organism; 
 simply because consciousness is impossible without a mental or- 
 ganism, at least of the animal type below and including man. In 
 God we have the highest form, the most perfect development, 
 of the individual mind and we can fairly call it the culmination 
 of mental evolution. Not that God is a direct product of the law 
 of evolution, but that evolution clearly points the way by which 
 man may become completely Humanized and one with God. 
 
 "I and my Father are one. * If I do not the works of my 
 Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, 
 believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the 
 Father is in me, and I in him." John 10: 30, 37, also 14: 10, 11. 
 
 Here and in many other places in the Christian gospel we 
 have the words and the works of a man who has proved beyond 
 question that he was one with God the Father of Humanity. 
 
 Here also we have a series of mental organisms showing 
 
— 258 — 
 the different stages of mental development from the lowest an- 
 imal up to man, then thru the several forms of the social men- 
 tal organism up to the one which truly deserves to be called the 
 Righteous State. Now, in our search for God within the sphere 
 of our knowledge, it seems certain that we must look for Him 
 in this series of individuals which show the different stages of 
 moral and intellectual development. We cannot place Him any- 
 where below man, neither can we place Him as low as even the 
 highest of men. To be a thinking being possessed of the highest 
 known moral and intellectual attainments, He must be an indi- 
 vidual mental organism something like the present most per- 
 fect man but much higher. To be able to create a universe like 
 this, He must be able to control an amount of power far great- 
 er than that of the most perfect single man known to us. He 
 cannot be a combination of men like a social state in earth life, 
 because we have no example of a perfect social state sc far in 
 history and there is good reason to believe that, in the present 
 mixed state of society, men cannot be united on the most agree- 
 able terms so as to act together as one man, simply because the 
 average man is still a half-animal creature incapable of the high- 
 er developmt within a few generations. As shown in book two, 
 men may be united far more closely under the law of selective 
 mental affinity in spirit life. It therefore seems perfectly clear 
 that we have no choice but to admit that God is, and must be, 
 a vast Congregation of the most Exalted Spirits. 
 
 Swedenborg's account of the God of heaven comes nearer 
 to what I would suppose Him to be, than anything I have seen 
 in print so far. I quote the following from his 'Heaven and Hell. ' 
 
 "The first thing necessary to be known is, who is the God 
 of heaven; for everything else depends on this. * I have often 
 conversed with the angels on this subject, and they constantly 
 declared, that they are unable to divide the Divine Being into 
 three, because they know and perceive that the Divine Being 
 is One, and that he is One in the Lord." (page 4.) 
 
 From this and many other passages in Swedenborg's writ- 
 ings it appears that the people of the highest spheres in spirit 
 life, can believe only in one all prevalent Divine Being, who is 
 in each one of them and in all things, shaping every thought 
 and act. This is conspicuous in the following: "Every one in the 
 heavens knows and believes, yea, perceives, that he can neither 
 will nor do any thing of good, nor think and believe any thing 
 of truth, from himself, but only from the Divine Being, thus 
 from the Lord; and that the good and truth which are from him- 
 self, are not really such, because there is no life within them 
 from a Divine source." Which substantially means that the Di- 
 vine sphere of the Lord constitutes Heaven, "and that it is not 
 constitututed by the angels or by anything proper to them.' p. 7. 
 
—259- 
 
 It is even asserted by this author that heaven has the ex- 
 terior form of an ordinary man, both as a whole and in its sub- 
 ordinate parts. Here is a summary of his views up to page 43. 
 
 1. "That the Lord is the God of heaven. 2. That the Divine 
 Sphere of the Lord constitutes heaven. 3. That heaven consists 
 of innumerable societies; and that each society is a heaven on a 
 smaller scale, and that every angel is a heaven in miniature. 4. 
 That the whole heaven, viewed collectively, is in form as one 
 man. 5. That every society in the heavens is also in form as one 
 man. 6. That thence every angel is in a perfect human form. 
 All these truths point to this conclusion: That the Divine Being, 
 whose Proceeding Sphere is what constitutes heaven, is Human 
 in form. * That such is the fact, has been evinced to me by much 
 experience, part of which shall now be related. No angel in all 
 the heavens ever has a perception of the Divine Being under 
 any other form than the Human; and, what is wonderful, those 
 who inhabit the superior heavens cannot think of the Divine 
 Being in any other manner. They derive the necessity of so think- 
 ing from the Divine Sphere itself which enters into them; and 
 also, from the form of heaven, according to which their thoughts 
 diffuse themselves around. For every thought conceived by the 
 angels diffuses itself into heaven around about them, and they 
 enjoy intelligence and wisdom according to the extent of that 
 diffusion. Hence it is that all in heaven acknowledge the Lord, 
 because there is no Divine Humanity except in Him." 
 
 The diffusion of thought mentioned above, is a possibility 
 even here on earth between persons who take some interest in 
 each other, and it is now known as Telepathy. (§34, book two.) 
 I have tried to show elsewhere that this is the spirit sense, im- 
 perfect in earth life but perfect in spirit life. This is the tie 
 that binds souls together in spirit life, and the closeness of the 
 union will depend on the moral and intellectual development of 
 the people who form the society. Since all social intercourse 
 in spirit life must be purely mental (not thru physically guided 
 motion as in earth life,) it follows, that in order to secure agree- 
 able relations, societies must be formed by a selective process 
 dependent on mental affinities. In this way the most perfect and 
 lasting unions, in which there is the most agreeable relations, 
 are secured. Thus the society becomes a mental unit, which, in 
 all cases thinks and acts as one man, and which, in the most 
 strict sense of the word is an individual mental organism. Now, 
 if a being like this lived wholly within itself, nothing to do with 
 anything outside, it would have no use for a unifying center in 
 which there must be a distinct person who performs the office 
 of administrator. But since heaven consists of innumerable so- 
 cieties and since each one of these is a heaven in itself, differ- 
 ing somewhat from the others and having something to do with 
 
-260- 
 the others, each society must be, in itself, an individual having 
 a unifying center, in which is located either a single presiding 
 spirit or a group of them, who act as administrators of the Di- 
 vine law. This view is necessary from the form and mode of op- 
 eration of the mental organism as described in Chap, two, book 
 two, and according to which, every organism, individual or so- 
 cial, must have a governing center consisting of one or more of 
 its component individuals. All that I have been able to find so far 
 in Swedenborg's writings, as to the existence of such a center, 
 is the following: 
 
 "That as heaven collectively is as one man, so every society 
 is as a man on a small scale, and every angel on the smallest. 
 That in the midst dwell the most wise, and in the circumferen- 
 ces, by degrees, extending to the boundaries, those who are less 
 wise; and that it is the same in every society." (page 112.) 
 
 Also in the matter of light or intellectual development, we 
 find the following on page 73: 
 
 "The light, also, is not the same in one society as in another. 
 It likewise differs in each indivdual society; those who inhabit 
 the center enjoy more light, and those in the circumferences, 
 less. In one word; in the same degree as the angels are recipients 
 of Divine Truth, or are grounded in intelligence and wisdom 
 from the Lord, they have light. On this account, the angels of 
 heaven are called angels of light." 
 
 To make everything clear as far as this author has gone in- 
 to the matter, it will be necessary to quote a passage or two 
 from his chapter on Hell, page 394: 
 
 "When treating above respecting heaven, it has everywhere 
 been shewn, that the Lord is the God of Heaven; and thus that 
 the whole government of the heavens is that of the Lord. Now, 
 as the relation which heaven bears to hell, and that which hell 
 bears to heaven, is such as exists between two opposites, which 
 mutually act against each other, and the result of whose action 
 is a state of equilibrium, in which all things may subsist; there- 
 fore, in order that all and everything should be maintained in 
 equilibrium, it is necessary that He who governs the one should 
 also govern the other. For unless the Ruler were to restrain the 
 assaults made by the hells, and to keep down the insanities which 
 rage in them, the equilibrium would be destroyed and with it 
 the whole universe." 
 
 It is thus clear that Swedenborg's idea of the personality of 
 God, as derived from his direct clairvoyant communication with 
 the people of spirit life, is the same as my own, up to a certain 
 point. He believes that God is an individual, all-wise and all- 
 powerful. As I shall try to make plain later, God must possess 
 the highest possible wisdom, but His power must be limited to 
 the number of united and humanized spirits who constitute heav- 
 
— 261 — 
 en. But nowhere in Swedenborg's writings do we find any inti- 
 mation that the personality of the Supreme, is simply a result 
 of the union of a great number of the highest human spirits. On 
 the contrary, he tries to make it clear in a number of places, 
 that God is a distinct Person, totally independent of the universe 
 over which He presides. Yet it is admitted, at least in one place, 
 that the power in heaven appears to come from the angels them- 
 selves. Read the following page 395: 
 
 "This sphere from heaven was perceived to be from the 
 Lord alone, though it appeared to come from the angels in heav- 
 en. The reason that it was perceived to come from the Lord 
 alone, and not from the angels, is, because every angel in heav- 
 en acknowledges, that there is nothing of good and truth origi- 
 nating in himself, but that it is all from the Lord." 
 
 Now, from certain laws of mind fully described in book two, 
 also from the Christian gospel, it seems that we may not be far 
 from the truth if we suppose that the Supreme Mind of the uni- 
 verse, is not a single individual like an ordinary man, nor yet 
 a single society or combination of such men, but a combination 
 of all the individuals or societies from the lowest of the animals 
 up to the highest of men. He is the Universal Mind, and this 
 limited Physical Universe is His material body. He is a Spirit 
 just as all mind is spirit. His power is that of mind; the same 
 which is used in the bodies of every man or animal on earth and 
 fully explained in book two. His knowledge is absolute — as com- 
 plete as is possible in a limited universe like this. He is in every 
 place in the universe where there is conscious mind, but His at- 
 tention is governed by the law of the individuality of conscious- 
 ness described in § 9 book two. For this reason He cannot be 
 attentive to all that's going on in the universe at the same mo- 
 ment. He is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe — earth, heaven 
 and hell and all things therein. Nature's laws are His laws and 
 all that is or that happens is right and good in the ultimate sense 
 because it is necessary to the consumations of His plans for the 
 Creation and Salvation of Men. (chapter four, book two.) 
 
 As already remarked, if we attempt to designate any part 
 of this Universal Mind as the one Omnipotent God, it seems 
 that we must regard Him as an Association of the most exalted 
 human beings in spirit life. Such beings are united as one man 
 and governed solely by the moral law as set forth in the Chris- 
 tian Gospel. In such a combination we would have the source of 
 the greatest mental power that seems possible. Knowledge is 
 power and knowledge is mind. To get this power to the highest 
 degree, there is just one way — the association of organized and 
 active mental elements, under the most agreeable relations. To 
 secure the most agreeable relations, the mental elements must 
 be of that highest order known as humanized men. This would 
 
— 262 — 
 constitute the brains of the material universe; all the other and 
 lower parts being the body and the whole being God in Person. 
 
 There is no discrepancy in this view, in the light of the gos- 
 pel of Jesus. When he said to the doubting Pharisees: "lam 
 the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in 
 darkness, but shall have the light of life. * Though I bear rec- 
 ord of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I come 
 and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 
 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, 
 but I and the Father that sent me. * Believest thou not that I 
 am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak 
 unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth 
 in me, he doeth the works." (John, 8: 12-16, and 14: 10.) He was 
 simply the medium of communication between that great and 
 most closely united Congress of humanity, of which he was one 
 himself and whom he has rightly called the Father. God is there- 
 fore an individual just as any animal, man or society is an indi- 
 vidual, and being the highest of all individuals He must be a vast 
 association of the most Exalted Human Spirits. 
 
 No doubt this view will be objected to by those who have 
 not all the facts on which to rest a judgment. Better withhold 
 judgment until all the facts are in. Just as any man or animal 
 cannot exist without being an association of mental elements, 
 organized and active for the purpose of securing agreeable re- 
 lations, and just as any society cannot exist without being an 
 association of individual men or animals, organized and active 
 for the purpose of securing agreeable relations, so God cannot 
 exist without being an association of the highest human beings 
 organized an active for the purpose of securing the most agree- 
 able relations. Just to the extent that the innumerable forms of 
 the Universal Mind are agreeably united in this way, to that 
 extent they constitute God and heaven; and just to the extent 
 that they are lacking in this, to the same extent they are de- 
 ficient in that which constitutes the Fatherhood of Heaven; and 
 so they are that much nearer to Hell. God is thus the Moral Law 
 which is in each one of His constituent parts; hence it is not 
 necessary that any part should act as chief magistrate. It is on- 
 ly in the lower and less advanced individuals that an executive 
 officer is necessaary. This to conform to laws of mind, (book 2.) 
 
 5. What is Creation? According to our best Dictionaries the 
 word 'creation' is used with at least two meanings; 1st, the act 
 of creating or calling into existence, something out of nothing; 
 2nd, the act of producing something new in form, cut of some- 
 thing already existing. In this section I shall aim to prove that 
 the word creation has a true meaning only when used in the 
 sense last named above — that the idea of the creation of some- 
 thing out of nothing is both unreasonable and unnecessary. 
 
— 263 — 
 
 A frequently quoted definition of the word 'creation' as used 
 in the sense first named, is found in John Locke's "Human 
 Understanding." He says: "When the thing is wholly made 
 new, so that no part thereof did ever exist before, as when a 
 new particle of matter doth begin to exist in rerum natura, 
 which had before no being, this we call creation." 
 
 This, of course, means the production of something out of 
 nothing. Here is another definition, somewhat broader in scope, 
 but the same as to meaning. The Rev. Joseph Benson in his 
 Commentary on the Scriptures, says: 
 
 "Created.— That is, brought into being, gave existence to 
 what had no existence before, either as to matter or form; both 
 making the substance of which the different parts of the uni- 
 verse were formed, and giving them the particular forms which 
 they at present bear. How astonishing is the power that could 
 produce such a world out of nothing. What an object for ado- 
 ration and prase; and what a foundation for confidence and hope 
 have we in this wonderful Being who thus calls things that are 
 not as though they were." 
 
 I have quoted the above as examples of the current defini- 
 tions and beliefs regarding the matter of creation. I have also 
 talked with many preachers and priests on this subject and they 
 have all held to the view that something can be created out of 
 nothing. That this is a clear result of that transendental educa- 
 tion which has led people to overlook their native common sense, 
 is plainly evident. Let us glance for a moment at this matter 
 in the common sense way. We think about it a great deal and 
 we come to the conclusion that some mind, most likely God him- 
 self, was the creator of all things, simply because we cannot 
 suppose that a big thing like a world could make itself. Having 
 got this far we take a rest, and then we think some more; and 
 by and by another question comes up. How about mind or God? 
 Did God create Himself? This hits us rather hard. If a first mind 
 was created, then there must have been a time when there was 
 no mind; and of course nothing else, because the first mind would 
 have to get started in order to be on hand to create the other 
 things. So we've got to suppose, or get at it somehow, that the 
 first mind which was created, and which had to create itself out 
 of nothing, managed to work around and get ahead of itself so 
 a3 to perform the act. We don't see how it was done, and we 
 never get any further on this line. What we do next will depend 
 on how we think, or whether we think at all; and right here we 
 are up against the real question and the way to settle it. If we 
 are one of those who do not think, but still have mind enough 
 in us to feel like going to heaven when we die, we will very 
 likely sell out body and soul to one of those blatant preachers 
 who tell us not to reason about sacred things and who will lead 
 
— 264 — 
 us gently into the fold with the rest of his sheep where we are 
 perfectly contented as long as we don't get into the human hab- 
 it of thinking. But if we are disposed to do a little thinking for 
 ourselves, knowing that this is a God-given right which no real 
 man would dare to question, we may be able to look at the prob- 
 lem somewhat as follows. 
 
 Everybody must know that p^ood judgment or reason is nec- 
 essary in all the questions of life, not excluding those ultimate 
 questions of the future life and the universe as a whole. Every- 
 body must know that good judgment can only proceed on knowl- 
 edge, and that the wider and deeper the knowledge the better 
 the judgment. Admitting this, it follows that all questions, great 
 or small, are questions of knowledge. What do we know about 
 it or how do we know anything? When we inquire into the mat- 
 ter carefully we cannot fail to see that all knowledge comes to 
 the individual animal, man or society, thru sense experience. 
 The range of the physical sense in man is limited; beyond which 
 limits many things exist, as we have very good reasons to be- 
 lieve. All our knowledge of that which exists outside the range 
 of sense experience, must be inferred from sense experience. 
 This is properly called inferential or theoretical knowledge. The 
 truth and value of all such knowledge will always depend, (1), 
 on the scope of the sense knowledge, (2), on the care exercised 
 in making the inference. Besides the external or physical sense 
 we may now recognise another avenue of sense, which is right- 
 ly called the internal, purely mental or spirit sense. (§43, book 2.) 
 The external sense is located in the five external physical sense 
 organs and the internal sense is located within the brain, and in, 
 or very close to the center of self consciousness. The external 
 sense gets its impressions directly thru forms of physically gui- 
 ded motion from without, and the internal sense gets its im- 
 pressions directly from forms of consciousness and mentally 
 guided motion. The impressions coming to the internal sense 
 generally come directly from the physical sense organs; in fact 
 this internal sense organ serves as an intermediate between the 
 outside organs and the mind within. The internal sense organ 
 may also receive impressions from without, and often from a 
 distance much greater than the range of the physical sense, and 
 which impressions are purely mental and independent of the 
 physical nervous system. All communications for the internal 
 sense must come to it in forms of conscious mind and mentally 
 guided motion; as fully explained in next book. 
 
 Now, all our ideas about things, all the forms of the under- 
 standing, are derived or inferred from our sense experience as 
 described above. All human beliefs grow out of sense experience 
 alone, and the great variety in human beliefs is a simple result 
 of the difference of degree in intellectual development. Men al- 
 
-265- 
 ways think and act as their sense experience and capacity for 
 right judgment determines, and hence their beliefs. All the dif- 
 ferent ways by which truths and beliefs, whether true or false, 
 are arrived at, may be approximately classed under the three 
 heads: Genius, Imagination, Reason. These three divisions may 
 to some extent, be regarded as three stages in the intellectual 
 development of man; but they are not clearly defined. At the 
 present time genius and reason occupy the antipodes with imagi- 
 nation covering a large middle ground which overlaps both the 
 others. Let us briefly consider them separately. 
 
 The genius is one who is highly endowed with the faculty 
 of receiving sense impressions from without, and which come 
 directly to the inner sense and not thru the medium of the phys- 
 ical sense. This is the spirit sense, imperfect in physical life, 
 now very little known and misunderstood. It is feeling or sense 
 experience without a physical nervous system and to some ex- 
 tent without the guidance of the rational will. The genius is 
 generally deficient in the reasoning faculty; which, being close- 
 ly associated with the physical sense and the things of this world, 
 tends to interfear with the dreams and visions of the genius. 
 He may not know the source of his sense inspirations, he may 
 fail to understand their true meaning and they may lead him to 
 imagine all kinds of foolish things. The weakness of reason is 
 the strength of genius. Dogs and cats and perhaps all animals 
 are more or less possessed of this faculty; as shown by the fact 
 that they are able to find their way when lost without the use of 
 the physical sense and judgment. The home of the animal is im- 
 pregnated with his own mind and no matter how far we trans- 
 port his body his mind is not detached from that part of it which 
 is impressed in the walls of his home, and thru this mental con- 
 nection and desire to return, a simple sensation is all that's nec- 
 essary to guide the animal to where he wants to go. He follows 
 an inner impulse, which he does not understand but which serves 
 his purpose, and so he pays little or no attention to his mem- 
 ories of objects of sight. It seems possible that God may some- 
 times influence the mind of the genius of human kind, with im- 
 portant truths or hints to man. Or from what has gone before 
 it is perhaps more correct to say that there are geniuses who 
 receive impressions from the great repository of universal truth, 
 which can be no other than God himself. But we have good 
 reasons to suspect that the work of the inspired genius is often 
 false and misleading. He is apt to misunderstand his own im- 
 pressions and he may be inspired by the imps of the infernal 
 regions. The only sure test for the truth or value of the products 
 of the genius, comes thru the careful use of Human Reason. 
 
 Imagination might be defined as the ofspring of genius and 
 the childhood of reason. That the three merge into each other 
 
— 266 — 
 is evident, but it is not easy to tell where one begins and the 
 other ends. Ever since man commenced to keep a record of his 
 thoughts and of current events, imagination and reason have 
 been racing within him on all subjects of interest. Frcm the 
 early records it seems plain that imagination was fleet enough in 
 those days to keep far ahead of reason. The myths that were 
 current then would stand no show for credit in the civilized parts 
 of the world today; which means of course that the world has 
 been growing mentally. But in some localities and among cer- 
 tain classes, imagination is still a good length ahead of reason. 
 The man who has nothing but his imagination to guide him nev- 
 er jumps the track because he is never on it. He may possess 
 knowledge of isolated facts but his inferences from such facts 
 do not proceed upon a knowledge of the true relations of such 
 facts and not being guided by any method of inference, he is on 
 no line of truth which may lead to the ultimate truth. It is im- 
 agination that makes the animals take fright at strange objects, 
 when a little judgment from sense experience might show the 
 object to be perfectly harmless. There is a close similarity be- 
 tween the animals and ourselves in this respect — some of us at 
 least. The gossiping neighbor who sows the seed of strife in all 
 seasons, is kept going by imagination; in fact it is to this ram- 
 pant trait that we must credit all the foolish sentiment that af- 
 flicts society. But we cannot dispense with imagination for it is 
 the beginning of reason. First the child, then the mature man. 
 
 Reason may be defined as the crowning accomplishment of 
 the human intellect. The reasoning man is the finished man, the 
 perfect work of the Creator. Godliness is that simple rational- 
 ism which includes all the Christian virtues and proceeds on com- 
 mon sense, and if we would be one with God we must brush up 
 this germ of reason which has been given us to cultivate. There 
 is one way and only one way to get to heaven while there are 
 many ways to fail to get there. To accept all that the Bible or 
 the modern church tell3 us, as true, without the tesc of reason, 
 is one of the sure ways to miss heaven. The one way to get there 
 is to realize that the true word of God is not alone in the Bible 
 and in the mouth of the preacher, but in all Nature; in fact that 
 Nature and God are One, and that to attain to the most com- 
 plete knowledge of this One, and to become one with Him, is to 
 put to its highest use this highest faculty of mind. 
 
 There is hardly anything plainer to human understanding 
 than the fact that reason has been developed out of the most 
 crude imagination. The creative plan which has made reason, 
 can be plainly traced under the law of Mental Evolution, which 
 now is, and always has been, an efficient instrument in the hands 
 of God for the perfection of life. It is only reason that can com 
 prehend the true relations of the facts of sense experience, and 
 
— 267 — 
 it is in this comprehension that the mind can trace out long lines 
 of relations, connecting facts in great systems and thus reveal- 
 ing laws of the universe. It is reason alone that can correct the 
 mistakes and interpret aright the truths uttered by the inspired 
 genius, and it is able to do this by its infallible method of in- 
 duction. Now, what has been the attitude of genius, imagination 
 and reason, toward the subject of the creation? It seems that 
 all have admitted that some sort of creation did really take place 
 at some time in the past. Genius has been inspired to give the 
 world some plain hints on the subject; imagination has imagined 
 itself to be the only true interpreter of the hints of genius and 
 so has made a meaningless mess of the whole subject, while 
 reason has made several safe and sane moves toward a final so- 
 lution of the great problem. And what has reason done? 
 
 It is a noteworthy fact that the very first passage in the 
 Bible, is one of the most significant on this subject, that can be 
 found in that immense book. When taken for just what it says 
 and no more, it conveys all that the most exacting reason could 
 expect, as the true and simple word of God; first written by 
 Himself, on the tablet of Nature, then conveyed to man. Here 
 is the passage: "In the beginning God created the heavens and 
 the earth." Genesis, 1: 1. This is all that's said regarding the 
 first act of the creation, and no one can doubt but that this was 
 the first act. Taking these ten words for our text, there is only 
 one point that reason permits us to make. There was a begin- 
 ning for the heavens and the earth; beyond which time they did 
 not exist. But how was it done, or what is creation? On this 
 point the record has nothing to say, and perhaps there is a rea- 
 son for this silence. It may not be in accord with God's plan of 
 mental evolution to give to man all the secrets of Nature at 
 once. He gives us a hint now andthen, just enough to stimulate 
 our curiosity, then we begin to imagine; and when we get this 
 far there is always a chance for reason in view of the mistakes 
 of imagination. And one of the great mistakes of imagination, 
 is to look for the complete word of God in the Bible. At best 
 that book can contain no more than a hint here and there, and 
 even these are always doubtful until they have been carefully 
 examined in the light of reason. At its best that book is a dark, 
 forbidding and bewildering jungle of absurdities; creations of 
 man's imagination, with here and there a glimps of the truth by 
 the inspired genius. It is purely the work of man in the imper- 
 fect stages of his intellectual development, and we should read 
 it rationally and critically; exactly as any sane man reads any 
 other book. For proof that the Bible is not the word of God we 
 have only to read the first verse of the first chapter of the four 
 gospel by the Apostle John. And in connect with this, read also 
 Luke, 9: 54-56. John may have been a genius; not a reaoner. 
 
— 268 — 
 
 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God." 
 
 How can we mistake the meaning of this passage. Not only 
 God himself, but also His Word, existed before heaven and earth 
 were created; before man was created and of course before the 
 Bible was written. The true word of God therefore, was never 
 written by the hand of man; for only in small part it was fore- 
 shadowed to the genius and thus committed to writing. The 
 statement of Moses is merely the bare mention of an occurrence; 
 nothing is said as to what is creation. Can we accept this as the 
 full and sufficient word of God, on the creation? The statement 
 of John goes a little further. He says, 1: 3. "All things were 
 made by him; and without him was not anything made that was 
 made." This passage plainly intimates that something existed 
 before the creation which was not created. What that sonething 
 was, we shall see later. That John possessed the highly impres- 
 sible nature of the born genius, there is evidence. It is said of 
 him: "John was called by his brother James to follow Jesus. 
 (Matt. 4: 21.) His nature was that sensitive one which is the 
 temperament of genius, eloquence, passion and love. * In the 
 fourth gospel the loving elements of his character alone appear. 
 He was the disciple whom Jesus loved." 
 
 Perhaps we do not miss the truth very far if we admit that 
 this man was a heaven inspired genius, and perhaps the same 
 may be said of Moses. But it is very evident that neither one of 
 these have given us a satisfactory account of the creation; and 
 it is not reasonable to accept their meagre statements as the 
 ample and all satisfying Word of God on that subject. Now, if 
 the Bible has failed to answer this question suppose we try reas- 
 on, and first let us examine the Scriptural account. 
 
 When we think of anything as being or occurring, we must 
 think of it as being or occurring in time and space. The simplest 
 form of thought is clearly impossible unless it be of something 
 which has a past, present and future, — as being or occuring in a 
 series of succeeding events, and somewhere in space as related 
 to other things. The first three words of the Bible "In the be- 
 ginning" plainly refer to something which occured in time and 
 space — at some time in the past and somewhere in space. The 
 next seven words "God created the heavens and the earth." 
 have but one very simple meaning, and it seems certain that 
 nothing but the wildest imagination could overlook that meaning. 
 They do not refer to God himself, but to his work. He did not 
 create himself because it was not necesary even if it had been 
 possible. At least the account does not say so. Like any good 
 workman he was on the job from the word go; and he must have 
 been around somewhere before it was time to begin. If we take 
 these words for just what they mean and no more, we cannot 
 
—269— 
 escape the conclusion that something existed before the heav- 
 ens and the earth were created. God himself was present and 
 how can we think of him as being thus engaged without think- 
 ing of a mind which is conscious and intent on what it is doing. 
 Reason is not really necessary to bring us to this conclusion. 
 It would seem that the most ordinary common sense should be 
 sufficient. But reason is necessary to head off our imagination 
 when it gets after one of those ecclesiastic injunctions about 
 everything being possible to God no matter how unreasonable 
 it is to man. If God created the heavens and the earth he must 
 have used his mind. Now, a complete and thinkable theory of 
 the Universe, as so far worked out in this book, is the one which 
 requires that mind cannot exist without being a property of the 
 one space occuying substance which we have called matter; and 
 that mind cannot act without the motion of matter. From all 
 which it plainly follows, that if God created the heavens and 
 the earth, he must have done so by reason of the pre-existence 
 of matter, motion and mind. Now, if reason can show us that 
 only matter, motion and mind are necessary for the foundation 
 of a complete and perfect Theory of the Universe, which has a 
 face guarantee of being the true Philosophy of Things, then in 
 view of the foregoing we must listen to reason. 
 
 In chapter three it was shown that the three most deep and 
 most general of universal truths are: (1) Matter, (2) the Motion 
 of matter, (3) the Mind of matter. In chapter three book two 
 it has been shown that when matter is conscious it may control 
 its own motion, and is therefore independent of the laws of mo- 
 tion which we derive from the inertia of matter. All motion is 
 thus controled in two ways: (1) physically guided motion; (2) 
 mentally guided motion. Physically guided movements of matter 
 may result in new forms of matter or motion, and these are 
 physical changes governed entrely by laws of motion. Mentally 
 guided movements of matter may result in new forms of either 
 matter, motion or mind, or all three at once, and these are both 
 physical and mental changes, governed by laws of the conscious 
 mind. Physical activities do not produce any new forms of mat- 
 ter or motion which are a result of design or purpose, because 
 design or purpose belongs only to mind and mind must be con- 
 scious in order to conceive a design or execute a purpose. Hence 
 it is that all created things must be created by mind— by men- 
 tal activity and mentally guided motion. 
 
 To explain further, when any living being learns anything 
 new, the new acquisition always consists in the addition of new 
 forms of mind to those already in the organism. The new forms 
 take shape in the adjacent parts of the brain or material organ- 
 ism, which parts are not already occupied; and they are created 
 by the individual, thru sense experience, knowledge and judg- 
 
-270- 
 ment. These new forms of mind are supposed to be created out 
 of the formless mind which is necessarily a property of all mat- 
 ter and which is contained in the matter not yet occupied. (§8, 
 book 2). Thus not only the new individual at the time of birth, 
 but all subsequent mental development or growth, from birth to 
 physical death, is created by mind and out of unformed mind. 
 In book 2 it will be shown how all objects in spirit life are cre- 
 ated by mind. This is creation on the mental side. 
 
 All bodily develoqment or material additions to the body, are 
 creations of the mind operating within the body. In this mental 
 and bodily development we observe the operations of the great 
 law of evolution to be considered in the next book. When any 
 living thing produces anything new in forms of matter or mo- 
 tion or both, there is first, a mental act within the brain and 
 directly upon the conscious matter of that organ, thus giving 
 the desired direction to the mentally guided motion therein. 
 This motion going out thru the muscular system guides the mov- 
 ing organs as required in the creative act. Thus, all new materi- 
 al things with their activities, are creations of mind; and this is 
 creation on the physical side. 
 
 When God created the present form of this material uni- 
 verse, he might have used the same power in the same way, as 
 now used within the brain of every man or animal on earth. If 
 we suppose that the Supreme of the universe is an individual 
 composed of a vast number of the highest human spirits, all 
 united under the one moral principle and acting as one man, 
 there is nothing impossible or unreasonable in this solution of 
 the problem of the creation. We have only to explain how any 
 man is able to control the movements of his right hand, in order 
 to know how God created the universe. Knowing the power of 
 a single human being it is only a question of figures. 
 
 But in spite of all that can be acceptable as trustworthy in 
 the Bible, men have always been asking, and still they ask, is 
 it possible to explain the first cause? If God created all things 
 who created God or how did he make a start in life? The idea 
 of a first cause for everything that exists is as old as the races 
 of men and it is entertained by not only the most unlearned, but 
 even by those who have attained to the highest distinction as 
 original thinkers and men of lettesr. The battle of reason against 
 imagination is still furious everywhere, and we may even find 
 this conflict raging in the brain of the same person. The late 
 Herbert Spencer was a remarkable example, even tho he gained 
 the distinction of being the world's foremost philosopher. In his 
 "First Principles," 1 e has more than a dozen pages on this sub- 
 ject of the first cause. He reviews all the known theories under 
 the three heads, "Self-existence, Self-creation and Creation by 
 External agency." Self-existence means existence without be- 
 
-271 — 
 ginning or end — eternal existence. Self-creation is supposed to 
 be the creation of something, by itself, and out of nothing. Cre- 
 ation by external agency is the creation of something out of 
 nothing by something else; or it may be the creation of some- 
 thing out of something else and by something else. All of these 
 theories are summarily disposed of by this philosopher in the 
 following passage; which seems eloquent enough in its arrange- 
 ment of words, but far from convincing in rational argument. 
 
 "Thus these three different suppositions, verbally intelligi- 
 ble though they are, and severally seeming to their respective 
 adherents quite rational, turn out when critically examined to be 
 literally unthinkable. It is not a question of probability or credi- 
 bilty, but of conceivability. Experiment proves that the ele- 
 ments of these hypotheses cannot even be put together in con- 
 sciousness; and we can entertain them only as we entertain 
 such pseud-ideas as a square fluid and a moral substance — only 
 by abstaining from the endeavor to render them into thought." 
 
 In view of his great influence upon the thought of this age, 
 it is only right that we should expose, if we can, the irrational 
 postulates of Mr. Spencer's argument on the creation. The facts, 
 if rightly viewed, will make it extremely probable that his con- 
 clusions are a result of a conflict of reason and imagination in 
 his own mind. He admits that from the beginning of history, 
 and in the rudest creeds as well as in the cosmogony now ex- 
 tent, that it is believed, as a result of experience in life, that 
 the heavens and the earth might have been made somewhat af- 
 ter the manner in which a workman makes a piece of furniture 
 or a house. And in this admission he contradicts his former po- 
 sition, viz. that: "Experiment proves that the elements of these 
 hypothesis cannot be put together in consciousness." To make 
 sure of his position here are his words: 
 
 "Though the proceedings of a human artificer may vaguely 
 symbolize a method after which the universe might be shaped, 
 yet imagination of this method does not help us to solve the ul- 
 timate problem; namely, the origin of the material of which the 
 universe consists. The artizan does not make the iron, wood 
 or stone, he uses, but merely fashions and combines them. If 
 we suppose suns, and planets, and satellites, and all they con- 
 tain to have been smilarly formed by a 'Great Artificer,' we 
 suppose merely that certain pre-existing elements were thus put 
 together in their present arrangement. But whence the pre-ex- 
 isting elements? The production of matter out of nothing is the 
 real mystery, which neither this simile nor any other enables 
 us to conceive, and a simile which does not enable us to con- 
 ceive this may as well be dispensed with." 
 
 Wild indeed is the imagination, 
 That gets ahead of all creation. 
 
— 272 — 
 
 Now, let us shake free from all this meaningless verbosity 
 of speech and come back to plain common sense. Is it possible 
 that common sense, or even the most thorough going reason, 
 can have anything to do with that unthinkable question of the 
 creation of something out of nothing? To this I would say NO; 
 and I would put it strong. Reason is purely a faculty of mind; it 
 is only mind that thinks; mind can think only of things and no- 
 thing which can be put together in consciousness. Hence it is 
 that reason can have nothing to do with the unchinkable beyond 
 revealing its true character. Every word of our language means 
 something which has grown out of human experience. Reason 
 must proceed by inference upon such experience, upon sensible 
 facts or things, for the simple reason that there is nothing else 
 to proceed upon. When we think, we simply put together in 
 consciousness, our mental concepts of these things or facts; us- 
 ing reason and knowledge as a guide in the strictly constructive 
 process. Whatever we construct must be clearly comprehensi- 
 ble in every distinction, every detail, every relation, and there- 
 fore every thing; as required by the known order of nature. If it 
 is not this, it is not thinkable; and so it has no place within the 
 province of reason. The argument from sense experience is so 
 clear and conclusive that no one can fail to understand it. 
 
 We are all familiar with things in life which recently had 
 a beginning and which we call young or new, also things which 
 have existed a longer time and which we call old. Many of the 
 new or old things are known to have been created in the minds 
 of men just as a carpenter plans and puts up a house. Every 
 atom of the material used in all manufactured things has come 
 from its natural source the earth. And is there any other source? 
 It would be universally regarded as a sure symptom of insanity 
 to think of producing or obtaining any form of building mater- 
 ial out of nothing. There is nothing in human experience plainer 
 than the fact that all created things are created by mind and 
 out of existing material. It is therefore a perfectly rational in- 
 ference to suppose that the universe was created by mind and 
 out of existing material. If we can find clear evidence of design 
 in the present form and physical activities of the universe, we 
 then have a very conclusive justification for this inference. 
 
 So far we are on the solid ground of human reason and so 
 far it is a simple line of inference or induction from all human 
 experience. But now we are at the danger point where imagin- 
 ation makes his assault with a storm of questions about the 
 great first cause, and about everything being possible with God 
 no matter how impossible or unreasonable it may seem to us. 
 And right here it seems has always been the weak spot in reas- 
 on, for here it is that so many philosophers, preachers and stu- 
 dents of the Bible have fallen. This point in their reason was 
 
—273— 
 not well fortified. This carpenter idea of the creation is too sim- 
 ple for the robust imagination. I have questioned a number of 
 preachers on this subject and almost without exception they 
 have expressed the belief that the universe was created by God 
 and of course out of nothing. How could it be otherwise? The 
 fact that we cannot understand such things, is not the fault of 
 God's word, but of our understanding. To doubt it would be to 
 impose a limit to the Almighty power. This is a frequent state- 
 ment and it seems certain that those who adopt this view sim- 
 ply do so from a disinclination to think. To understand the word 
 of God, or what the Word really is, we must use reason. The 
 philosophers and preachers above all men should be rational. If 
 we think of the multitudes of people who must be led, we can 
 see the responsibility of those who lead. Every passage in the 
 Bible or in any other book that seems unreasonable is doubtful. 
 
 To prove from common sense that all such ideas about the 
 creation are pure results of imagination I will call attention to 
 one of the clearest statements of a great truth bearing on this 
 subject. I quote from Spencer's "First Principles," page 177. 
 
 "Our inability to conceive matter becoming non-existent, 
 is immediately consequent on the nature of thought. Thought 
 consists in the establishment of relations. There can be no re- 
 lations established, and therefore nc thought framed, when one 
 of the related terms is absent from consciousness. Hence it is 
 impossible to think of something becoming nothing, for the same 
 reason that it is impossible to think of nothing becoming some- 
 thing—the reason, namely, that nothing cannot become an ob- 
 ject of consciousness. The annihilation of matter is unthinkable 
 for the same reason that the creation of matter is unthinkable." 
 
 There is one wrong statement in the above quoted passage. 
 He says "that nothing cannot become an object of conscious- 
 ness." Thru all this work I have tried to make it plain that no- 
 thing, or empty space, is, and must be, an object of conscious- 
 ness. But it would be hard to find a clearer presentment of an 
 exceedingly important truth than that of the second sentence 
 above. "Thought consists in the establishment of relations." 
 When Mr. Spencer wrote this sentence his hand was guided by 
 reason. When he failed to see that the nothing-something or 
 space-matter relation is the most fundamental and most import- 
 ant distinction in philosophy, his hand was guided by imagi- 
 nation. What a pity he did not follow the line of reason once 
 he was on it, and so spare the world that muddling, brain-bust- 
 ing "Philosophy of the Unknowable." Let us begin where he 
 went astray and see how we come out. 
 
 This is truly a question of relations; the first and deepest 
 of which is the relations of nothing to something. Any man can 
 think of a place, or a point in space, which contains nothing; 
 
-274- 
 and in so doing he is simply thinking of empty space. "Without 
 matter or mind, space would be nothing in the most ultimate 
 sense. In the presence of the conscious mind and of the chang- 
 ing forms of matter, it is an object of consciousness." (§9). 
 If creation is a change of nothing into eomething then of course 
 it is unthinkable, and as said before reason can have nothing to 
 do with it for every possible step in any process of reason must 
 be perfectly clear and thinkable. If it is not it is not reason. As 
 already (§1), shown, consciousness or thought, must always be 
 of things and nothing, and every thing is a thing, (1), by reason 
 of its difference from other things and nothing, (2), by reason 
 of its relations to other things and nothing, and (3), by reason 
 of the fact that there is an universal substance, called matter, 
 and in which it was necessary to create difference in order to 
 create things. 
 
 If creation is not a change of nothing into something then 
 what is it? Here is a chance for reason. We will ask a few sim- 
 ple questions that any ordinary person might ask, and let reason 
 answer. And here let me add that these answers are not merely 
 my opinion as to what creation is, but my opinion as to what 
 the ordinary judgment or reason would be on the subject. 
 
 We: Does anything exist at present? 
 
 Reason: Yes, of course. 
 
 We: What is it? 
 
 Reason: The Universe; the heavens, the earth and all things. 
 
 We: How do you know? 
 
 Reason: Self-consciousness. Sense experience. Reason. 
 
 We: Who made the Universe and all it contains? 
 
 Reason: God, man and the other animals— the highest, wis- 
 est and most powerful individual Mind, and the lesser individu- 
 als who inhabit the planets. 
 
 We: What was the Universe made out of? 
 
 Reason: Matter, Motion and Mind. 
 
 We: What was matter, motion and mind made out of? 
 
 Reason: They were not made at all. Matter, motion, mind, 
 are both indestructible and uncreatable. Matter is the substance 
 of the Universe — the only space occupant. Motion is the motion 
 of matter. Mind is the universal Property of matter by reason 
 of which matter may be conscious or unconscious, and which op- 
 posites are states of mind. God is the Universal Individual whose 
 body is all matter and who controls the whole as we control a 
 part, and we and the rest of the folks are the lesser individuals 
 who live on the planets and who try to manage our own bodies 
 and our own affairs in the same way that God manages the 
 Universe. But we do not do it as well as he does because we do 
 not know how, and this we have to learn and let us be thankful 
 that we have the opportunity. When we have learned the true 
 
— 275 — 
 relations of mind and matter within the small sphere of our own 
 brain we shall then be at the point where we can understand 
 the true relationship of God and this Material Universe. (§18, 
 book 2.) When we understand the moral law as set forth in the 
 Christian Gospel and when we are able to live up to it, we have 
 then gained the highest goal of humanity. (§58, book 2.) 
 
 We: Well, then, what is creation? 
 
 Reason: Creation is change of form. All newly created things 
 are new forms of matter, motion or mind, and mind is the cre- 
 ator and the only force. 
 
 We: But the philosophers tell us that the self-existence or 
 eternal existence of matter is unthinkable; "that to conceive 
 existence through infinite past time implies the conception of 
 infinite past time, which is impossible." 
 
 Reason: But reason declares positively, with an open field 
 all her own, that something now exists; and that it is unreason- 
 able to think that somthing lias produced itself out of nothing. 
 So what are we going to do? Simply this. If reason is our guide, 
 and if the Universe now exists, then the Universe has always 
 existed, and the question is settled according to reason. 
 
 We: Well, when we look at it that way the view seems right 
 and so it appears that reason for once has got ahead of imagi- 
 nation. No doubt it is true that we cannot easily grasp the idea 
 of an eternal past and future existence, if we trust to imagina- 
 tion alone; yet it seems that our imagination does not interfere 
 very much with our hopes for a future eternal life if we do the 
 right in this life. But it is a sure thing that when we reason our 
 way to it, the belief in the eternal duration of the Universe is 
 perfectly satisfying. What is altogether reasonable must be true 
 and we have a far safer ground for our belief in a future eter- 
 nal life, in this rational belief than any other. This indeed is the 
 true foundation of our Science of the Future Life. God is Life, 
 and He is Eternal. To gain the life eternal is to become a part 
 of Him, and the way is plainly set forth in the Moral Law. The 
 way is not hard to find, indeed there is no other way in which hu- 
 man beings can be united under the most agreeable relations. 
 
 But we must not forget that imagination is one of the indis- 
 pensables in the evolution of man. It is simply that imperfect 
 form of reason which becomes perfect thru experience. But as 
 the mind gains perfection in reason its sphere of action is con- 
 fined more and more to lines of truth, and so it may lose many 
 of its attractive objects of thought. The joys and sorrows that 
 make life interesting by making it possible to hope for future 
 good, and even poetry and music to some extent are depend- 
 ant upon it, as necessary to the growing childhood of the race. 
 In the music of words we can rusticate, 
 When our minds are attuned to imaginate. 
 
-276 — 
 
 And while we rusticate let us hold fast to the truth that 
 there is nothing that stands out plainer in human experience, 
 nothing better supported by human reason and even nothing 
 more clearly justified by the so called divine revelation, than 
 this much neglected much abused yet most reasonable carpen- 
 ter theory of the creation. In all past time and in all the future, 
 there was and will be, a fundamental reality of Matter, Motion, 
 Mind; which was not created and which cannot cease to exist. 
 Universal change in this reality guided by mind, brings forth 
 all created things, in the only correct sense of the word. 
 
 6. While setting the type for page 200 of this book I notic- 
 ed in the Denver Public Library, a copy of "Modern Views of 
 Electricity" (second edition) by Oliver J. Lodge. I have reviewed 
 this book in §43 page 201. In an appendix to this book I have 
 found certain quotations from Sir Isaac Newton's "Optics," 
 which plainly show that Newton entertained views regarding 
 the ether medium and the part it plays in light, heat, sound and 
 gravitation, much like my own. I quote. — 
 
 "Q. 17. If a stone be thrown into stagnate water, the waves 
 excited thereby continue some time to arise in the place where 
 the stone fell into the water, and are propagated from thence 
 in concentric circles upon the surface of the water to great dis- 
 tances. And the vibrations or tremors excited in the air by per- 
 cussion, continue a little time to move from the place of percus- 
 sion in concentric spheres to great distance. And in like manner, 
 when a ray of light falls upon the surface of any pellucid body, 
 and is there refracted or reflected, may not waves of vibrations 
 or tremors be thereby excited in the refracting or reflecting 
 medium at the point of incidence?" 
 
 "Q. 18. If in two large tall cylindrical vessels of glass inver- 
 ted, two little thermometers be suspended so as not to touch 
 the vessel, and the air be drawn out of one of these vessels 
 and these vessels chus prepared be carried out of a cold place 
 into a warm one; the thermometer in vacuo will grow warm as 
 much and almost as soon as the thermometer which is not in 
 vacuo. And when the vessels are carried back into the cold place, 
 the thermometer in vacuo will grow cold almost as soon as the 
 other thermometer. Is not the heat of the warm room convey- 
 ed through the vacuum by the vibrations of a much subtiler 
 medium than air, which, after the air was drawn out remained 
 in the vacuum? And is not this medium the same with that me- 
 dium by which light is refacted and reflected, and by whose vi- 
 brations light communicates heat to bodies, and is put into fits 
 of easy reflection and easy transmission? And do not the vibra- 
 tions of this medium in hot bodies contribute to the intenseness 
 and duration of their heat! And do not hot bodies ccmmunicate 
 their heat to contiguous cold ones, by the vibrations of this me- 
 
— 277 — 
 dium propagated from them into the cold ones? And is not this 
 medium exceedingly more rare and subtile than the air, and ex- 
 ceedingly more elastic and active? And doth it not readily per- 
 vade all bodies? And is it not (by its elastic force) expanded 
 through all the heavens?" 
 
 *'Q. 19. Doth not the refraction of light proceed from the 
 different densities of this ethereal medium in different places, 
 the light receding away from the denser parts of the medium? 
 And is not the density thereof greater in free and open space, 
 void of air and other gaseous bodies, than within the pores of 
 water, glass, crystal, gems, and other compact bodies?" 
 
 "Q. 21. Is not this medium much rarer in the denser bodies 
 of the sun, stars, planets, and comets, than in the empty cel- 
 estial space between them? And in passing from them to great 
 distances, doth it not grow denser perpetualy, and thereby cause 
 the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of 
 their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavoring to go 
 from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer? For if 
 this medium be rarer within the sun's body than at its surface, 
 and rarer there than at the hundredth part of an inch from its 
 body, and rarer there than at the fiftieth of an inch from its 
 body, and rarer there than at the orb of Saturn; I see no reason 
 why the increase of density should stop anywhere, and not rath- 
 er be continued through all distances from the sun to Saturn, 
 and beyond. And though this increase of density may, at great 
 distance be exceeding slow, yet if the elastic force of the me- 
 dium be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel bodies from the 
 denser parts of the medium towards the rarer with all that pow- 
 er which we call Gravity. And that the elastic force of the me- 
 dium is exceeding great, may be gathered from the swiftness 
 of its vibrations. Sound moves about 1140 English feet in a sec- 
 ond minute of time, and in seven or eight minutes of time they 
 move about one hundred English miles. Light moves from the 
 sun to us in about seven or eight minutes of time, which dis- 
 tance is about 70,000,000 English miles, supposing the horizontal 
 parallax of the sun to be about 12". And the vibrations or pulses 
 of this medium, that they may cause the alternate fits of easy 
 transmission and easy reflection, must be swifter than light, and 
 by consequence about 700,000 times swifter than sound. And 
 therefore the elastic force of this medium in proportion to its 
 density, must be about 700,000 X 700,000 times (that is, above 
 490,000,000,000) times greater than this elastic force of air is in 
 proportion to its density. For the velocities of the pulses of elas- 
 tic mediums are in a subduplicate ratio of the elasticities and 
 the rarities of the mediums taken together." 
 
 "Q. 22. May not planets and comets, and all gross bodies, 
 perform their motions more freely, and with less resistance in 
 
— 278 — 
 this etherial medium than in any fluid, which fills all space ade- 
 quately without leaving any pores, and by consequence is much 
 denser than quick-silver and gold? And may not its resistance 
 be so small as to be inconsiderable? For instance; if this Ether 
 (for so I will call it) should be supposed 700,000 times more elas- 
 tic than our air, and above 700,000 times more rare; its resis- 
 tance would be about 600,000,000 times less than that of water. 
 And so small a resistance would scarce make a sensible altera- 
 tion in the motion of the planets in ten thousand years. If any 
 one would ask me how a medium can be so rare, let him tell me 
 how the air in the upper parts of the atmosphere can be above 
 an hundred thousand times rarer than gold. Let him also tell me 
 how an electric body can by friction emit an exhalation so rare 
 and subtile, and yet so potent, as by its emission to cause no 
 sensible diminution of the weight of the electric body, and to 
 be expanded through a sphere whose diameter is above two feet, 
 and yet to be able to agitate and carry up leaf copper, or leaf 
 gold, at the distance of above a foot from the electric body? 
 And how the effluvia of a magnet can be so rare and subtile, as 
 to pass through a plate of glass without any resistance or dimi- 
 nution of their force, and yet so potent as to turn a magnetic 
 needle beyond the glass?" 
 
 The above quoted passages have been called "Newton's 
 guesses concerning the ether." It seems to me that we might 
 rightly call them very good examples of Human Reason; specu- 
 lative perhaps but none the less rational so far as they go since 
 they are well supported by experience. These questions were 
 written down about 250 years ago, when very few people would 
 admit the existence of an ether medium. But from that time 
 to the present every right step in the advance of Physical Sci- 
 ence has been possible only under the assumption that such a 
 medium exists. In view of the fact that Newton, with Brewster, 
 Biot, Laplace, Malus and other leading scientists of that day, 
 upheld the Emission Theory of Light, and in view of the fact 
 that this theory has since been completely demolished and re- 
 placed by the Wave Theory of Light, due to the labors of Huy- 
 ghens, Euler, and in particular Young and Fresnel, these specu- 
 lations of Newton, as it seems to me, are exceedingly interest- 
 ing. He was on the right track in spite of his preconceived bias 
 in favor of the now exploded Emission Theory. Notice Q. 21. 
 So far as it goes, Newton's guess seems right to me with this 
 exception: The outward increasing density of the medium must 
 stop somewhere. (§20). He offers no guess as to the cause of the 
 difference of density at different points in the medium, and in 
 Q. 22 he seems to think, as many others do even at the present 
 day, that the ether is a continuous non-porous medium. 
 
— 279 — 
 
 Did it ever occur to Newton or to any one else that a ma- 
 terial medium capable of being the vehicle of wave motion, as 
 in light, heat, electricity, sound etc., and the cause of the dif- 
 ference of pressure necessary to produce the effects of gravita- 
 tion, gravity, electric attraction, magnetic attraction, chemical 
 affinity etc., and possessing difference of density at different 
 points and great elastic force as supposed by Newton, must be 
 composed of ultimate and absolutely solid particles of inert mat- 
 ter substantially as described in §20? And moreover, did it ever 
 occur to any one that such a medium must be limited in space 
 and bounded on the outside by a perfectly solid shell which is ca- 
 pable of resisting the enormous expansive energy from within? 
 And fiinally, did it ever occur to any one that by admitting these 
 postulates it is possible to explain and reduce to order every 
 fact and mystery of the physical universe? 
 
 7. As announced in the preface my object in these books is 
 to contribute something toward a solution of the problem of 
 life. After treating the entire work both on its physical and 
 mental sides, it has been found that the subject-matter which 
 properly belongs to the mental side is much greater in volume 
 than that of the physical side. Hence it has seemed best to add 
 two chapters to this book which might find a more befitting 
 place at the end of book 2. In the next two chapters the out- 
 look for a World Christian Democracy, has deen considered. 
 
CHAPTER EIGHTH. 
 
 RELIGION AND SCIENCE, PAST AND PRESENT. 
 
 The people are really beginning to think of the future of 
 the human race on this planet. It is now freely admitted that 
 the old aristocracies of birth and inherited wealth are passing 
 away and a new time of progress in which minds that look be- 
 yond the present are thinking more of social conditions and of 
 how to make life safer and more consonant with that of a true 
 humanity. The world moves and many can see it but not all. 
 
 Fifty years ago the relations of Religion and Science were 
 strained to the utmost. When the doctrine of Universal Evolu- 
 tion as promoted by Lamarck in France, Haeckel in Germany 
 and Darwin, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall in England, began to 
 attract general attention, the defenders of the Christian faith 
 were aroused at once and the leading magazines of the world 
 were replete with frenzied controversy. Now see the difference. 
 Preachers, Sociologists and other are saying things to-day that 
 they would not think or dare to say fifty years ago. Instead of op- 
 posing Evolution, they are beginning to admit that Religion it- 
 self is Evolutionary. At least many of then are saying that there 
 are changes going on in Religion and Society generally, of a pro- 
 gressive nature. They can see that in the history of all things, 
 social or religious, there is a gradual but clearly marked advance 
 from a rudimentarry and necessarily imperfect condition to a 
 higher and more perfect condition. It is true that the range of 
 human thought is widening and the Preachers are taking notice. 
 Men are thinking more of material things and of the present as 
 a guide to the future and the better things of life. Traditional- 
 ism is getting monotonous, and worse, it may not be true. 
 
 From a large number of press clippings I have selected a 
 few on the various phases of this subject, which ought to af- 
 ford satisfactory evidence as to the present trend of the more 
 thorough going public mind. They are copied below. 
 
 "Christianity is nothing if not a Spirit. The kingdom of God 
 is nowhere if not within us. We shall enter on no heaven that 
 is not already begun in our hearts. We shall find no hell that 
 does not have its prophecy in the experiences and possibilities 
 of our inner life." Dr. Herrick Johnson. Chicago, 111. 
 
 "I believe in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and 
 His apostles, contained in the New Testament, as I understand 
 such teachings. They are less explicit on future punishment 
 
—281 — 
 than on many or most other subjects. They make clear, however, 
 that the incorrigibly wicked and rebellious finally cut themselves 
 off from mercy, holiness and happiness. When that 'finally' is 
 seems to be left undetermined. Material punishment is impos- 
 sible for spiritual beings; the recognition of which fact accounts 
 for the current lack of teaching of a sensuous penalty in the 
 future life." Dr. Teunis S. Hamlin. Washington, D. C. 
 
 "That hell is a place of definite consignment and perma- 
 nent retention of lost souls is to me unthinkable; indeed, the 
 suggestion is so preposterous and in defiance to all the known 
 facts of the universe, physical and spiritual, that I cannot under- 
 stand the intellectual makeup of anyone who does believe this." 
 Rev. Jenkins Lloyd Jones. Chicago, 111. 
 
 "Science has given to the man of to-day a new heaven and 
 a new earth in the way of enlarged conceptions of the stability 
 of all its laws and processes. The man of science today is be- 
 yond measure better qualified for living a good life— useful to 
 his fellows — than any man of 2000 years ago. He calls the forces 
 of nature to his aid; he harnesses the streams to his whirring 
 wheels and sends an invisible current of force through a wire to 
 light a distant city or cook breakfast in a hundred houses. The 
 fear of hell is still preached in the churches — in times of reviv- 
 als — as though it were the sheet anchor of morality and the re- 
 ligious life." Rev. David Utter, Denver, Colo. 
 
 "Life is not a game of chance to be determined by the throw- 
 ing of dice or the tossing of a penny. No, life is absolutely un- 
 der its own control. By some compulsion, which we cannot un- 
 derstand, our lives seem to be driven hither and thither. In the 
 face of this truth many are asking what part, if any, in God's 
 plan do these constraining circumstances of life have? Much of 
 life's deepest meaning and sweetest comfort centers in and 
 about the answer to this question. * The coercions of earth that 
 impel and compel us are but the outward expressions of God's 
 hidden purpose. Great issues depend often upon some apparent- 
 ly small event. * Some people seem to believe that God finished 
 His program in some remote past, while the fact remains that 
 God is working out his plans here and now. All things are in a 
 state of process. Man is still in the making; the world is still in 
 the making. We see this constantly in the changes taking place 
 in air and ocean currents and in the great earthquakes and dis- 
 asters. God is not yet thru with this world. Some day we shall 
 know that thru all the ages God was standing in the shadow 
 keeping watch and that when we saw only a tangle of threads 
 the Lord was at the loom." Rev, Joel F. Harper, Denver, Colo. 
 
 "Society has passed through the era of criticism and anal- 
 ysis and is now becoming creative. We have been in a hothouse 
 condition for twenty years. We have analyzed the Bible and 
 
— 282 — 
 dogmatized the Bible and have had heresy trials that were more 
 dangerous than Chicago fires and we have asked questions and 
 answered them. We have passed from the old thought that the 
 world was created in six days to the new thought that God is 
 making a new world every moment. At length we understand 
 that God is not far off, that He is not to interrupt our laws with 
 miracles, but that He is close to men and is living with him all 
 the time. All this is the result of Science. We are at the begin- 
 ning of the greatest church going epoch in all history." Rev. 
 Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 "The greatest miracle in history is Jesus. The most signifi- 
 cant factor in civilization is the abiding influence of the living 
 man from calvary. His was an unique personality. He lived in an 
 age of rampant materialism and bigoted sacerdotalism but he 
 was neither a materialist nor sacerdotalist. In the throbing life 
 of his day he stood out as the unique and extraordinary excep- 
 tion to the universal law of heredity and environment. For 2000 
 years the mental and moral character of the man from calvary 
 has been critically dissented and remains the single expression 
 of a perfectly poised and spotless personality. And Jesus came 
 to establish a world religion. He found in the world a religion 
 steeped in traditionalism, legalistic, dogmatic. He gave to the 
 world a religion as fresh as the mountain breezes that blow at 
 the break of day. It was not his purpose to establish a religious 
 cult or national church or ecclesiastical hierarchy. It was his 
 purpose to infuse into the heart of humanity the spirit of peace 
 and love and good will. Hi9 religion is marked by an absence of 
 sectional or racial or national barriers. The issue is spiritual. 
 The ultimate implication is the dynamic transformation of so- 
 ciety." Rev. Ingram E. Bill, Denver, Colo. 
 
 "It is my belief that we are now in process of a religious 
 transition farther reaching in its issues than was the Reforma- 
 tion of the sixteenth century. It is a movement that is worldwide 
 and comprehends all circles of life. While it is the operation of 
 the spirit of God, its manifestation is as marked outside the 
 church as it is within. This phenomena is perplexing, I am sor- 
 ry to say, to many ecclesiastical leaders, who feel that religi- 
 ous fervor should be confined to channels prescribed for it in 
 past ages. Christianity has outgrown its older forms and is ex- 
 pressing itself in social, industrial, political and other human 
 activities. The movement is characterized by the desire and de- 
 mand that all divine qualities revered and worshiped in God and 
 Christ, now and during former ages, shall become operative in 
 men, and shall be dominant in their social relations. Men still 
 believe in the righteousnes of God, but today they want it trans- 
 lated from God into business men, and into state and city offic- 
 ials. Divine justice must become incarnate in employers of men 
 
-283 — 
 and in those who are employed. There is no less mercy in heaven 
 but men believe that this must prevail on earth as in heaven. 
 The life and teachings of Jesus Christ will be accepted with a 
 seriousness beyond that of any previous age, and the pledge of 
 this seriousness will be not only doctrinal statements and fer- 
 vent worship, but the living every day and in every relation, of 
 the same mind and spirit which was in Him. We are entering 
 an age when Christ principle, as a principle incarnate in man, 
 is to have recognition and dominion." Rev. David H. Fouse, 
 Denver, Colo. 
 
 "The church is in a transition stage. Just as the fight is on 
 in the political and industrial world for the rights of the people 
 and the realization in practic of the ideal of Democracy, (the 
 government of the people, for and by the people) and the plac- 
 ing of the emphasis upon the man, rather than upon material 
 or method, so it is on in the church for the right of individual 
 interpretation of God's word, against human standards of au- 
 thority and for majority rule against the manipulation of ec- 
 clesiastical machinery by those who stand for class rule and spec- 
 ial privilege. In too many of our churches the people are pat- 
 ronized and governed by the few who constitute the moneyed 
 element." Rev. W. S. Rudolph, Denver, Colo. 
 
 "America today is overchurched. *The day is coming when 
 the Protestant church will be one. Though the movement may 
 seem slow is it sure. Sectarian prejudices no longer hold ground 
 with educated and enlightened persons, and creeds are slowly 
 dying off the face of the earth. In that millenium when church 
 unity has been attained, there will be but one church to a dis- 
 trict—say of 2,500 or 3,000 persons. The poverty of the church 
 today is caused by the fact that there are too many of them 
 for the land. You go into a small place of two or three thousand 
 inhabitants, like Golden, and you will find five or six struggling 
 churches, where one could enjoy prosperity and amply satisfy 
 the religious and social needs of the community." Rev. Dr. 
 Robert F. Coyle, Denver, Colo. 
 
 The above extracts from sermons and interviews published 
 in the newspapers within the last few years, are all from pas- 
 tors of the several Protestant churches of this country. Two of 
 these churches are in Chicago, 111. one in Washington, D. C. one 
 in Brooklyn, N. Y. and six in Denver, Colo. Those of Denver 
 were printed in the "Rocky Mountain News" and the others in 
 the "Kansas City Star." These quotations were selected from 
 many others of like meaning. From the files of every leading 
 newspaper in this country a similar batch of indictments of im- 
 potency against the church, might be compiled. All these opin- 
 ions are from educated men, skilled in exegetics or scriptural 
 
— 284 — 
 interpretation and we can depend on what they say. I have quot- 
 ed them because they have told the truth as I see it and they 
 have told it better than I could. But they are not to be held re- 
 sponsible for anything I have said in this book. They are all to- 
 tal strangers tome and I have quoted them without asking per- 
 mission because I could see no reason for it. One plain thing in 
 these extracts, is, that all tell the same story with variations 
 and different words. From which it must be inferred that the 
 Bible is a questionable source of information on matters of re- 
 ligion and social welfare. If the Bible is literally true, then of 
 course the only true religion must be a rigidly dogmatic religion 
 as based on that book. If it is questionable, then we are at lib- 
 erty to use our own reason, examine the book carefully in the 
 light of recent knowledge and come to a decision as to what parts 
 are true and what are not true. In this way a final judgment 
 and perfect agreement is inevitable; simply because all enlight- 
 ened men must agree when they know the whole truth. The re- 
 ligion of the savage is not the religion of the civilized man of 
 today, yet all men were once in the savage state. That civiliza- 
 tion is a thing of growth and that it is still growing, that growth 
 is progress, development or evolution, no well informed person 
 can doubt for a moment. We must say the same of all the ac- 
 tivities of life, indeed life itself is progressive from the birth of 
 the individual or race to its highest stage of development. What 
 is religion if it is not that most essential phase of life which 
 must keep pace with the intellectual development of man? What 
 is religion if it is not that complex human sentiment of love, 
 devotion, gratitude, reverence, feeling of dependence and hope 
 for the future, towards an exalted and mysterious Being? and 
 how is all this possible if it does not depend upon unquestionable 
 knowledge? If religion is not this and if not justified in this way 
 it is not religion. It is nothing but a dogmatic assumption like 
 one of those articles of faith conceived in the brain of fallible 
 man and designed to shape the thought and conduct of men who 
 are moving for a higher and better life. 
 
 Another plain fact set forth in these extracts is the spirit- 
 ual and religious significancy of the life and teachings of Jesus. 
 We can justly criticize the Bible in many parts but we cannot 
 criticize it in that part which contains the Christian gospel. And 
 why? because it bears the imprint of scientific truth more de- 
 cidedly than any other part of the book. It is true not because 
 the Bible says so but because every one of its truths can be de- 
 monstrated by modern scientific method. In book 2, I will try to 
 make it plain that all the so called miracles of Jesus come within 
 the possibilities of mind and that there is nothing miraculous in 
 them. They are all explained under universal laws of mind and 
 to know this it is only necessary to push the study of mind to 
 
-285 — 
 the limit. Perhaps the most notable thing in the life of Jesus 
 was his matchless personality, (page 282) No other man in this 
 world was like him in certain well marked respects. If he had 
 lived in the present age with his wonderful psychic powers, and 
 if he had possessed the mercenary spirit that most of our busi- 
 ness men and women possess, he could have been several times 
 a millionaire and even in his own day he could have been a very 
 rich man. But this was not his mission; indeed every fact of his 
 brief career on earth seems to prove his divine office. That story 
 of his immaculate conception is most likely a myth, at least if 
 true it would be contrary to Nature's law, all of which is God's 
 law. He came into this world just as other men do but early in 
 life he was initiated into that highest sphere of spirit life and 
 became one with God. In the gospel record he often speaks of 
 himself as being the son of man, also as being one with God. 
 It is unquestionably true that he made no distinction between 
 himself and others. What he could do others could do and what 
 he was others could be. He made frequent use of the word faith 
 or belief as necessary in his work and so made it clear that his 
 power was that of mind — the one universal mind of God and all 
 living thing. He set an example of right living and of how to 
 make the best of this life, which no enlightened man can fail to 
 understand and which certainly must bring peace and happiness 
 to the entire world. He made it plain that all men can be like 
 him — that it is only a matter of mental development or evolution 
 and we can rest assured that modern scientific research will vin- 
 dicate him as no other man in this world ever was. 
 
 The next quotations are from modern philosophers and uni- 
 versity men who are taking some interest in religion and society. 
 
 "The church has to a considerable extent ceased to be the 
 recognized moral leader of society. We have the strange spec- 
 tacle of a great many religious people in the church who have 
 no moral influence in society and of many men of moral influence 
 who have nothing to do with the church. I think it must be ad- 
 mitted that there are tendencies in modern life that are clearly 
 disturbing to personal religion. The four leading disturbing ele- 
 ments are the increased significance of material things, the 
 changed atitude toward scriptural authority, the study of relig- 
 ion by a historical and scientific method as contrasted with a 
 dogmatic method and the development of an ethical sentiment 
 without a conscious dependence upon religion. There was a time 
 when the church interpreted the Bible and prescribed to the in- 
 dividual the nature of his personal religion. A new attitude has 
 come. The individual now looks within himself very carefully; he 
 explores in regions the church has not prescribed. Many persons 
 have become negligent toward religion because they have tested 
 the methods of the church and have found that they did not work 
 
— 286 — 
 Out as predicted. Men used to read the Bible, saying, 'what does 
 it mean to me?' as though the thing they were reading was in 
 the Bible for the purpose of promoting their personal religion. 
 As a result of the new study the Bible has become a history. In 
 consequence many persons find that the old glory of the scrip- 
 tures has grown dim. In the old days religious consciousness and 
 moral consciousness were one. Today a large proportion of the 
 efforts to better the condition of humanity is undertaken with 
 no distinct consciousness of a relation with religion. Moral en- 
 thusiasm has come to take the place of religious zeal." 
 
 But this philosopher takes an optimistic view of the outlook 
 for the future of religion. He says in conclusion: 
 
 "The very same tendencies that today disturb personal re- 
 ligion are capable of promoting it. The old view of church au- 
 thority interposed a barrier between the soul and God; the new 
 idea removes that barrier. Within a short time we shall see in 
 our Sunday schools the fruits of the modern method of scripture 
 study, and personal religion will be promoted. The church must 
 take the lead in the ethical movement of the time. She must 
 show by her good works that she has all that the ethical people 
 have and more. The time will come when the pulpit will dare to 
 assert the right of Christ and of the church to the material 
 wealth of church members." Prof. George A. Coe, Moral Phi- 
 losophy, Northwestern University, Chicago, 111. 
 
 It is my belief that the time will come when the preacher 
 and the philosopher will be one. When the Bible has ceased to 
 be the text book of religion, when man has come to the realiz- 
 ation that his religion should be so large as to include his whole 
 life, and when he can see that his own life is only a small part 
 of the universal life without which he would not exist, then of 
 course the office of expounder of religion and philosophy must 
 be the same. There is very good reason to believe that Jesus 
 himself was a philosopher — as much so as any one could be in 
 his age of the world. His familiarity with the country and with 
 plant and animal life is well shown in his parables and in other 
 ways. And most of all in his humanitarian views of life. 
 
 "Christians are mostly as dead to nature as other men. 'We 
 have the Bible,' chey say, as if it were God's only communica- 
 tion to us. We continually dwell on Christ's bidding to 'search 
 the Scriptures,' and we do well. But here is another of his com- 
 mands, 'Consider the lilies, ' and where is our authority for slight- 
 ing this? Of course it is not an injunction in favor of the lilies 
 as against other flowers — the rose, the marigold, the dahlia, the 
 pansy, or against the useful plants which are so modest — but 
 rather one which is meant to open our eyes upon God's works at 
 large, bend us to the study of all nature as God's fundamental 
 word." Chancellor E. Benjamin Andrews. Lincoln, Neb. 
 
-287— 
 
 There is one notable feature of religion which should have 
 some attention here. It is properly called Revivalism — an out- 
 burst of religious enthusiasm, generally due to some exciting 
 cause and most effectual on excitable people. The revival has 
 prevailed more or less in all the old religions from the earliest 
 times to the present day, but it seems that they are less violent 
 today than in former years. A Muhamadan revival aims for a 
 return to the strict doctrines of the Koran and the participants 
 are often seized with a desire to take the sword and massacre 
 all the Christians in the neighborhood, if they happen to be in 
 the minority. The Christians have been less severe in their re- 
 vivals toward nonbelievers perhaps because Jesus plainly forbid 
 the use of the sword. Many revivals have occurred among the 
 Christians from apostolic times down to the present and they 
 have been instrumental in bringing about many great reforms. 
 Revivals of the present day seem to be confined to the Protes- 
 tant churches and they do not aim to introduce anything new 
 but only to revive or work up a spiritual enthusiasm for the old 
 forms of religion. The means employed are exciting sermons, 
 prayers for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and daily and night- 
 ly meetings. It has been found that many of those converted re- 
 main steadfast in the faith while many others soon go back to 
 the old habits of sin and the usual religious deadness returns. 
 It has also been noticed that excitable persons are sometimes 
 thrown into a state of ecstasy in which they shout, jump, utter 
 piercing cries or fall prostrated on the floor. 
 
 The success of a revival always seems to depend on the man 
 who leads. Perhaps one of the most succesful revivalists that 
 ever traveled this country is the one who has just closed a series 
 of meetings here in Denver. His name is William A. Sunday, 
 Billy for short. I take what follows from observation and from 
 the printed reports of his meetings. 
 
 Billy is a man of medium size, light complection, 51 years 
 old, gray eyes, rather full face, nervous, evasive, and when in 
 action often showing the fighting spirit with bull-dog tenacity. 
 He got his early world training in the baseball field and among 
 the men and boys of the street. Also that of the common school. 
 He gave up baseball for the more lucrative employment of sav- 
 ing souls and here he has found the vocation for which he is well 
 qualified, at least from the business view point. He plainly dis- 
 plays a degree of shrewd business cunning which ought to bring 
 success in any pursuit. If there is such a thing as making a bus- 
 iness of religion with a view to monetary success this man has 
 got the trick to perfection. In Denver he converted 9,000 sinners 
 and received $10,000 as a donation. In Des Moines, la, he con- 
 verted 11,000 and received $12,844.02 as a free offering for his 
 work. It is said that in other places he has received more than 
 
-288 — 
 double these amounts. But how does he do it? Is it the spirit of 
 God working thru this man as is claimed by many, or is it the 
 spirit of Old Nick helping him to catch suckers? The hardened 
 sinner or the confirmed devotee, both invulnerable to anything 
 new, would see nothing in it. But let us briefly examine his mo- 
 dus of procedure. In the first place he preaches the old Jonathan 
 Edwards, hotter than hell, style of sermon, interspersed with 
 slang and vulgar wit. He preaches the gospel of Jesus in the lan- 
 guage which he thinks is capable of driving it home to stay. 
 He says: "I am condemned for my slang but it wins converts. 
 I try to reach the man of the street whose talk is made up of 
 one-third cuss words, one-third obscenity and one-third slang. I 
 wouldn't use cuss words or obscenity, 80 I talk slang to him." 
 Billy entertains no bright hopes for the future of religion. 
 He say: * 'There will always be wars and there must be according 
 to the Bible. A man must go thru life fighting. God is the God of 
 love and the God of war too. The Devil has supernatural power 
 and I believe the Lord lets him go it just to see what he'll do. 
 The world is fast going to the Devil. It's growing worse every 
 day. It's much worse than it was ten years ago. Look how the 
 people now go to the extremes. The women are as bad as the 
 men. Look at the way they dress. I don't say it's immoral for 
 a girl to go down town with her skirt slit up clear to her knee, 
 but it may lead to immorality. I am no crank about dress. I like 
 to see a women in neat up-to-date clothes, I never fancied those 
 dresses with a lot of hooks up the back and mutton leg sleeves. 
 There is nothing wrong about a girl wearing short sleeves and 
 low neck, that is, if it is reasonably low. It's the women in so- 
 ciety who drink coctktails and smoke cigarettes that are help- 
 ing to take the world to the devil. Other classes imitate them. 
 That's where they do their harm." 
 
 In his sermons Billy talks much the same as he does in con- 
 versation and the above is a fair example of the subjects dis- 
 cused and of the way they are handled. He never attempts to 
 consider any abstruse problem. Such discussions would not en- 
 tertain the crowd and perhaps he would not be able to give them 
 proper treatment. His strongest "punch," as he puts it, is in 
 his slangy remarks, his thrusts of irony and his athletic leaps 
 and facial grimaces while in action on the platform. Every point 
 he makes is driven in and clinched by expressive movements of 
 his whole body. Here are some hot ones right from his bat. 
 
 "I am not saying you can't be a good Christian and use to- 
 bacco, but I do say if you use it you're a mighty dirty one. 
 
 "If you must smoke use an old brier pipe; for, if you use cig- 
 arettes, you little fool, you'll wake up some morning with your 
 brains runing out on your pillow. 
 
 "There are people so mean that they never give away ten 
 
—289- 
 cents without singing, 'God Be With You Till We Meet Again. ' 
 There are people so stingy they sing thru their nose to save the 
 wear and tear on their false teeth. There are people who, when 
 you ask them to sing, 'Old Hundred,' will sing the 'Ninty and 
 Nine* to save the 1 per cent. There are people so mean they 
 would steal flies from a blind spider." 
 
 He likes to wallop the women folks and they seem to like 
 him all the better for it. He says : 
 
 "'The most useless being on earth is the society woman. 
 
 "You can't raise the standard of morals by raising wages. 
 
 "It makes me sick to see a fool woman hugging and kissing 
 a brindle-nosed pup. And let me suggest that perhaps that is 
 why her husband is not more affectionate, for no real blooded 
 man wants to play second fiddle to a bow-legged bulldog." 
 
 He fires them off like this, one after another, and the ten or 
 or twelve thousand people assembled in the great wooden taber- 
 nacle are fairly convulsed with merriment. Some of them laugh 
 so hard as to incur the danger of personal injury. With an eye 
 to business he attempts no conversion work until he has got the 
 crowd well worked up, which takes time. Besides his mirth pro- 
 voking talks he has another way of stirring em' up, and this is 
 by making a strong appeal to the imagination of fear. To this 
 end he has a number of stories of death scenes which he tells 
 to good effect. Here is one of them: 
 
 "And there you sit, without His salvation. You don't care 
 for Him. Some of you like a dog or a horse better than you do 
 Jesus. You have treated Him worse than a brute because you 
 think more of brutes than you do of Him. You giggle in His pres- 
 ence, and some wicked thought is flashing thru your mind now, 
 and you can hardly wait until I have finished so that you can 
 creep away and propagate your iniquity. You are having dam- 
 nation written on your soul this very minute while you sit there 
 and wait. * Some of you are wearing mourning. That tells me 
 that you have lost somebody out there that you wish was by 
 your side now. That tells me that death has been down to where 
 you live and has stopped in front of your house. Listen! Some 
 day there will be another funeral and it will be on your street, 
 and the hearse will stop in front of your house. Some day the 
 pallbearers will come to carry out another body and you will be 
 in the coffin and your name will be on the coffin plate and your 
 name will be on the tombstone, and still there you sit. Say, listen- 
 If God would just pull the curtain back and let some of you men 
 and women see how close you are to the coffin you wonld turn 
 pale. Some of you are so close to the hearse that if God would 
 pull back the curtain you could reach out and touch it tonight. 
 And there you sit without Jesus Christ as your Savior." 
 
 That such stories are deliberately told for an effect; that 
 
— 290— 
 that the effect is plainly evident to any careful observer, is be- 
 yond dispute. To see the would-be converts with pale anxious 
 faces and some of them in tears, flocking to the salvation trough, 
 is a sight to be remembered. It reminds me of the old days on 
 the farm when I use to feed the pigs. With a bucket of slop I 
 would go out to the trough and shout: 'pegoa, pegoa, then they 
 would come on the run. squealing and falling over each other, 
 from every part of the hog lot. They wanted something good 
 and slop is a good thing for pigs. 
 
 But what does it all mean? If I attempt to answer this ques- 
 tion my only resort is to use the ordinary judgment which every 
 man has and which always proceeds on knowledge. It is plain 
 that all these converts and all those who are in sympathy with 
 them are very much in earnest. They believe what the evan- 
 gelist says and many of them are visibly affected. A dominant 
 mental element in them is passiveness; susceptibility to impres- 
 sions from the outside due to deficiency of knowledge and self- 
 control. They believe because they do not know any better and 
 the poor things want to be saved. A simple case of the insanity 
 of ignorance and they have all got it more or less. And the evan- 
 gelist: he has got it too and he has got it bad. And he has got 
 something else which marks a striking contrast between him 
 and his converts. He exhibits a degree of arrogence and pos- 
 itive assumption which might be properly called contemptible 
 insolence. The two most amazing things about him are igno- 
 rance and impudence. It is only natural that people like this 
 should readily come under the influence of such a man. 
 
 Think of this: Thousands of these people have been living 
 right here in Denver for years. The ministers of the gospel of 
 Jesus are as capable here as they are anywhere in the world 
 and the doors of their churches are always open to the belated 
 sinner and no one is more welcome. But these lost sheep cannot 
 think of being saved until some bombastic clown comes along 
 and tickles them with his slang and slop and then scares them 
 into the sheep-pen. They want something good and they get it. 
 
 That Billy is a shallow and far from up to date thinker is 
 proved by his own words in every one of his sermons. Read what 
 he says about the Bible: "I want to say to this audience to night 
 before I forget it, that I believe that the Bible is the Word of 
 God from cover to cover. Not because I can understand it, for 
 I cannot. Not because I understand its philosophy, speculation 
 or theory. I cannot: wouldn't attempt it, and I would be a fool 
 if I tried. I believe it, because it is from the mouth of God, the 
 mouth of God has spoken it." 
 
 What does he know about the mouth of God? Suppose some 
 one should ask him: 'how did you get this so called Word of God'? 
 The only possible answer is this: 'Somebody said so.' Well, who 
 
— 291 — 
 was it? 'We don't know; all that we can learn about it, is, that 
 some man or men who lived long ago said so. ' But you say your 
 self that the worst liars on earth are men and that even when 
 they try to tell the truth they are liable to be mistaken. 
 
 Perhaps the self-sufficient Billy is like millions of others who 
 think they are Christians. They believe the Bible because they 
 don't understand it. If you would understand that book study all 
 things, using comparative judgment and learn the whole truth. 
 Then perhaps the Bible will not look so important. 
 
 That the Rev. Billy is not, strictly speaking, a preacher of 
 the letter and spirit of the gospel of Jesus, and that he is not 
 the Christian he seems to think he is, is proved again and again 
 by his own words. Since his conversion he has spent 27 years 
 building up a Christian character and he defies any one to find a 
 flaw in any of his personal habits. But he freely admits that he 
 gets mad. He says his temper is like a sheetiron stove with too 
 much fire in it. The two hardest verses in the Bible for him to 
 obey are, Matthew, V, 39, 44. 
 
 39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whoso- 
 ever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other 
 also." 44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them 
 that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for 
 them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye 
 may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he 
 maketh his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth 
 rain on the just and on the unjust." 
 
 I believe we are safe in the assertion that more than half 
 the people, in the church or out of it, are not able to live up to 
 the literal sense of the doctrine above stated. And for this sim- 
 ple reason it seems plain that they have not the right to call 
 themselves Christians; tho a great many of them belong to a 
 church and openly profess to be Christians. It is only necessary 
 to go thru the ceremony called conversion, then renounce cer- 
 tain sinful habits and adopt the formalism of some church. Af- 
 ter this change they are supposed to be Christians. Yet they 
 hold with the same tenacity to the same narrow views of life 
 and mind, the same greed for money and property, the same ig- 
 norance and stupidity; in short, they are the same half-animal 
 creatures having only bargained away a few of their bad hab- 
 its in exchange for the promise of a soft thing in the future. 
 And they are even encouraged by the church to hold fast to this 
 their only hope for salvation. All this in view of the truth that 
 the mission of Christianity, was, and still is, to humanize men. 
 
 Since Mr. Sunday has offered himself as a model Christian, 
 I feel at liberty at least to mention the fact that I have tried to 
 be a Christian myself; and that I am still trying. I can look back 
 for more than 50 years and I can see myself in all those years, 
 
-292 — 
 and I can see myself now; and as sure as I live this minute the 
 comparison is exceedingly encouraging. I am a better man to- 
 day than ever before and tho not yet a Christian it is not bcause 
 I don't want to be one, but because I am not yet humanized. I 
 often think that if I had none but agreeable companions I could 
 be as good as the best if I was one of the best myself. To be 
 one of the best it seems clear to me that we must first possess 
 a complete knowledge of all things, then the mental discipline 
 which depends on such knowledge. Two or more persons posses- 
 sing such knowledge and culture can live on the most agreeable 
 terms and this is heaven. I entertain the hope that some day I 
 will be a real Christian, and I think so because I believe I know 
 what true Christianity is and because I can plainly see that in 
 every year of my past life I have made some progress in that 
 direction. I have quit telling lies, I have quit stealing, I have 
 quit swearing and I have parted company with a number of bad 
 habits but not all. I still lose my temper once in a while when 
 the occasion comes along. And whence this change? If my per- 
 sonal experience as a means to knowledge has been worth any- 
 thing to me I do know from it that what I have gained in self- 
 improvement has not come to me thru a study of the Bible or 
 the influence of any church. I have never been converted and I 
 have never belonged to any church, and for this I certainly have 
 reason to be thankful. By keeping out of the church I have re- 
 tained the most cherished thing I ever possessed — the right to 
 think and act for myself. Thus free I have searched the scrip- 
 tures as I would any other book and I have searched everything 
 I could for light on the mystery of God and religion. And the 
 more I search the more I feel convinced that His Word is not 
 to be found exclusively in any book, nor in any class of things, 
 but in all things. When we know all things we shall know Him. 
 
 The thing most deplorable in che work of Mr. Sunday, is 
 his persistent denunciation of every modern innovation which is 
 calculated to encourage the advance of human knowledge and 
 progress. The world is going to hell by strenuous leaps and no- 
 thing can save it but dynamic evangelism of the Billy Sunday 
 type. The church takes things too easy. They eat too much and 
 they sleep too much and one day in the week they try to act 
 like saints while in the next six days they are full of the old nick. 
 Here is one of his sage remarks on the matter of education: 
 "If I had a million dollars, I'd give $999,999 to the church and$l 
 to education. Not that I belittle education, but I believe that 
 it's not intellect, but religion, that will save men." 
 
 That settles it. If we are careful about maintaining our rep- 
 utation for ignorance, and if we are lucky to have a good dose of 
 saving grace shot into us from a two-legged salvation dynamo 
 like Billy, then sure we've got a sinch on heaven. 
 
—293 — 
 
 But who wants to be caught in a heaven like that? Surely 
 not the man who can understand that the highest heaven is a 
 simple result of the highest intellectual development of man; 
 which is the consummation of mental evolution. On the subject 
 of evolution Billy makes a few remarks which plainly show how 
 little he knows about it. He says: 
 
 "It has never been proved. I defy you to show me where 
 a lower form has ever been developed into a higher form. There 
 is a development of the species. We have developed the hog, 
 but it is still the hog. Burbank developed the potato but he has 
 not developed it into the plum. You can develop the species, but 
 you can't change one species into another." 
 
 This statement is offered as final and fatal to the doctrine 
 of evolution, and sad to relate, it is accepted as true by a gaping 
 multitude who do not know any better. It would be impossible 
 in the small space at my disposal to recapitulate a tenth part 
 of the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. Perhaps 
 I can mention a few of the most general and best known facts. 
 
 As shown by Darwin, it is possible to arrange all organic 
 beings, vegetable, animal or man, living or extinct, into groups 
 under groups; and which are united by complex, radiating and 
 circuitous lines of affinities into a few or one grand class. This 
 is known as the 'Natural System.' On the Bible theory of cre- 
 ation this arrangement is incomprehensible. On the theory of 
 descent thru naturai variations, selective modifications and sur- 
 vival of the fittest, it is exactly what we ought to expect. 
 
 As shown by Huxley, Haeckel and others, all living things 
 past and present, are composed of one highly complex albumi- 
 noide called Protoplasm. There is some difference of opinion as 
 to whether this substance is mechanically (chemically) organ- 
 ized or morphologically or divinely organized. Most naturalists, 
 I believe, hold to the former view. In chapter 4, book 2, I have 
 tried to make it clear that living protoplasm must always con- 
 tain a mental organism — that living forms can only come from 
 preexisting living forms. It would thus appear that all living 
 things belong to one great class because the bodies of all are 
 composed of the one substance. Under this largest class are a 
 number of subclasses distinguished only by difference of form 
 in the one substance, but presenting the widest difference among 
 themselves. Under these again are a larger number of further 
 subclasses among which there is less difference of form; and so 
 on down to the species within each of which are a large number 
 of varieties. These classes and subclasses have been named in 
 the order from the least numerous and most widely different; 
 down to the most numerous and least different; as follows: or- 
 ders, famlies, genera, species, varieties. All this is incompre- 
 hensible under the theory of special creation while it is perfect- 
 
-294 — 
 ly intelligible under the theory of descent. So it follows that all 
 living things belong to one great class. No matter how widely 
 different two beings may be, whether one be a saint and the 
 other a reptile, the bodies of both are composed of the same 
 material, differing only in form. Now, on the theory of one uni- 
 versal mind, which is supported by a most irrefutable array of 
 facts, the only mental difference between a saint and a reptile, 
 is a difference in the forms of the one mind. Since all the bodily 
 actions of every living thing, are evident thru the movements 
 of the one substance, prompted and guided by the different ele- 
 ments of the one mind, it follows that we can resolve all things 
 into their three natural divisions; matter, motion, mind. No one 
 can fail to see the true relationship of these three most funda- 
 mental things. Matter is the one thing which includes every 
 other thing. Motion is the one thing in matter by which every 
 other thing may act. Mind is the one thing in matter which en- 
 ables it to be conscious as in feeling, thinking, imagination and 
 reason. Motion and Mind, are thus the essential properties of 
 the one Matter. These three most fundamental of things include 
 all things and they constitute Life. They are God Himself. 
 
 It is a well established experimental fact, and Mr. Sunday 
 admits it, that new varieties can be produced within the species 
 in a few generations. Since the only difference between species 
 is a simple matter of degree, what would prevent the produc- 
 tion of a new species in a thousand or more generations? 
 
 In book 2, chapter 4, the evidence for organic evolution has 
 been considered at some length. Here I wish to briefly notice 
 this matter of revivalism from the view point of mental evolu- 
 tion. I offer what follows as a sermon to the converts of Billy 
 Sunday and I take my text from Matthew, 7, 16. 
 
 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes 
 of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (also 17, 18, 19 and 20.) 
 
 Which means that we can know living things by carefully 
 observing their actions. All bodily actions come directly from 
 the mental elements which make up the organism of the person, 
 animal or man, and these have been classed into a number of 
 divisions. The two first and largest divisions are the voluntary 
 and the involuntary. Since the voluntary actions have by far 
 the most to do in shaping the conduct of men and animals, we 
 will consider them alone. The two subdivisions in which all vol- 
 untary actions have proper place are: (1), Impulsive or sensori- 
 motor. (2), Deliberative or ideo-motor. The first named class of 
 actions called impulsve. proceed directly and almost exclusively 
 from feelings, whitch feelings are excited by physically pro- 
 duced sensations. For example, a sudden sound gives rise to a 
 sensation of sound in us, and this excites a feeling of sudden 
 fright which makes us move impulsively; hence they are also 
 
— 295— 
 called sensori-motor. The feelings form a large department of 
 the mental elements which include the most simple (or those 
 hardly distinguishable from sensations) as well as the emotions 
 and sentiments. In this department we have the most powerful 
 exhibitions of mental force. In man it is the source of the power 
 which makes him hysterical or drives him to insanity. The act- 
 ions which follow from these elements are generally not con- 
 trolled by higher mental elements, hence the conduct of the per- 
 son is apt to be impulsive, foolish or violent. 
 
 The second class of actions proceed from ideas or thoughts, 
 which occur in a more highly developed and organized mind, 
 which mind contains the rational or intellectual elements, hence 
 more knowledge and greater power of deliberation or judgment 
 and control over the lower department of feelings. This class 
 is a distinguishing mark of the rational mind, which, in its high- 
 est known perfection is found only in the human mind. 
 
 Now, remember this. These two well defined divisions of 
 the mental elements from which all voluntary actions flow are 
 not confined the one to animals and the other to man, but both 
 are more or less present in all men, while the first named are 
 almost the exclusive elements of the animal mind. The two di- 
 visions gradually shade into each other in the mind of man and 
 so it is made up largely of the elements of the animal mind; in 
 some more than in others. The part of the human mind which 
 distinguishes man from the lower animals more than any other 
 part, is the deliberative or rational faculties and the greater 
 power of memory. There is thus a progressive gradation from 
 the purely animal mind up thru man to the most highly develop- 
 ed human mind, and which is marked by the gradual addition of 
 the human mental elements — the deliberative or ideo-motor. 
 
 Now, there is just one, and only one, way to account for 
 this gradual change of the individual mind from animal to man, 
 and that is what we call the Evolution of Mind and Body. As 
 shown in book 2, a free individual mind always leads the body 
 under the mental laws of Variation, Heredity, Selection and 
 Survival of the forms which have gained some advantage in the 
 struggle for existence. The conduct of the people on the ave- 
 rage is therefore governed by both the impulsive and the delib- 
 erative classes of mental elements, while the conduct of the 
 animals generally is ruled almost exclusively by the impulsive 
 elements. The more a man is deficient in knowledge, judgment, 
 self-control, the more he is apt to be subject to the animal ele- 
 ments and among these, either those of fear or those of cour- 
 age may predominate. What the man is mentally, so he will act. 
 All the sentiments or passions in man, no matter how re- 
 fined or gross, must be classed with the impulsive elements sim- 
 ply because in themselves they are not deliberative or rational. 
 
-296 — 
 On this side it seems clear that we must place all feelings or 
 emotions, as love, hate, anger, fear, sympathy, jealousy, cour- 
 age, cowardice, the appetite for food or drink, parental or sex- 
 ual love, the patriotic or religious sentiment, etc., etc. In this 
 division we must place certain nervous diseases as melancholy, 
 hysteria, insanity and the like. We meet with hysterical persons 
 often, especially among the young of both sex, and the disorder 
 shows itself in all degrees from ordinary impulsiveness to vio- 
 lent convulsions. The hysteric is one who laughe in one minute 
 and cries in the next, who flies into a passion of anger with lit- 
 tle or no cause, who acts in violent haste and has time to repent 
 only in the leisure of exhaustion. This peculiarity is often found 
 in a perfectly healthy body; in fact, it is, or may be, not a dis- 
 ease of the body at all, simply a disorder of the mind, which, 
 of course must be treated by mental remedies, as education, 
 verbal or silent suggestion, as in mental healing. It often takes 
 the form of spasmodic patriotism or religious mania, and spreads 
 so rapidly that nearly everybody in a populous neighborhood is 
 affected by it. The difference between one person and another 
 is thus simply a result of a difference in the relative proportions 
 of the two classes of mental elements which enter into the com- 
 position of the person. If the deliberative and self-controling 
 elements with ample knowledge, predominate, the person is in 
 little or no danger of making a fool of himself or committing a 
 crime. If the vicious, animal traits predominate with little or 
 no moral education, the person is a menace to the peace of the 
 community. If the weak, vascillating, emotional, excitable ele- 
 ments predominate, all of which are animal traits, the person 
 is very liable to act the fool. All these mental elements from 
 the human to the animal, are a direct result of the physical and 
 social conditions under which each person lives. It is not nec- 
 essary to tell my reader which part of the mind of man, the im- 
 pulsive or deliberative, is most trustworthy as a guide to con- 
 duct. That part which deliberates and strives for general knowl- 
 edge is pre-eminent to everything else in mind as a directer of 
 human action. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." 
 
 Now, the observer of social phenomena need not fail to see 
 where the converts to mobism, militarism and revivalism, are 
 found. Every one knows the class of men and women who are 
 always ready and often desperately anxious to take part in a 
 case of mob violence. The greatest war in the world's history 
 is now raging in Europe and affecting the entire world. No sane 
 person can fail to see the fruits of militarism and the brute pug- 
 nacity of men, in this war. As soon as war is declared the streets 
 in the cities of the belligerent countries are thronged with fren- 
 zied men, singing their national songs and howling for blood. If 
 either side wins they gain the undying hatred of the other side 
 
—297— 
 and no matter what else they get they have got the worst of it 
 and the last great war of the world is only postponed to some 
 future time. There is one very sure and simple way to make this 
 the last of all wars. (1) Stop fighting and disclaim all desire for 
 indemnity or territorial possession. (2) Settle all international 
 disputes or questions by international law. If the laws do not ex- 
 ist make them in the same way that any civilized country makes 
 its laws. All national boundaries should be determined by refer- 
 endum vote of the people who occupy the territory and all races 
 of men should be separated as much as possible by state bound- 
 aries. The world should be divided into states determined by raci- 
 al and religious ties and all states should be united under one 
 international law based on the moral law. All state alliances 
 which aim to unite two or more states against any or all the 
 others, should be illegal. All armaments should be limited to an 
 army and navy sufficient to protect land and sea against the un- 
 lawful element, more or less present in every social state. 
 
 But to return to revivalism. In book 2 I have tried to ex- 
 plain what I have called the great truth that all that is, is good, 
 that all that happens is right, and that it is so because law is 
 universal and all law is God's law. From which it would follow 
 that there ought to be some good in revivalism. No doubt of it, 
 the mode of practice employed by Mr. Sunday enables him to 
 reach a class of people that ordinary church methods would not 
 touch. Perhaps many of these converts will get interested in re- 
 leigion for its own sake as well as in its power to keep them 
 out of hell. Perhaps some of them will ask: 'what is religion?' 
 whence and whither, or how is it related to this universe of 
 things?' Perhaps some of them will privately say to themselves: 
 'what a fool I was to be caught in that fellow's rat trap; but I 
 have learned something and I want to learn more. I will study 
 religion from every possible point of view. ' 'Tout bien ou rien. ' 
 When they begin to think like a philosophre there is something 
 doing, and we can look for results. So it comes to this: The re- 
 vivalist is a useful instrument in the hands of God for the good 
 of men. And so is the devil. 
 
 It is generally admitted, I believe, that the God of the hea- 
 then is a being possessing the characteristics of an ordinary 
 man, with the difference that he is all powerful, all wise and 
 the maker and manager of all things. What is the difference 
 between the God of the heathen and the God of the Bible? Af- 
 ter a careful search of that book and all other sources of in- 
 formation known to me, I am compelled to admit that if there is 
 any difference it must be in the probability that the God of the 
 Bible or the Jews, was more civilized than the other Gods who 
 flourished in the early days. But all the Gods of that distant 
 age in Jewish history had the usual failings of ordinary men. 
 
— 298- 
 which makes it highly probable that all were conceived in the 
 brains of fallible men. They would make foolish mistakes, then 
 repent for their folly. They would make men, then damn them 
 into perdition for being just what they made them. When men 
 got to fighting they would take a hand in the row and they were 
 always on the side of the victor. We can prove all this and more 
 by the Bible. Every one of the modern forms of faith which 
 find justification in that book can be proved to be false by the 
 same book. We can safely declare that of all the books in the 
 world there is not one that contains more absurdities and self- 
 contradictions than the Bible. It is a rule of our civil law that 
 when a man testifies in court if he contradicts himself his testi- 
 mony is ruled out. Why not treat the Bible the same way? 
 
 If we take the several parts of the Bible separately we can 
 prove almost anything from them. The truth of the doctrine of 
 evolution can be proved from the first book of Moses as com- 
 pletely as anything ever has been proved from that book. I have 
 done this myself but I would not think of offering my work as a 
 scientific demonstration of the truth of evolution based on fact. 
 And let me say here that tho I have quoted approvingly many 
 passages from the Bible, I have never once attempted to prove 
 anything from that book. If I did I would have to do as Mr. 
 Sunday does: declare that I believed it to be His Word, from 
 cover to cover. This I could not do without telling an awful lie, 
 then I would have to live in perpetual shame in the presence of 
 the most lovable of all Beings. 
 
 According to Mr. Sunday the God of the Bible is a God of 
 war, of love, of hatred and revenge. He says: "God hates the 
 man who trims his sail to catch every passing breeze of noto- 
 riety. " Does he mean it? If so how can he expect to escape the 
 wrath of his God, for no man is more solicitous of notoriety than 
 himself. But he is just what the law of life has made him and 
 he cannot be anything else until he has been converted to a high- 
 er plane of humanity. He has the power that gets the crowds 
 and it is a pity that he does not preach a more advanced Chris- 
 tianity. Some day perhaps he will be converted again but being 
 rather stubborn and self-righteous it is not probable that furth- 
 er knowledge of science and philosophy will convert him. If the 
 founder of the pure Christian gospel would appear to him as he 
 did to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, (Acts, 26, 13.) 
 no doubt he would be converted at once and like Paul he might 
 do a great deal of good. But if this should happen he would be 
 required to preach a more humane gospel and a more humane 
 God; besides, he would be denounced, (as was Paul,) as an im- 
 postor or a Spiritist, by all those people who believe that mod- 
 ern Spiritualism is nothing but "Demonism." And at least the 
 majority of his convertis and supporters would net understand 
 
-299 — 
 him. So after all it may be best for Billy to be just what he 
 is, and so with all the revivalists. 
 
 Now, there is one way to understand the Bible; and I be- 
 lieve that any man who can take this view, can firmly believe 
 and truthfully say that the Bible is the Word of God from cover 
 to cover. But only in the sense that the Universe itself is God, 
 that all things are parts of Him and chat every man who speaks 
 must speak the Word of God, can this statement be true. Thru 
 all the prophets from Moses to Malachi, there is one continuous 
 admonition to the Jewish people against sin. No one can doubt 
 but that these solemn reproofs and instructions were spoken by 
 some one or more intelligent and moral beings. They were not 
 the fictitious inventions of men noted for piety. Now, if we ac- 
 cept the idea as to the nature and personality of God described 
 in §53, question 4, then it follows as possible that all those com- 
 munications to the prophets purporting to come from God, were 
 actually spoken by the spirits belonging to the higher spheres of 
 spirit life. They spoke the Word of God, just as Jesus spoke the 
 same Word while on earth. They were first, sons of men, then 
 sons of God by conversion, just as Jesus was while on earth. 
 Being fallible men, they were liable to make mistakes just as 
 Jesus did while on earth. By taking this view we are not ob- 
 liged to attribute all the discrepancies of that book to the Su- 
 preme, and we are spared the absurdity of saying that we be- 
 lieve the book yet do not understand it. 
 
 If God is a Spirit, (Gen. 1: 2, and 2: 7,) then all men are 
 spirits, for there is but one universal Spirit or Mind. As Jesus 
 was a part of the Spirit of God in the flesh, (John, 8: 28, and 10: 
 29 to 37,) so every man is a part of the Spirit of God in the flesh. 
 As every living thing is an association of mental elements or- 
 ganized and active for the purpose of maintaining agreeable re- 
 lations in life, so God is an association of mental elements (hu- 
 manized men in spirit life,) organized and active for the same 
 purpose. As every living thing must occupy and manage as well 
 as knowledge permits, a small part of this material universe, in 
 order to keep its smaller material parts together, so God must 
 occupy and manage the whole in order to keep its material parts 
 together. (§53, question 3.) The material body in physical life 
 is necessary to keep the mental elements together long enough 
 under physical conditions to secure a permanent association and 
 the highest degree of mental discipline thru experience as under 
 the law of mental evolution, (book 2.) When this association is 
 well established in this way, (tho it may not have reached the 
 highest mental discipline,) the body of flesh is no longer neces- 
 sary to life; so it may be cast off as in physical death, (book 2.) 
 
 Since the mental elements which compose the lowest and 
 simplest forms of life cannot begin to exist alone, they cannot 
 
— 300 — 
 reproduce or duplicate themselves outside of a mental organism 
 composed of like forms. (§4). Hence it is that every living thing 
 must have its birth in and thru the reproductive system of a 
 preexisting similar form of life. All forms of life above the low- 
 est must come into existence thru a combination of the lowest; 
 as required under the law of association which is a prime factor 
 in the mental law of evolution. As we proceed from the lowest 
 forms thru the scale of development to the highest in man, we 
 see that every step higher has been gained thru some advantage 
 in the struggle for existence, which advantage has come thru 
 the association of the mental elements which are found to be 
 most helpful in the life struggle. In certain lines of descent (the 
 quadrupeds) the associations have resulted only in the develop- 
 ment of the body; the mind having developed very little. In other 
 lines of descent (the quadrumana) the mental development has 
 been enormous. It is not difficult to see a reason for this great 
 progress in intellectual development which has distinguished man 
 from the lower animals. The exclusive use of the hind legs and 
 feet for supporting and propelling the body, leaving the fore 
 legs and feet to be used exclusively as arms and hands, has been 
 possible; thus permitting the further development of both mind 
 and body up to that of man. (book 2, also Huxley's "Man's 
 Place In Nature," and many other works on Evolution.) 
 
 In this way the latest and highest mental elements have 
 been created and associated together thru experience and under 
 physical conditions as we now find them in humanized man. But 
 the advent of the later and higher elements has been possible 
 only on the basis of the older and lower elements. Hence it is 
 that the body of man must at present contain all the forms of 
 life from the lowest to the highest as the direct descendants of 
 the ancestoral forms; and so it is that every man must have 
 more or less of the animal in his composition. 
 
 As every man's body must contain a part of the animal king- 
 dom, so the body of God, (the Physical Universe,) must contain 
 the whole of the animal kingbom. As every man must keep his 
 latest and highest mental acquisitions in one place within his 
 body, (the head) so God must keep His latest and highest men- 
 tal acquisitions (humanized spirits) in one place within the Uni- 
 verse. This highest place is what we call Heaven. It is the seat 
 of the highest wisdom, the purest love to all, and the source of 
 the power that governs all. Heaven contains innumerable socie- 
 ties and these are graded in a series from the lowest to the high- 
 est called spheres. (Swedenborg and others.) All that part of 
 the Universal body outside of these highest parts is what we 
 call Hell. Like heaven hell also contains many societies graded 
 from the lowest to the highest. As the character of every man 
 must depend on his ruling mental elements, these will determine 
 
-301 — 
 his place in the Universal Mind and Body of God. There is only 
 a little difference of degree between the lowest heaven and the 
 highest hell. The two together exhibit a series from the lowest 
 hell to the highest heaven and every stage in this series is a di- 
 rect result of the three laws of life named in the preface. 
 
 In every living thing, there is, and must be, some degree of 
 association, some degree of organized activity, and some agree- 
 ment in the relations of its component mental elements. The end 
 of this association and organized activity is agreeable relations; 
 or in one word happiness. And this is life. The highest heaven 
 is that organized assocation of mental units which secures the 
 higest degree of happiness, and the lowest hell is that organiz- 
 ed association of mental units which secures the least degree of 
 happiness. But since the highest forms of life are dependent 
 upon the lowest, there must be some happiness for all living 
 things, else there would be no life high or low and even God 
 would not exist. 
 
 Taking this view of the matter the way to the salvation of 
 every man is not difficult to find. It is a simple question of in- 
 tellect — knowledge and moral discipline. In other words, it is a 
 question of that intelligent self-government, individual and so- 
 cial, which secures the most agreeable relations between man 
 and man. (§59 book 2.) To know God, is to know all things and 
 to keep the first commandment is to love all things. This is the 
 Soul of Christianity, because it includes all the other command- 
 ments. He who loves all things, hates nothing, and to obey the 
 golden rule, or refrain from vengeful retaliation, is always a 
 pleasure. Knowledge of things and of life, with ordinary judg- 
 ment, will enable any man to avoid all occasion for strife. The 
 one sure way to make religion something more than a mere 
 name for ignorance, is Knowledge and self-government. 
 
 There are many freethinkers who believe that Christianity 
 "weakens and corrupts not only nations, but the individual, by 
 undermining and discouraging the use of his reason." Undoubt- 
 edly the so called Christianity as now taught all over the world, 
 weakens and perverts human reason. But not so with the true 
 Christianity, founded on laws of Nature and which now seems 
 to be almost totally unknown to the world. 
 
 In "Life," for October last year appears an article headed, 
 "Figures Can't Lie," and in which occurs a statement from an 
 English Parliamentary report on the moral status of society in 
 England and Wales." This report has been freely circulated as 
 damaging evidence against Christianity by the freethought peo- 
 ple, and I have copied it below. 
 
 "Population by Religious Profession: 
 
 Roman Catholic, 1,500,000. 
 
 Church of England, 6,933,935. 
 
— 302- 
 
 Protestants, 7,234,158. 
 
 Infidels, 7,000,000. 
 
 Jews, 57,000. 
 
 Total Number of Criminals in Jail. 
 
 Roman Catholic, 37,000. 
 
 Church of England, 96,000. 
 
 Protestants, 10,000. 
 
 Infidels, 350. 
 
 Jews, 0. 
 
 Criminals to every 100,000 Population. 
 
 Roman Catholic, 2,500. 
 
 Church of England, 1,400. 
 
 Protestants, 150. 
 
 Infidels, 5. 
 
 Jews, 
 
 Proportion of Criminals. 
 
 Roman Catholic, 1 in 40. 
 
 Church of England, 1 in 72. 
 
 Protestants, 1 in 662. 
 
 Infidels, 1 in 20,000. 
 
 "According to this report it is 500 times better to be an in- 
 fidel or belong to no church than to be a Catholic. It is 277 time9 
 better to be an infidel than to belong to the Church of England, 
 and it is 30 times better to be an infidel than to be a Protestant. n 
 
 This report, if strictly true certainly means something. But 
 the idea that the strict adherence to the simple gospel of Jesus, 
 (the first commandment, the golden rule and non- resentment,) 
 is an incentive to crime, is conspicuously false on its very face. 
 As every one knows the real incentives to crime are want, self- 
 ishness, hatred; in one word ignorance. Every mental element 
 that makes the criminal is a result of the associations handed 
 down from our animal ancestors and to get rid of them is not 
 to teach the victim some outward empty ceremony which adds 
 nothing tc his knowledge of self and the world, but to teach and 
 encourage a constant pursuit of the whole truth about life; as 
 an indispensable means to individual and social self-government. 
 
 The above report plainly prove the ignorance of the church. 
 Its inability to preach and scientifically demonstrate the truth of 
 the pure and simple spiritual gospel of Jesus and the prophets, 
 is one of the most striking facts of church history to this day. 
 The Bible from cover to cover is a record of ancient spiritualsm 
 just as the "Proceding of the Society for Psychical Research," 
 and other modern literature is a record of modern spiritualism. 
 Both contain all the inaccuracies and fallacies of depraved man 
 and yet in both may be found those priceless gems of truth for 
 which every true Christian must feel it not only a duty but the 
 highest privilege to search. 
 
—303— 
 
 In every age of human history there are a few thinking 
 men and women who are far in advance of the great sensual 
 mass of people who hardly think at all. The stability of the 
 church for ages past has depended upon this faithful plodding 
 horde, who cannot entertain a new idea on any social question. 
 But of late years there is a growing tendency, even in the 
 church, to break away from the narrow sphere of Biblical reve- 
 lation and early church beliefs, and to look with more respect 
 upon the testimony of science. Geology, Anthropology, Arch- 
 aeology and the like, have been steadily advancing and bringing 
 to view a significant body of facts, in perfect harmony in them- 
 selves, but far out of harmony with the so-called revelations of 
 the Bible. They throw a much needed and welcome light on the 
 antiquity of man and add lustre to the life long labors of men 
 like Darwin who studied life in all its forms for truth only. 
 
 It is not difficult to see that every man or animal's breadth 
 of vision in the affairs of life depends on two things; knowledge 
 and knowing how to use it. Or in one word, knowledge. Knowl- 
 edge is a thing of growth, and every stage higher in its growth 
 is marked by that change of mind which makes the subject less 
 brutal and more humane, and which widens his sphere of vision. 
 A faithful watch-dog will often attack a stranger passing on 
 the street simply because there is something unusual in his mode 
 of dress. A prisoner of war in the power of the lowest savage, 
 is pretty sure to suffer death with extreme torture. The great 
 war in Europe is now giving us many examples of the brutality 
 of men who are supposed to be civilized. But what is civilization, 
 or is there one sure test for it? It seems certain that the gener- 
 al atitude of society toward sin or human depravity is one sear- 
 ching test, if not the only one. With the lowest savage the only 
 use for a woman is to be the slave of some man and to gratify 
 his brute passion. When too old to work they turn her out to die 
 without the attention of one of her nearest of kin. In the mind 
 of such a person, love, is only a form of animal want, and hate, 
 vengance and cruelty are the dominant traits. This, of course 
 is not civilization. But every step higher in social evolution has 
 brought something to the eradication of sin and the betterment 
 of the life of women. And what is the situation to day? There 
 is no reason to think that the women and children of France and 
 Belgium, had anything to do with the cause of this war. Yet if 
 reports are true the German soldiers who invaded these coun- 
 tries have put on record facts which prove that as a nation Ger- 
 many is not yet civilized. Yet the unceasing boast of Germany 
 is of her incomparable civilization and culture. Every nation ia 
 responsible for the acts of its soldiers. If the discipline of the 
 army has little or no moralizing influence upon the soldier, what 
 can we expect of the civilian population of that country? 
 
— 304 — 
 
 But Germany i9 not the only uncivilized nation on this plan- 
 et. Every informed person must know that more than half of 
 the people in every part of the world are afflicted with that be- 
 setting sin of avarice, which is a simple result of the necessary 
 conditions of planetary life. Still it must be admitted that Ger- 
 many, in the late war, has given us a notable example of that 
 almost universal belief that this world must be ruled by a bo 
 called superior class of people. The Kaiser really believes that 
 "the German people are my people and if my brave soldiers can 
 conquer this world it is mine by divine right." The Jews long 
 ago when succesful in plundering and murdering the people of 
 neighboring tribes, believed the same, so says the Bible, and 
 history records many examples of the same belief. If there is 
 one form of selfishness more beastly than all the others it must 
 be that which claims divine sanction. Nevertheless this claim 
 was made to justify the slavery of the black man here in the 
 United States 60 years ago and it is even now made to justify 
 the industrial slavery still in practise all over the world. 
 
 The majority of the people, even in the most democratic 
 states, either believe in or unknowingly give their support to 
 that industrialism which divides the social body into two classes, 
 the one class owning and enslaving the other. And they would 
 base this distinction on personal worth; either a gift from God 
 or a mark of superiority. And what have they got to prove it? 
 Nothing worth a tinker's notice. Nothing in character or moral 
 worth; nothing in genius or intellectual ability; nothing but that 
 covetousness or business ability which brings great wealth. "I 
 am a superior being because I have got the money. My millions 
 are my own because 1 made them in legitimate business, and 
 this is the proof of my superiority among men. My son is my 
 offspring and my legitimate heir, and he must bear my mark of 
 superiority even if he is an idiot." This is the best excuse, the 
 only excuse, that these people ever have or ever can, offer for 
 their right to rule the world. Call it constitutional industrialism 
 or any nice name, it is animal selfishness just the same. 
 
 Industrialism has not yet learned that it has a legitimate 
 and limited sphere, determined by humane and Christian laws, 
 and that it has long out-lived its usefulness and overreached its 
 natural boundaries. Among the average of men there is perhaps 
 not one in a hundred that would not be a millionaire if he could 
 and he would think it perfectly right. Even if it could be made 
 clear to his mind that there is a simple form of government un- 
 der which poverty with all its ills is impossible, and under which 
 every man can have for himself the fruits of his industry just 
 so far as measured by his personal worth to society and no fur- 
 ther, it is doubtful whether he would assent because he might 
 loose the chance of getting rich; and if so he is not a Christian. 
 
—305 — 
 
 The fact that the now well established doctrine of evolution 
 is still disputed or held in doubt by so many intelligent people, 
 or at least that it does not apply to religion, is strangely out of 
 place in this age of progress. And of course a leading reason for 
 this drawback is the preaching of that emotional stuff by men 
 of the Billy Sunday stripe, who continually exhort the people to 
 hold fast to the old forms of faith. They tell us that the missing 
 link between man and the lower animals has never been found, 
 and no doubt they are right because finding a thing always de- 
 pends on the way we look for it. The truth is, this socalled mis- 
 sing link has never been lost to the eyes of those who can see 
 straight. Anatomically it has been clearly made out, but more 
 clearly it proves on examination to be a simple case of mental 
 development in which the mind of the present man has slowly 
 emerged from his animal ancestors in exact accord with God's 
 plan of creation. (Chapter 4, book 2.) 
 
 To all who can accept this doctrine of evolution as here ap- 
 plied to religion, the question will naturally occur. What is the 
 next step in the progress of religion? For Christendom at least, 
 it seems plain that the next move must be that which will unite 
 all the people under a true Christian brotherhood. This of course 
 means not only the union of all the churches, but the union of 
 church and state. To unite all the churches on a basis of agree- 
 able relations it seems that most of the churches must get rid 
 of a lot of useless ceremony, and hold only to the one principle 
 of Christianity— the First commandment. (Matt, xxn, 37.) 
 
 Of this commandmeht the Master said. — "This is the first 
 and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments 
 hang all the law and the prophets." 
 
 This commandment is of course the ground of all the Chris- 
 tian precepts — the golden rule, non-resistence as applied to hu- 
 man beings, and justice to all. If God is not all things, at least 
 all things belong to Him, and if life holds anything good for us 
 we are under solemn obligation to Him for that good. To love 
 Him is to love all things and this of course is possible only when 
 we know all things. There is a true Christian Philosophy, now, 
 and always before us, appealing constantly to the most ordinary 
 intelligence, and it plainly points the way that all the people of 
 this world may be united in one great social body, as one with 
 God; even as was Jesus Christ the first of Christians. 
 
 The union of church and state is necessary in order to se- 
 cure the power to enforce the moral law. The constitution of 
 the state is also that of the church because both rest upon the 
 same principle of social relations. Church laws, civil laws, and 
 the laws of God are all one. Any violation of the law or distur- 
 bance of the peace is disloyalty, and punishable accordingly. 
 
CHAPTER NINTH. 
 
 WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? 
 
 Before we try to answer this question it seems best first, 
 to try to answer at least two deeper questions, namely, what ie 
 'justice,' and what is 'liberty?' 
 
 Men are distinguished from the lower animals, not alone by 
 difference in bodily shape, but significantly by a higher develop- 
 ment in man of certain mental traits, notable among which are 
 the moral sense, sense of justice and liberality. The higher an- 
 imals show these traits to some extent but they have reached 
 the highest development in man. The great majority of the peo- 
 ple now on earth and who claim to be civilized, have an innate 
 sense of justice which they aim to exercise in their business and 
 social relations. When a number of women and men are eating 
 and drinking together they do not act like hogs. But not so in 
 their industrial pursuits and in all those activities which aim for 
 the things which are supposed to bring success in life. 
 
 In the individual, to the extent that justice is lacking, to 
 that extent we are apt to find instead unjust ambition, avarice, 
 or undo regard to one's own interests, ends or advantage. This 
 is Individualism as opposed to Socialism. Injustice as opposed 
 to Justice. But what is Justice? 
 
 If we say that a just act is one that involves the least pos- 
 sible amount of discomfort or pain to others of the same class, 
 we have then answered both of these questions — what is justice, 
 and what is liberty? A just act can aim for nothing better than 
 the happiness of others of the same class, and no being of the 
 human class can justly claim the liberty of doing an injustice. 
 What an unjust act is in any case can only be determined by 
 the highest wisdom of the class or community. In a community 
 of human beings right and just conduct, either in the individual 
 or the society, is that which promotes the happiness and miti- 
 gates the ills of others in the community. In a community or 
 class of animals, right conduct is that which secures the great- 
 est good for the individual. 'Might makes right, ' is a necessary 
 law of animal life, but with humanized man it is out of place. 
 The liberty of the animals is not limited by the moral law be- 
 cause they cannot understand it, but with a man, if humanized 
 far enough to have a clear sense of justice, there is a well de- 
 fined moral limit to his liberty, as above described. 
 
 That there is an ideal form of government or a principle of 
 
— 307 — 
 social relations under which all the people may live in peace and 
 harmony, and which has been believed in as possible for thous- 
 ands of years, and all this time slowly taking definite shape in 
 the human mind, is not doubtful to the many who have looked 
 the matter up. Democracy was named by the Greeks who com- 
 bined the two words of their language meaning 'people' and 
 'power'. Aristotle recognised three possible forms of govern- 
 ment; the Monarchy, the Oligarchy, and the Democracy. Un- 
 der the first named form the people are ruled by one man. Un- 
 der the second the people are ruled by a privileged class of men 
 who gain their power to rule thru force of arms, heredity, as- 
 sumed divine right, or great wealth. In the third the people col- 
 lectively may govern themselves. The Monarch is something 
 like the King, Emperor, or Czar of more modern times. A mon- 
 arch or king may be an absolute despot with absolute power, 
 or his power may be limited more or less by civil law and by a 
 legislative body of wise men, like that of Italy, or England, or 
 the United States. The oligarchy or government by a privileged 
 class may be as despotic as the absolute monarch, or its power 
 may be limited as in the case of the monarch. In the democracy 
 the aim is, and always has been, more liberty for all the people. 
 
 The history of democracy is an interesting part of human 
 history. Like religion, like civil law, like the sense of justice in 
 man, in one sentence, like the human intellect, this ideal of hap- 
 py social relations has been slowly passing thru the necessary 
 course of mental evolution. Government must have commenced 
 to exist with the beginning of society, since society would have 
 been impossible without some form of government. In fact, as 
 we shall see later, the constituent principle of all government 
 is individual self-control. Any social state must have some de- 
 gree of organization, and so may be regarded as an individual 
 having some degree of self government. So with all living things 
 down to the most simple. All must govern self in order to live. 
 
 In the family we find the first binding element in the social 
 state. The love of parents for each other and for their children, 
 begins far down in the animal scale, almost with the beginning 
 of planetary life. The struggle for existence was at first almost 
 exclusively individualistic being socialistic only so far as actu- 
 ated by family ties and by the need of help and protection with- 
 in the family circle. The family thus becomes an individual of 
 the first and lowest social order, and the tie that binds is the pa- 
 ternal love which guides and protects the members of this group. 
 It must be a shallow observer who could fail to see what is nec- 
 essary to constitute a well ordered and happy family. First, a 
 wise administration emanating from the father or family head, 
 and incited by the love which knows no partiality or injustice. 
 Here, in the exact meaning of the word we have a form of gov- 
 
— 308 — 
 ernmen. Wise men of the present day have told us that the true 
 function of all government, is, to restrain the evily disposed, to 
 protect the weaker and well disposed, to help the people in their 
 common pursuits and to improve social conditions. These un- 
 doubtedly are the necessary attributes of any government wor- 
 thy of the name and that they apply to the family as well as to 
 any state will not be disputed. Children must be cared for under 
 well known rules of restraint, protection, encouragement and 
 education, and so with men. The criminal element is more or less 
 present in every social state. 
 
 Here is something that deserves particular attention. The 
 well ordered and wisely governed family affords an example of 
 the one and only true principle of government; an example so 
 complete, so perfect, so entirely without fault, that it would be 
 impossible to find in human history another example to com- 
 pare with it. The first essential in this modal form of govern- 
 ment is paternal or fatherly love. No monarch or king, no presi- 
 dent or ruling class, has ever felt the love for his people that a 
 wise and good father may feel for his family. They are his own 
 and nearer to his heart than any other thing. This is the corner 
 stone in the perfect family edifice and of course there is no com- 
 parison of this with others unless it be a Christian community 
 of like families held together by the same tie of love. To realize 
 this it would be only necessary to know that all life is one with 
 God and to keep the first commandment. In the family the first 
 commandment would read thus. "Thou shalt love thy Father 
 and Mother with all thy heart, mind and strength. Thou shalt 
 love thy Sisters and Brothers as thyself. In the Christian com- 
 munity of like families the same principle of social relations ap- 
 plies in the same way, and with it all the necessary rules and 
 obligations of a government as above described. 
 
 The family being thus regarded as an individual of the first 
 and lowest social order, the community of likefamlies would be 
 regarded as an individual of the second and next highest social 
 order. Here we have a model state built after the same pattern 
 as that of the model family. Its first principle is the first com- 
 mandment and the rules of civil justice and service which rest 
 thereon, and which, by all the criterions of right must make of 
 it a perfect form of government. And what is this but a system 
 of pure Democracy? and would not the word 'Christianity' an- 
 swer for a name just as well? 
 
 Of course a community of families like this might be called 
 a tribe, but it is a class of people held together and distingushed 
 by well known laws of social unity, and this is all that can be 
 implied in the words 'state, commonwealth or the government.' 
 The avowed object in all the existing states or forms of govern- 
 ment is to unite the people and keep them together. Two ways 
 
—309 — 
 of uniting the people and holding them together have been in 
 practice since the beginning of human history. First and oldest, 
 is that of a monarch or a ruling class, who exercise an arbitrary 
 power under which the people are compelled to obey whether 
 they like it or not. Second, that of a pure democracy, under 
 which the people are united and held together as they would be 
 under the first commandment and its civil obligations. 
 
 The first named is that practised by men in governing the 
 animals and it is justified by the brute law of might. 
 
 On the Christian precept that all men are equal before God, 
 and on the Democratic principle that all men are equal before 
 the civil law, it is not justified by the same brute law of might. 
 But there is a higher law under which might is always right, and 
 this is the human law of might. In the family this law is indis- 
 pensable in the right management and bringing up of children, 
 and in the democratic state it is equally necessary in the con- 
 trol and discipline of the criminal element. 
 
 From this evolutionary point of view we are beginning to 
 see what democracy really is; and that it is a first principle of 
 life, which shows itself at the very beginning of life on this plan- 
 et, and that it has played a necessary part in every life strug- 
 gle for existence from the beginning to the present day, may 
 be readily seen if we only take a philosophic view of the whole. 
 First, the mental organism; without which there is no life. The 
 lowest and most simple of these organisms is, and must be, an 
 association of mental elements first among which are those of 
 nutrition and reproduction. These elements cannot exist alone, 
 nor can they exist together without agreeable relations to some 
 extent, among themselves and between the organism and the 
 external world. This most simple mental organism must be a 
 self-governing living individual, with some power to control the 
 movements of its own body in order to live. This power is di- 
 rected by the conscious mind of the individual in the activities 
 of life, and the efficiency of its control of self will depend on its 
 mental development under the law of evolution. 
 
 Here, in the lowest forms of life, we find a perfect exam- 
 ple of individual self-government; and what is this if it is not 
 democracy pure and simple? Mark the word 'individual' in this 
 connection. Self-government is not the government of one indi- 
 vidual by another individual, but a government wholly contain- 
 ed in one individual — the self-governing self. If democracy is 
 self-government, always aiming for agreeable relations within 
 self and between self and the external world, then of course we 
 have in the most simple thing that lives on this planet a perfect 
 example of the true democracy; lacking only in that higher devel- 
 opment which must necessarily depend on higher mental devel- 
 opment. Mark these words; 'agreeable relations within self and 
 
-310 — 
 between self and the external world.' No doubt there are many 
 cases of disagreement, especially among the animals and un- 
 civilized people, and which have been caused by pre-established 
 associations coming down thru different lines of descent. Two 
 individuals of different lines of descent cannot agree because 
 they have inherited different tastes, habits, bodily shapes, and 
 antagonistic sentiments, and like cats and dogs they quarrel be- 
 cause they do not know any better. Such cases are conspicuous 
 among men and they have a similar bearing on the evolution of 
 humanity. There is a wide difference between the man-like apes 
 and man and we could not expect to be able to unite the two on 
 terms of equality before the law, and under agreeable relations. 
 And why? Simply because the ape is too much of a brute. The 
 different races of men are now so near alike that it must be ad- 
 mitted that if any of them are on the highroad to humanity, all 
 must be, and they are growing more and more alike in every 
 passing century. Migration, progress in learning means of com- 
 munication and transportation, the diffusion of knowledge, the 
 mingling of races, in short, human evolution on the only lines 
 that seem possible, (and they also seem entirely sufficient) un- 
 der planetary conditions, are helping to bring all men into that 
 bond of unity which is the only security for peace on earth. 
 
 Without further comment it may be safely assumed that all 
 the different races and nationalities of mankind are now near 
 enough alike to be brought under one world-wide form of gov- 
 ernment. But what form of government would be most efficient 
 for this purpose? There is really but two possible forms to chose 
 from; (1), Autocracy; in which all the people are governed by 
 one man or a privileged class of men. (2), Democracy in which 
 all the people govern themselves, acting thru representatives, 
 chosen by ballot. It must be either a government of all the peo- 
 ple by a part of the people, or a government of all the people 
 by all the people. Any part cannot be equal to the whole. 
 
 Another distinction in government is: According to the the- 
 ory of the form and mode of operation of the mental organism, 
 (Chap, ii, book 2,) all forms of government must be the same 
 in mode of administration. Society is, and must be, a mental 
 organism governed by the same laws that governed the individ- 
 ual mental organism. In autocracy, the administrative center is 
 under the control of one man or a privileged class of men. In 
 democracy, this center or social sensorium is under the control 
 of all the people. In the individual, the sensorium of course is 
 under the direct control of the dominant reason, judgmen, sen- 
 timents or feelings of the individual man or animal. 
 
 Whatever be the governing traits or mental composition 
 of the monarch, the autocratic ruling class, or the democratic 
 majority of all the people, that will be the determining factor 
 
—311 — 
 
 for peace and harmony in the community or state. Animal ineffi- 
 ciency in self-control means mis-government hence ther is troub- 
 le, and so with the man. There is hardly anything more simple 
 than right and wrong self-government and that its efficiency for 
 the right will depend on knowledge and practical education, is 
 equally simple and conspicuous. As the animal must be the mas- 
 ter of his own body in order to make the best use of it, so the 
 man must own and operate his own body in order to make the 
 best use of it. The efficiency of the body as an instrument in the 
 pursuits of life will depend on the perfection of every part and 
 this again on the right care and mannagement of every part. 
 
 Right here we are face to face with one of the vital prin- 
 ciples of pure dmocracy. Just as it is to the best interests of the 
 individual, man or animal, to take the best possible care of every 
 part of the body, so it is to the best interests of the state or na- 
 tion to take the best possible care of every part of the social 
 body. Exactly the same administrative principle would apply 
 to any association of states or nations, even so far as to include 
 the entire world under agreeable relations, and this would be a 
 world democracy. 
 
 For more than a thousand years democracy in some form 
 has been the ideal dream of many far seeing men, and no doubt 
 the reason for this is that ever present class struggle between 
 the oppressed and the oppressor. On the one side the people 
 want more liberty in the common pursuits of life and happiness 
 and on the other side the ruling classes want more power to go 
 on with their plans for conquest or self aggrandizing ambitions. 
 To gain this power it is necessary to control and discipline the 
 people and to this end it is necessary to own the people. The 
 ownership of the people is a simple matter of class ownership 
 of all public property. When that which all men need and must 
 have in order to live, is owned and controled by a part of the 
 people, that part will own and to some extent control the rest 
 of the people. When that which all men need and must have in 
 order to live, is owned and controled by all the people, each pos- 
 sessing, using and enjoying, according to the value of his public 
 service, then every man will own himself so far as he is able 
 and willing to fulfill his public obligations; and there is no own- 
 ership of public utilities and people, and hence no power wielded 
 by a ruling class to carry out some scheme of self-emulation. 
 
 It thus comes about that in all ages of human history an 
 aggressive dominant class who want to rule the world or as much 
 of it as they can get control of, exists; and it is the antagonism 
 and strfe between this class and the under class which has kept 
 the world in an almost continuous state of war; hence the dream 
 of democracy as an antidote. 
 
 The animals often revolt against deprivation and suffering, 
 
—312 — 
 and of course we must expect the same of men who believe that 
 they are better than cattle. If we keep a pig in the same pen 
 for a long time the pig may get bo used to the situation that he 
 will refuse to leave the pen when given his liberty. It has been 
 said that many of the colored people in the southern states, re- 
 fused to leave their masters when freed from slavery, and there 
 is reason to believe that they had been well treated and did not 
 want to break agreeable relations even in slavery. Abuse a dog 
 and he is liable to bite you, but treat him well and he will love 
 you. From the animal to the human there is a gradual process 
 of mental development in which the individual gradually becom- 
 es more humanized and more of a democrat. To some extent a 
 dog is a democrat because he loves his master when well treated 
 and hates him or fears him when mistreated, and the master is 
 not a democrat if he mistreats even a dog. But there is a wide 
 difference between dog democracy and human democracy, and 
 the difference is simply that of a difference in intellectual de- 
 velopment. The dog cannot know what slavery or mental inferi- 
 ority is, but the dog can and does know very well what kind 
 treatment is. No doubt many of the colored people do not fully 
 realize what slavery is, but certainly not very may of them are 
 totally deficient in the sense of justice and they can feel unkind 
 treatment and respond with resentment quicker than any dog. 
 
 How many of the colored people of the United States today 
 would willingly go back to slavery? Is there a public man to- 
 day who would dare to advocate slavery? Compare the present 
 time with the time just before the civil war 60 years ago. At 
 that time perhaps more than half of the people of the United 
 States really believed that negroes were not a legitimate part 
 of the people, that they had no constitutional rights and that 
 they are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The 
 Supreme Court of the United States sutained this opinion. A de- 
 cision by this Court published in 1857, was to the effect that a 
 "slave or the descendent of a slave could not be a citizen of the 
 United States or have any standing in the Federal Courts." 
 
 Abraham Lincoln the one man of that time best qualified to 
 combat this decision did so with a power and skill that has made 
 him the greatest of the champions of freedom and true democ- 
 racy. His animating denunciations of slavery, so well calculated 
 to make the people think, are now classed among the master- 
 pieces of the age. They are found in his public speeches and de- 
 bates with Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a democrat, or as 
 much so as he knew how to be and we can take him as a fair 
 example of the democracy of that time and even to some ex- 
 tent of the present time. He was the author of the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska bill, passed by congress in 1854, and which gave to these 
 Territories the right to decide by ballot whether they would be 
 
-313— 
 free states or slave states. The early manhood of Lincoln was 
 that of the common laborer and here no doubt is where he got 
 the education which enabled him to understand so well a most 
 important truth about the labor situation all over the world and 
 in all historic times as well as at present. I quote his words. — 
 
 "Equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the lat- 
 ter be of the British aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery 
 sort. We know Southern men declare that their slaves are better 
 off than hired laborers among us. How little they know whereof 
 they speak! There is no permanent class of laborers among us. 
 Twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer 
 of yesterday labors on his own account today and will hire oth- 
 ers to labor for him tomorrow. Advancement, improvement in 
 conditions, is the order of things in a society of equals." 
 
 Who are the 'British aristocratic sort' and the 'domestic 
 slavery sort' if they are not the autocratic ruling class and the 
 democratic working class, more or less present today in every 
 civilized country on earth? Lincoln continues. — 
 
 "As labor is the common burden of our race, so the effort 
 of some to shift their share of the burdon onto the shoulders of 
 others is the great durable curse of the race. Originally a curse 
 for transgression upon the whole race, when as by slavery, it is 
 concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double refined curse 
 of God upon his creatures. Free labor has the inspiration of 
 hope; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human 
 exertion is wonderful. The slave-master himself, has a concep- 
 tion of it, and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The 
 slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to break 75 pounds 
 of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and 
 promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a 150. 
 You have substituted hope for the rod. And yet perhaps it does 
 not occur to you that to the extent of your gain in the case, you 
 have given up the slave system and adopted the free system of 
 labor." ("Little Masterpieces" Douleday & McClure Co, N. Y.) 
 
 Bliss Perry the editor of 'Little Masterpieces' says of the 
 above passages which I have quoted from Lincoln on slavory. 
 
 "From early manhood Lincoln's sympathies had been strong- 
 ly enlisted on behalf of the slaves. The contrast between slave 
 labor and free labor has never been stated more tersely and viv- 
 idly than here." 
 
 True, and this is only a small part of the many vivid and 
 convincing utterances of this man whom we can justly call the 
 greatest of modern democrats. Every loyal American should 
 read his speeches in particular the one at Springfield 111. June 16, 
 1858, and the one at the Cooper Institute N. Y. Feb. 25 1860. 
 
 " A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this 
 government cannot endure permanantly half slave and half free. 
 
— 314 — 
 I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the 
 house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided." 
 
 It is said that the best friends of Lincoln objected to the 
 statemen that 'this government cannot endure permanently half 
 slave and half free.' And it was the opinion of many that his 
 defeat for the United States Senate by Douglas was caused by 
 such sentiments. But it is now admitted that his repeated and 
 forceful denunciations of the social conditions of that time did 
 more to bring his views before the whole country and to shape 
 his future political career than anything he ever said. In 1860 
 he was chosen as the Republican candidate for the Presidency; 
 and was ellcted. The next year the war that put an end to that 
 most inhuman form of slavery which degrades humanity to the 
 level of the beasts, was declare. 
 
 Sixty years have brought great changes in the public mind 
 in the lines of social evolution. Looking back over the history 
 of humanity we can see the most unmistakable evidence of the 
 continued presence of a class division in the social body broadly 
 called the autocratic and the democratic. The fear of poverty, 
 the spirit of industry, the disposition of the many to shift their 
 part of the common burden of labor onto the shoulders of others, 
 rightly stigmatized by Lincoln as the curse of humanity, and 
 above all, that aspiration for power to rule or ruin others and 
 so build up dynastic states governed by an ignorant selfish class, 
 is of course responsible for this social rupture which is the di- 
 rect cause of all social disunion. 
 
 The revolutions in England (1642 and 1688) gained for the 
 people parlimentary rule. The revolutionary war in America, 
 (1776) gave independence to the United States. The French re- 
 volution of 1780 gave a republic to France. The civil war in the 
 United States, (1861) gave freedom to millions of slaves. The 
 revolution in Russia (1917) and a similar movement in Germany 
 in the present year (1918), along with the great war in Europe 
 of the same period, have swept from this planet the two or three 
 worst forms of autocratic rule now existing. The forward steps 
 in democracy or social evolution are so plainly marked in human 
 history that it seems that no ordinary person can read without 
 being impressed. Efforts to unite the people on terms of agree- 
 ment have been made not only in families, tribes, states or na- 
 tions, but even in a league of all nations. The ties that bind in 
 the family are (1). sexual and parental love, (2) the desire tore- 
 strain, protect and properly care for the members of the fami- 
 ly group. The ties that bind in the tribe or state are those of 
 the ordinary functions of all governments, more or less develop- 
 ed according to the intellectual development of the social body, 
 (p. 308. The ties that should bind in a league of nations are ex- 
 actly the same as those that hold the people together in all the 
 
—315 — 
 lower states, tribes or families, and which holds together the 
 mental elements in all the individuals from the lowest up to man. 
 It is a simple case of that association of the mental elements in 
 the individual, or the individuals in the family, tribe, state, na- 
 tion or league of nations in a world democracy, which secures 
 the most agreeable relations. It is the way to the Kingdom of 
 God on Earth — the prayer of humanity. 
 
 "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in 
 heaven/' (Matt, VI, 10.) 
 
 In view of the evolution of democracy one of the most in- 
 teresting parts of human history is that which describes the 
 many attempts to establish a league of nations for the purpose 
 of maintaining peace on earth. Heretofore a number of states- 
 men, rulers and thinkers, have proposed plans for averting war 
 the principal among which may be briefly noticed here. 
 
 In 1620, Henry of Navarre, (Henry IV of France,) proposed 
 the plan of a 'Christian Republic,' containing the fifteen states 
 of Europe. This plan was to employ force directed by a common 
 council, and making war against all unchristian peoples, in par- 
 ticular the infidel Turks. Disputes between the member states 
 were to be settled by the interstate council. For some reason 
 not mentioned this plan did not come to a realization; perhaps 
 because the pure democracy of Christianity was not in it. The 
 christian gospel forbids the killing of infidels simply because 
 they cannot be converted. The one fact more than any other, 
 which has interfered with the spread of Christianity, is the ab- 
 sence in the people of the spirit of pure democracy. 
 
 In 1693, in "An Essay Towards the Present and Future 
 Peace of Europe." William Penn proposed the plan of a 'great 
 diet/ composed of the monarchs of Europe in which all disputes 
 were to be settled. But this plan plainly interfered with the 
 ambitions of monarchs to extend their dominion over smaller 
 states, as did Prussia in later years. At that time Louis XIV of 
 France aspired to a position of supremacy over all Europe just 
 as Germany did prior to 1918. International rivalry and jealousy 
 to the fighting point kept Europe in a state of ferment and no 
 such agreement was possible. 
 
 In 1713 Abbe Castel de St. Pierre published his book con- 
 taining "A Plan for Perpetual Peace." Like the others this was 
 a failure because it required a binding obligation to keep the 
 peace thus relinquishing all aspirations for the thing which con- 
 stitute a source of great achievement in war. Rousseau then 
 made some amendments in the plans of the Abbe but still to no 
 effect. The ruling classes of Europe were not yet civilized far 
 enough to be able to control their innate greed. 
 
 About the time of the French revolution Jeremy Bentham 
 of England took up the matter of lasting peace. His idea was 
 
-316— 
 that morality instead of force should be employed in the admin- 
 istration of state affairs. But it seems to have not occurred to 
 this statesman that a court with no power to enforce its decrees 
 but that of moral suasion, would be certain of failure even in 
 the present state of society; much more so at that time. Moral- 
 ity without the force of an ordinary appeal would not be moral- 
 ity at all, and without some compelling force it would be of no 
 avail even in the highest state of society now on earth. 
 
 In 1795 Emanuel Kant the Prussian philosopher proposed 
 a plan for a durable peace which was based upon the idea of a 
 "Super State," — a powerful state or association of states, able 
 by force of arms to rule and regulate the affairs of all the other 
 states, and the super state was to be Prussia of course. This 
 idea was very popular in Germany just before the great war 
 of 1915-1918. Like all the others, this plan, tho a necessary prin- 
 ciple in the evolution of animal life on this plane, mast eventu- 
 ally go to the scrap heap of all the ideas which have outlived 
 their usefulness. In a society of equal individuals under a pure 
 democracy there is no super individual. In a society of states or 
 nations under pure democracy there is no super state. 
 
 Next comes Hegel another Prussian philosopher with apian 
 similar to that of Kant but going much deeper into the matter 
 of training the under class on lines which make for efficiency in 
 the business of war for conquest. 
 
 In 1815 the "Holy Alliance" was organized by the kings of 
 Prussia, Russia, Austria and France. The object was to use the 
 combined force of arms of these countries in putting down revo- 
 lutions anywhere in Europe. This was evidently a combine of the 
 ruilng classes of these countries for the subjugation of the un- 
 der classes, and tho Ja strange misuse of the word 'holy' due 
 no doubt to ignorance of the true meaning of the Christian gos- 
 pel, the plan was successfully put in use in Spain in 1820, when 
 the French army put down a revolution and restored the Bour- 
 bons to power. England having made some progress toward de- 
 mocracy, perhaps thru her experience with George Washington 
 in America, had declined to join the holy alliance. In his mes- 
 sage to Congress in 1823 President James Monroe, with the ad- 
 vise and promised support of England, promulgated what has 
 been known as the Monroe doctrine. This declaration means that 
 the United States will oppose the attempt of any power, Euro- 
 pean or Asiatic, to interfere with any of the American colonies 
 or governments. Spain had shortly before lost by revolution her 
 South American colonies. France had lost Haiti and Portugal 
 had lost Brazil. The story of these revolutions is much like that 
 of the American revolution which gave independence to the 
 United States. The mother countries misused power because of 
 ignorance and selfishness, hence democracy gets a hunch. 
 
—317— 
 
 From this on to the present day the powers of Europe and 
 America, acting exactly like competing business men within the 
 state, ever seeking for advantages in commercial expansion and 
 in all possible ways conducive to self-interest, have passed the 
 time. The place of England on the map with reference to the 
 American continent, naturally gave her an over-sea commercial 
 advantage over all the other powers of Europe. England there- 
 fore persisted in refusing to join the holy alliance, and its final 
 disintegration was the inevitable result. And so it was that the 
 only league of nations in history that ever amounted to anything 
 proved to be a failure because it was opposed by England and 
 the Monroe doctrine in America. 
 
 The future historian will not fail to notice the real bone of 
 contention and seat of discord among the nations of earth, which 
 has made impossible any heretofore proposed form of alliance. 
 Every attempt to establish a permanent league or society of all 
 the nations, has heretofore failed, simply because the parties or 
 nations concerned, could not relinquish the ambition for a balan- 
 ce of power which might enable some one or some group of them 
 to gain supremacy over the others, thus dividing the whole into 
 at least two opposing classes, and so insuring the impossibility 
 of agreeable relations. "A house divided against itself cannot 
 stand." In a pure democracy class divisions are impossible. In 
 a society of individuals which makes agreeable relations secure, 
 all must be equal before God and civil law. In a society of na- 
 tions exactly the same principle applies. A permanent society 
 of autocratic nations united on the principle of pure democracy 
 might secure agreement among the nations or ruling classes of 
 the nations, but it would not secure agreement among the indi- 
 viduals within the nations. But by applying the principle of de- 
 mocracy both between the individuals within the states and be- 
 tween the states within the society of nations, as in a World 
 Democracy, then certainly there should be perfect agreement 
 thruout the whole. 
 
 At the present time (Feb. 1919) the leading statesman of 
 the United States, England, France, Italy and Japan, are as- 
 sembled at Versailles in France to discuss the matter of estab- 
 lishing a league of nations for the prevention of future wars. 
 The greatest war so far in history and just now ended, has again 
 brought the people to a striking realization of the need of an in- 
 ternational covenant which will make impossible the recurrence 
 of another such calamity. The world is now growing more demo- 
 cratic, at a pace more rapid, than ever before, and the horrors 
 of this war are doing the work. It seems clear that a deluge of 
 blood and destruction was the one thing necessary to arouse the 
 people to a sense of the deplorable social conditions of the world 
 and certainly the hand of God was in it. The nubtile secret diplo- 
 
—318— 
 macy of the past is almost totally absent in the present confer- 
 ence. It seems to be fully understood that a future permanent 
 league must be different from all others heretofore proposed. 
 What the form of this league is to be is not yet disclosed, but 
 late reports say that President Wilson will soon start for Amer- 
 ica and that he will bring with him a draft of the coming league 
 of nations. That the new league will be a much nearer approach 
 to a pure democracy, much less mixed with autocracy, seems 
 very evident since our President and his associates are having 
 a great deal to do in framing it. In the President's address to 
 Congress Jan. 8. 1918, he has outlined the aims of the U. S. in 
 this war, also the form of league or covenant which he thinks 
 will insure a lasting peace for the world. I quote his words. 
 
 "We entered this war because violations of right had oc- 
 curred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our 
 own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world 
 secured once for all against their recurrence. What we demand 
 in this war, therefore, is nothing for ourselves. It is that the 
 world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be 
 made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, 
 wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be 
 assured of justice and fair dealings by the other peoples of the 
 world as against force and selfish aggression." 
 
 The above statements cannot be misunderstood. We enter- 
 ed this war not only in self-defense but in the defense of that 
 well known principle of justice, which defense we owe to all 
 mankind. The attitude of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Tur- 
 key, toward the rest of the world now more democratically ad- 
 vanced, was plainly that of the old barbaric spirit of autocracy, 
 which has always divided the societies of the world, not only 
 those of states or nations, but those of the people within states 
 or nations, into two warring factions, the one ever striving un- 
 scrupulously to promote its own private ends at the expense of 
 the other, and the other always clamouring against the powers 
 that rule. Whether it be between the states of the world or the 
 people of the states, it is the same thing, and it is the one thing 
 which always has and always must make peaceful relations im- 
 possible. Among the nations it is the disposition of the large and 
 more powerful nations to overpower and enslave the smaller 
 and weaker nations. Among the people in the nations it is the 
 disposition of the large and more powerful business interests, 
 individuals or corporations, to overpower and enslave the small- 
 er and weaker business interests; the business of each individual 
 or corporation being the pursuit of the things necessary or use- 
 ful in life. Among the animals it is the same. The large and 
 more powerful animals always take what they want without 
 regard for the feelings of the smaller and weaker animals. 
 
—319 — 
 
 That this social rupture and contention exists all over the 
 world, and that it is the same hideous thing not only among the 
 nations of the earth, but among the people and the animals of 
 the earth, and that it is the direct source of all the avoidable 
 troubles of life, and that it is an efficient instrument in the hands 
 of God to teach the world how to avoid trouble, is not only de- 
 monstrated by a logical view of the facts of all history, but it 
 is convincingly set forth in President Wilson's program of world 
 peace. I quote from his address to Congress Jan. 8, 1918. 
 
 "All the people of the world are in effect partners in this 
 interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless 
 justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program 
 of the world's peace, therefore, is our program, and that pro- 
 gram, the only possible program, as we see it, is this: 
 
 "First — Open covenents of peace, openly arivad at, after 
 which there shall be no private international understandings of 
 any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in 
 the public view. 
 
 "Second — Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, 
 outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as 
 the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international ac- 
 tion for the enforcement of international covenants. 
 
 "Third — The removal so far as possible of all economic bar- 
 riers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions 
 among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating 
 themselves for its maintanance. 
 
 "Fourth— Adequate guranantees given and taken that na- 
 tional armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent 
 with domestic safety. 
 
 "Fifth— A free, open and absolutely impartial adjustment 
 of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the prin- 
 ciple that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the 
 interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight 
 with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to 
 be determined." 
 
 The above quoted passages are the first five of Mr. Wilson's 
 Fourteen points on the matter of world peace, and so far as they 
 go the spirit of pure democracy is plainly in them. The next 
 following eight points are occupied with the settlement of all 
 questions affecting Russia, Belgium, France, Italy, Turkey, Po- 
 land, Austria-Hungary and the Balkan states; and the plan of 
 settlement is set forth in the above five points. Point fourteen 
 concerns the formation of a league of nations and is as follows. 
 
 "Fourteenth — A general association of nations must be 
 formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording 
 mutual guarantees of political independence and tentorial integ- 
 rity to great and small states alike. 
 
—320 — 
 
 In the matter of the settlement of all questions affecting 
 the interests of the nations involved in this war and above na- 
 med, the five points of Wilsonism are very clear. The immedi- 
 ate evacuation of all invaded territory and suitable restitution 
 is demanded of Germany and her allies. A sincere welcome to all 
 into a society of free nations, under institutions of their own 
 choosing, must be assured. Everything possible must be done 
 to secure the freest co-operation of these nations among them- 
 selves and with all other Dations, for the independent determi- 
 nation and development of their own political or national policy. 
 
 Here is a noteworthy fact. Every point in Mr. Wilson's 
 program of peace applies to the individuals within the nations, 
 in exactly the same way that it applies to the nations. A nation 
 is a corporate body of people a^d under any form of government 
 it must be an individual — an association of mental elements or- 
 ganized and active in the affairs of life, for the purpose of get- 
 ting what they want. In the ordinary business affairs of the na- 
 tions the principle of justice must be an imperative rule of con- 
 duct in order to maintain peaceful relations. In the usual busi- 
 ness affairs of the people of any nation, the same principle of 
 justice and square dealing must be an imperative rule of con- 
 duct in order to maintain peaceful relations. It is only necessary 
 to make perfectly clear the rules of conduct in the nations and 
 in the people, toward one another, in order to secure the agree- 
 able relations necessary to peace. The same law of justice with 
 its necessary rules of conduct, would apply to the animals, if 
 they could understand it; and we might say the same of the ma- 
 jority of the people in every community. The situation today in 
 all the highest places of civilization is that of the same old and 
 ever present industrial strife between the same contending par- 
 ties, now even more intensified than before, as a result of the 
 greatest war of nations in history. We hear from every part of 
 the globe the continued outcry against high prices for all the 
 necessities of life, and that this is largely due to profiteering is 
 proved by Board of Trade figures and by the fact that vast for- 
 tunes have deen made since the war began. Secret business di- 
 plomacy is being worked to the utmost and governments are 
 employing agencies for heading off the crafty profiteer. 
 
 The full text of the constitution of the league of nations as 
 formulated at the Paris convention was published on the 15th of 
 Feb, 1919. It is the longest step toward a complete world demo- 
 cracy yet made in world history. The power behind it is that of 
 the United States, the British empire, France, Italy and Japan, 
 with four other states to be selected later. This is the military 
 power that crushed Germany and her allies and no doubt it can 
 rule the world if backed by the moral principles of matured de- 
 mocracy. But in the present social state of the world it can be 
 
—321 — 
 applied only to the nations and if rightly and rigorously carried 
 out it must prevent wars in future. According to Lord Robert 
 Cecil, head of the British league commission, "the results ac- 
 complished embrace two main principles: First, no nation shall 
 go to war until every other means of settlement shall be fully 
 and fairly tried: Second, no nation shall forcibly seek to disturb 
 a territory's integrity or interfere with the political independ- 
 ence of the nations of the world." 
 
 Mr. Wilson says of this constitution: "There is one espec- 
 ially notable feature in this document. We are done with anex- 
 ations of helpless peoples, at times accomplished in the past for 
 the purpose of exploiting these peoples. And so while this is a 
 practical document, it is above all a humane document. It is 
 practical and at the same time it is designed to purify, to rec- 
 tify, to elevate." 
 
 One conspicuous fact about this league is this. It was called 
 forth by an urgent demand from all the people, and it has been 
 framed to meet that demand The ruling classes of Europe were 
 divided as they always have been. On the one side the selfish 
 spirit of autocracy ruled, and on the other a more advanced de- 
 mocracy; the one fighting a battle of conquest and the other a 
 battle of self-defence. The people are crying for peace and this 
 league offers a means to that end. World history affords no ex- 
 ample of permanent peace under autocratic rule, and the reason 
 is not hard to find. Autocracy always divides the people into 
 two classes, the upper and the under class. Autocracy has been 
 tried in every possible form and in every case it has proved a 
 failure. Pure democracy has never been tried in a single case, 
 and why? The world does not know what it really is. But it is 
 an universally admitted fact that the people, especially those 
 of the under classes, have made greater progress under the most 
 advanced forms of democracy, than they have under the older 
 forms of autocracy. For example, compare the social states of 
 the British empire, the United States and France, with those 
 of Germany, Austria- Hungary and Russia. Since the triumph of 
 democracy in this war has made the world safe for its future 
 development, and since autocracy has made such a miserable 
 failure as a means to peace, is it not natural for rational being 
 to look to democracy for the final solution of this problem. If the 
 direct cause of all wars is due to the division of society into dis- 
 agreeing classes, and this it certainly is, and if all disagreements 
 on social questions are a direct result of ignorance of the funda- 
 mental principle of social unity, and this is also true, then, is it 
 not reasonable to suppose that if we can find a means of heal- 
 ing this social breach, that we shall then have an end of all so- 
 cial strife or war; both international and interindividual. And 
 what better plan can be thought of if not that of bringing all 
 
-322 — 
 nations and all peoples under some bond of unity which secures 
 peaceful relations, not only among the nations but among the 
 people which compose the nations? And what is this if not de- 
 mocracy? This proposed league of nations being true democracy 
 so far a3 it goes, the next step should be to put it on trial, first 
 internationally, leaving the people within each nation to work 
 out their own salvation thru experience. If democracy should 
 prove to be an efficient remedy for international strife then why 
 may it not succeed as a remedy for those internal movements 
 called radical socialism, the I. W. W., and Boshevism; all of 
 which are undemocratic to the extreme simply because they di- 
 vide the people into contending factions. 
 
 A. number of U S. senators have found faults in the pres- 
 ent form of this league. They say: "It will render impotent the 
 Monroe doctrine; it will deprive the U. S. of the power neces- 
 sary to self-defense; it opens the door to the internationalism 
 of Lenine and Trotzky, which is nothing but Bolshevik anarchy; 
 it violates the traditions of Washington and Lincoln, because it 
 is an entangling alliance with foreign powers and because it 
 abridges the sovereignty of a government of the people for and 
 by the people; and it is the greatest triumph of English diplo- 
 macy in three centuries beeause it gives that nation five votes 
 to our one on account of the five English colonies. 
 
 These are the principal objections to this league so far of- 
 fered and known to me; and it it is certainly a surprising thing 
 that men of such narrow vision should be permitted to take part 
 in the senate deliberations of one of the most enlightened na- 
 tions on this globe. The fact that such men do have a voice in 
 senate proceedings makes it clear that the people of this coun- 
 try either do not know the true principles of peaceful social re- 
 lations, or if they do, they are afraid that the progress of true 
 democracy will interfere with their own private interests. In 
 view of a well considered world democracy to be described in 
 this chapter, not one of the above objections have any validity. 
 Instead of nullifying the Monroe doctrine this league will ex- 
 tend its jurisdiction to the entire world, besides making it more 
 secure than heretofore, simply because it guarantees the inde- 
 pendent self-government of each nation. The power of this or 
 any other nation to defend self will not be necessary because 
 each nation shall be bound by law to respect the legal rights of 
 every other nation and the combined power of the world shall 
 be at the service of all, great or small. All disputes shall be set- 
 tled by an international court of justice the same as in a com- 
 munity of individuals. This league does not open the door at 
 once to international Bolshevism. As will appear later all such 
 movements are premature, misguided and most decidedly un- 
 democratic. The world was not made in six days. This league 
 
— 323 — 
 does not violate the traditions of Washington and Lincoln, be- 
 cause, as everyone must know, an entangling alliance cannot 
 rest on the fundamentals of true and pure democracy; and be- 
 cause a government of all the people, for and by all the people, 
 must be, to some extent an individual, self-governing democra- 
 cy. An impure democracy may fail in its self-government be- 
 cause of insufficient knowledge of the principles of peaceful so- 
 cial relations. The British empire may be the largest and most 
 powerful of the independent nations but the constitution of this 
 league guarantees the territorial integrity and political indepen- 
 dence of small nations the same as large nations. The power of 
 the world can be used only to enforce the constitution and this 
 must be framed to secure justice to all alike. 
 
 No doubt this constitution may require amendments in cer- 
 tain parts, but beyond question the issue is now plainly before 
 the people and they have only to choose one of two alternatives; 
 either go back to the old state of endless strife or adopt and put 
 in force some principle of social unity which will make such a 
 state impossible. If democracy is to be the savior of the world 
 then let us clearly define it and make sure that we know what 
 it is. The following is a draft or statement of the principles of 
 pure democracy as they appear to me from the stand point of 
 this theory of life or philosophy of things. 
 
 Preamble — A primary and necessary condition of all social 
 life, that of the animals as well as of men, is, that it must con- 
 tain evil, as well as good, during its evolutionary stages, in or- 
 der that something good may be gained in the end. In all the 
 struggles of life the good things are gained thru experience of 
 good and bad, and thru selection and retention of the good; and 
 we must have this experience in order to learn. Knowledge is 
 that which guides the energies of life in the way necessary to 
 gain the good and avoid the evil, and ignorance is lack of knowl- 
 edge. All the evils of life are either a direct or indirect result 
 of ignorance and all good in life is either a direct or indirect re- 
 sult of the use of knowledge. So it is that the more knowledge 
 we possess the better we are able to get aloug in all the pur- 
 suits of life. A common trait of all animals and to a great ex- 
 tent of men, is self-interest, as against the interests of the so- 
 cial body of which they are a part and without which they would 
 not exist. The animals of course are to be excused for their ig- 
 norance but not so with men. As a result of this trait life has 
 always been a struggle for the possession of the things useful 
 to man; such as wealth, power to rule, supremacy etc. There 
 are those who get a great deal more than they actually need, 
 those who manage to get enough and those who spend life in a 
 desperate struggle for existence. As a result of this struggle so- 
 ciety has always been divided into at least two great classes; 
 
-324 — 
 the rich and the poor; the rulers and those who are ruled; the 
 autocrats and the democrats; those who would keep the people 
 divided and in perpetual strife and those who would keep the 
 people united in peaceful brotherhood. This social division, disa- 
 greement and contention, is more or less evident in all forms of 
 life from the lowest individual up thru all aggregates of indi- 
 viduals into states, nations or a society of nations. As a result 
 of the progress of knowledge democratic rule is gradually tak- 
 ing the place of autocratic rule and it is well to know the prin- 
 ciples of unadulterated democracy. 
 
 Article I. — In itself, space is nothing In its relations to 
 something, it is an object of consciousness. Something is first, 
 matter or substance, second, the motion and mind of matter or 
 substance, third, avast number of things due to differences and 
 relations in matter, its motion, and its mind. Life is the consci- 
 ous activities of the mind of matter in relative motion. The word 
 democracy is herein used as a general term meaning the prin- 
 ciples of life — the laws which, when put in practice, will make 
 secure the agreeable relations necessary to happiness. 
 
 Article II. — Life is possible only in a mental organism. A 
 mental organism is an association of mental elements, individu- 
 als, families, tribes, states, nations or an association of nations, 
 to some extent organized and active, for the necessary purpose 
 of securing ageeable relations in the activities of life. To the 
 extent that the mental elements, individuals, families, tribes, 
 states, nations or associations of nations, are imperfect in them- 
 selves, or to the extent that they are lacking in knowledge and 
 in the cooperative organization necessary to happiness, to that 
 extent life is a failure. The proper office of knowledge and de- 
 mocracy is to root out and destroy this evil. 
 
 Article III. — Every thing that lives, animal or man, and 
 all the higher aggregates of animals or men, must occupy and 
 manage as well as knowledge permits, a small portion of this 
 material universe in order to properly manage and use its ma- 
 terial parts. In the animals and men this small part is called 
 the material body. In the families, states or nations it is called 
 the territory occupied by the family, state or nation. For the 
 same reason this entire material universe must be occupied and 
 managed as well as knowledge permits by a mind of Supreme 
 intelligence and power, properly called The God of Pure Demo- 
 cracy. This is the end of mental evolution; the highest attaina- 
 ble perfection of the mental organism; the one Individual Su- 
 preme. Thus we have a series of individuals from the lowest to 
 the highest, each in itself possessing a portion of this material 
 universe as its own and without which it would not exist, each 
 in itself possessing the same form of self-government, the scope 
 and efficiency of which must depend upon the extent of its own 
 
—325 — 
 knowledge and intellectual development on the lines which lead 
 from the lowest and most adulterated forms of democracy up- 
 ward toward the highest and purest form of democracy. Every 
 thing that lives is therefore a democrat to eome extent — more 
 or less contaminated with selfish, autocratic ignorance, 
 
 Article IV. — Most people have learned from experience the 
 great value of intelligent self-government. There are two forms 
 of self-government which should be carefully distinguished in 
 our analysis of social phenomena; (1), individual self-govern- 
 ment; (2), social or national self-government. In the first named 
 the individual seeks to adjust the relations of all his mental ele- 
 ments and all his possessions, using all the knowledge and means 
 at his command, first, to secure agreeable relations within self, 
 second, to secure to self alone as much of the good things of 
 life as possible, and with little or no regard for his true re- 
 lations to the social body of which he is a part and without which 
 he would not exist. In the last named the individual seeks to 
 adjust the relatioms of all his mental elements and all his pos- 
 sessions, using all the knowledge and means at his command, 
 first, to secure the most agreeable relations within self, second, 
 to secure the most agreeable relations within the social body, 
 of which he is a part and without which he would not exist. 
 
 The first above mentioned is the animal individualism of 
 past and present — a relic of the dark age of brute ignorance, 
 autocracy and slavory in human history. The last named is the 
 Humanism or Socialism of Christianity, which holds forth the 
 bright promise of a pure Democracy, in which all men are free 
 within the limits consonant with human life. It must be seen at 
 once that these two forms of self-government are conspicuously 
 antagonistic. Both cannot exist on terms of agreement in the 
 same social state or form of government, simply because the 
 first named divides the people into contending classes, the one 
 class ruling and the other class ruled. This class distinction has 
 been proved time and again, all over the world and in all the 
 past history of political and economic life. And so it is today. 
 
 Article V. — The autocratic form of government divides the 
 social body into contending factions simply because it allows the 
 more industrious or ambitious class to take the advantage of 
 others in the struggle for possesson of the things which all men 
 heed and must have in order to live. These things are properly 
 called public and private utilities, or useful things. Public util- 
 ities, in the largest sense, are all existing things viewed col- 
 lectively and which we call the universe. Each individual must 
 have the universe to live in, just as it is; but he cannot have it 
 all to himself Private utilities are the things which each indi- 
 vidual must have for self alone so far as he does not use them 
 to deprive others of the same rights enjoyed by himself. The 
 
—326 — 
 material body of every man or animal, and apart of the earth'n 
 surface necessary to the support of the individual, family, tribe, 
 state or nation, must be regarded as private property, in so far 
 a3 it is not used to interfere with the same right of others. It 
 is thus clear that there is, and must be, a legitimate limit to the 
 spheres of public and private property, in each possible case, but 
 exactly what these spheres are, or where the line should be 
 drawn which separates the two, can be determined only by the 
 righteous enactment of state and international laws, under a 
 pure democracy as herein described. From this view-point it is 
 perfectly clear that the world today does not contain a single 
 example of a purely democratic form of government, The most 
 democratic nations of the world, the British Empire and the 
 United States, still permit their subjects to accumulate vast 
 fortunes, which far exceed their utmost needs, and this too with- 
 out the least restraint; even in many cases abetting and protect- 
 ing a privileged ruling class who gain the power to rule thru 
 privately owned public utilities. Every system of government 
 on earth derives its power to govern under present undemo- 
 cratis laws and thru the private ownership of public utilities. 
 All public and private utilities belong to the earth; they are 
 part of the earth and so is everything that lives within and be- 
 neath the earth's atmosphere. If one half of all the people own- 
 ed the whole earth, they would not only own the other half of 
 the people, but would have the power to govern them and even 
 the power to enslave them; and just to the extent that the gov- 
 erning class are not humanized, christianized or civilized, to 
 that extent they will strive to own and enslave the other class. 
 The direct cause of all wars and all disruptive tendencies in the 
 social body, is thus conspicuous, and this is autocracy, the one 
 thing which divides the people into warring classes; and every 
 man or association of men, who privately owns or aspires to the 
 private ownership of any part of the public domain or any thing 
 isdispensable to all the people, is an autocrat. 
 
 Article VI. — That form of government properly called pure 
 democracy unites all the people into one sane, self-controling, 
 unselfish, peaceful community. In the words of Abe Lincoln, it 
 is "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." 
 The soul of pure democracy is self-government, both individual 
 and social. First, the individual: Any man or woman who always 
 takes the best possible care of every part of self, by using all 
 the knowledge and means at his or her command, and with due 
 regard for the same democratic rights of others, is a good demo- 
 crat. On the other hand, any man or woman who fails to per- 
 form this service for self, who has fallen into the habit of over- 
 working or abusing or neglecting any part of self, for the un- 
 due gratification of some other part, and who fails to respect 
 
—327 — 
 the democratic rights of others, is not a good democrat. Next 
 the family, state or nation. Any family, state or form of govern- 
 ment, which always takes the best possible care of every part 
 of its social body, by using all the knowledge and means at its 
 command, and with due regard for the same democratic rights 
 of other families, states or forms of government, is a true de- 
 mocracy. On the other hand, any family, state or form of gov- 
 ernment, which fails to perform this service for the social body, 
 for every class or part of its social organism, which permits the 
 practice of overworking, abusing or neglecting any part for the 
 undue gratification of any other part, and which fails to respect 
 the democratic rights of other families, states or forms of gov- 
 ernment, is not a true democracy. If democracy is not this it is 
 not self-government. The efficiency of self-government is direct- 
 ly dependent upon the knowedge of right and wrong which con- 
 trols the power that governs. The misuse of this power is a 
 direct result of ignorance, the common progenitor of autocracy. 
 Article VII. — A summary of the primciples essential to the 
 democracy of life is the following. — 
 
 1. This universe of things, as a result of the differences and 
 relations in matter, motion, mind. 
 
 2. The mental organism, both individual and social. In the 
 individual the organism must consist in an association of mental 
 elements, to some extent democratically organized and active, 
 for the purpose of securing agreeable relations within self. In 
 the society the organism must be an association of individuals, 
 to some extent democratically organized and active for the pur- 
 pose of securing agreeable relations within the social body. 
 
 3. The thought and labor necessary to the use of the materi- 
 als and forces of the earth, in the production and distribution 
 of the things useful in life; and capital as a medium of exchange 
 and a measure of the value of the things useful in life. 
 
 4. So far we have in outline, the industrial machine, both 
 individual and social, and which is indispensable to the life of 
 man. In the body of the individual all the organs and all the 
 means of production and distribution of the materials necessary 
 to the nourishment of every part of the body, also, all the means 
 for the removal of waste materials, are properly called public 
 property because they are indispensable to the life of every part 
 and of the whole. No part of the body can appropriate to its 
 own exclusive use any part of that which has been designated 
 as public property without injury to the other parts. In the so- 
 cial body all the productive, distributive and waste-eliminative 
 resources of the body are public property because every individ- 
 ual must have the use of them. No individual can appropriate 
 to his own exclusive use, any part, or the whole, of that which 
 has been set aside by a civil democracy as public property. 
 
— :-T2S — 
 
 5. As to what public and private property is, it may be said 
 that any one thing which all the parts of the individual body, 
 or all the individuals in the social body, must have the use of, 
 and which cannot be divided equally amorg all the parts or all 
 the people, must be regarded as public property. For example, 
 the heart, the arteries veins and capillaries, which constitute the 
 vascular system of the individual body, along with all the other 
 vital organs, moving organs and sense organs, in short the en- 
 tire material body, with the mental organism necessary to its 
 operation, must be regarded as public property to more or less 
 extent. As examples in the social body may be mentioned the 
 streets and alleys in towns and cities, country roads, railroads, 
 express service, telegraph and telephone service, water ways of 
 transportation such as rivers, canals, lakes, seas and oceans, 
 mining and agricultural resources, in short the entire earth, 
 with all the people democratically organized in one great so- 
 ciety of nations, in which there is no such thing as private prop- 
 erty in the exclusive ownership sense. It maybe supposed to be 
 strictly in accord with justice that every man should have ex- 
 clusive right to the use of his own material body to the full ex- 
 tent of his ability; but under pure democracy such liberty is not 
 possible simply because every man's body is a part of the earth, 
 given to him under the universal life conditions which require the 
 most careful use of that body in all ways essential to the well- 
 being of not only self but of the life of the universe. To serve 
 God there is no better way, in fact no other way. 
 
 So it appears that there is no such thing as private proper- 
 ty in the sense that gives to the individual the exclusive right 
 to do as he pleases with his own body or even with a single at- 
 om of this material universe. But there is such a thing as pri- 
 vate property in the sense that gives to the individual the ex- 
 clusive right to the use of his own body so long as his use of it 
 obtains benefits not only for self but for the social body of which 
 he is a part and without which he would not exist. The differ- 
 ence between public and private property can thus be readily 
 and clearly determined and to do this in each possible case is 
 the business of a strictly impartial, democratic legislation. The 
 failure so far in human history, to understand, to recognise and 
 put into practice this important difference, has been the direct 
 cause of all wars and contentions among men. 
 
 A pure democracy, therefore, is simply that social state, in- 
 dividual or national, in which each part of the individual, each 
 individual, or nation, gives to the social organism all he is worth 
 to that organism, and receives in exchange a just compensa- 
 tion. What he receives should be the exact measure of what he 
 is worth to the world. More than this is not his by right 
 
 The powers of life consists in wealth of bodily and mental 
 
—329 — 
 vigor, and of things useful in life. The misuse of power results 
 from that ignorance of pure democracy which always begets 
 autocratic rule, social disruption, strife and oppression. The rev- 
 olutionary movements called Bolshevism, the I. W.W. and radi- 
 cal Socialism, are giving the world striking examples of this 
 tendency toward the misuse of power, as a result of inefficient 
 self-government. Yet these agitations are a power for good in 
 the education of the people on the lines which must eventually 
 lead to a purely democratic state. They are a God-given lesson 
 to the people exactly as the great war in Europe, now just end- 
 ed, was a lesson to the people. But will they learn? 
 
 History repeats itself in no wise more instructive than in 
 that of the continued discontent and frequent uprising of the 
 people against the misuse of power in the hands of an ignorant 
 ruling class, and the revolutions just staged in Russia, Germany, 
 and Austria- Hungary, are certainly well calculated to stamp 
 deep in the public mind a lasting conviction of the truth of the 
 situation. The Bolsheviki movement as described by the best 
 available authority is. — Dr. W. C. Huntington, formerly com- 
 mercial attache of the U. S. Embassy in Petrograd, testifying 
 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington D. C. says: 
 "Bolshevism, from a study of the literature of the movement 
 and from observations of its practical working is as follows. — 
 
 "The present state of the world is unsatisfactory. Wars 
 and the evils besetting society are due to capitalistic classes. 
 Humanity is unable to cope with capitalistic society and get 
 justice. The capitalist must therefore go. Difficulty arises from 
 the fact that those who possess anything are unwilling to give 
 it up. Socialism, so called, has failed because it has proceeded 
 upon parlimentary lines. Compulsion must be used. The state 
 must own all. There will be no property and no private owners. 
 All will be government servants, and, by removing the tempta- 
 tion of money-getting, war is obviated." 
 
 Regarding the aims and results of Bolsheviki rule the Dr. 
 says: "Bolshevism is the enemy of all established governments 
 and seeks their undoing, including that of the United States. 
 Internationalism is at its foundation. The practical effect upon 
 Russia has been utter chaos, anarchy, cruelty, economic paral- 
 ysis and practically a return to barbarism. " 
 
 The above, when compared to other similar reports from 
 different sources seems to tell the truth so far as it goes, but it 
 does not tell all. From the official literature of Bolshevism we 
 learn that the present government of Russia is an "Industrial 
 Republic," the first government of the working class in the 
 world, owned by the workers and for the workers. It is called 
 a government of Soviets. Instead of electing men at the poles 
 they are elected in the shops and unions of organized labor. 
 
— 330 — 
 Each department of labor has its Soviet and it selects a dele- 
 gate to the All Russia Assembly which meets about every 3 
 months at Moscow. Here all public questions are diseased and 
 decided. There is now about 1500 delegates from all Russia. 
 
 It is true, as officially reported, that the Soviates do not 
 allow everyone to vote. "The exploiters of labor, idle people 
 living off interest, members of the Czar's family, criminals and 
 the insane, are not allowed to vote in Russia. The Soviate slo- 
 gan is: A vote for everyone who works." 
 
 The one great mistake in this movement, which has brought 
 to it serious discredit and censure, and which has made of it a 
 most decidedly undemocratic procedure, is the fact that it has 
 disfranchised and even put to death a large part of its popula- 
 tion. The family of the Czar, including a number of innocent 
 children, and thousands of the nobility and the rich people were 
 shot to death because they were opposed to the Soviet form 
 of government. From the beginning of the Bolsheviki revolution 
 (Nov. 7th, 1917) to Jan. 1st, 1919, 4,500 people were executed 
 for the same reason. "We kill to make men free," is the idea 
 in Russia, and can we wonder in view of the facts. For hundreds 
 of years, under the Czars the Russian people have been oppres- 
 sed to the limit of endurance and revolution and retaliation was 
 the inevitable result. Under the Czar, and during the first year 
 after the 1905 revolution was put down, 32,733 of the people 
 were executed. And so it goes. Abuse a dog and he is liable to 
 bite you; treat him well and he will love you. Every black page 
 in human history is a direct result of this struggle between mis- 
 guided authority on the one side and misguided liberty on the 
 other — both a direct result of ignorance of the principles of pure 
 democracy. In the late war between Russia and Germany it was 
 necessary to arm and discipline millions of the Russian people. 
 After many thousands had been killed in battle fighting to de- 
 fend one ruthless form of autocracy against another, the Rus- 
 sian soldiers and working people decided to quit; hence a succes- 
 ful rebellion which put the Czar and his associates out of power. 
 This was undoubtedly a splendid move for democracy. The only 
 remedy against blighted and blighting autocracy is revolution. 
 But the people went too far. There was nothing to prevent them 
 staying under Karensky and establishing an impure democracy 
 like that of the United States. Then by majority vote of all the 
 people they might have reached the goal of pure democracy. A 
 pure democracy is, and must be, a government of all the people 
 by all the people, and the will of all the people must be expres- 
 sed by the ballot. The old idea that a majority of the people 
 may be as despotic as any absolute ruler, is tenable only in view 
 of the fact that a majority of the people are totally ignorant of 
 the principles of democracy and so incapable of self-government. 
 
—331 — 
 
 A pure social democracy is a complete individual mental or- 
 ganism, which knows the use and place, and strives to hold un- 
 impaired every part of the social body exactly as any intelligent 
 person always aims to hold intact every part of his own body. 
 No rational man would cutoff and destroy his right hand simply 
 because it is disabled or in any way defective or inefficient for 
 its rightful cooperation in the activities of all the parts as in 
 the perfect life of the individual. Rather would he preserve and 
 if possible restore it to its proper place and use in the bodily 
 economy. At least he would do all he could to keep it from anni- 
 hilation. And so with the rational democratic social state. The 
 imperfect democracy is responsible for all the crimes of human- 
 ity and no democracy can be pure and perfect if it permits the 
 killing of its people for any crime whatever. Under the code of 
 Christianity the vilest sinner may return. Murder is not refor- 
 mation. If it were impossible to cure bad habits it would be 
 necessary, not to kill people because they are bad, but to put 
 them where they could do no more harm. 
 
 It seems certain that there are few people in our present 
 social state who can understand that there is a moral limit to 
 the attainment of wealth. The inconvenience of poverty, the 
 allurements of wealth and the protection and encouragement 
 of man-made laws, have developed in man, as in the animals, 
 the habit of industrial individualism, which is an essential part 
 in the program of human evolution. This was necessary in the 
 making of the animal man, but it is now a serious hindrance in 
 the making of the human man. Natural selection, heredity and 
 survival of the fittest have contributed to bodily vigor, beauty 
 of form and intellectual development; and so it is that the most 
 favored individuals of each generation in each line of descent, 
 have survived in greater numbers thus improving the species. 
 And so it comes about that all the higher animals including man 
 have been able to advance to their present state of existence. 
 This, in brief, is God's plan of creation, to be further consider- 
 ed in book 2. 
 
 In every line of descent there is always the strong and the 
 weak, the feeble, infirm, frail, wanting resolution, and the ro- 
 bust, resolute and generally succesful in whatever they under- 
 take; and hence it is that there is a natural class division in ev- 
 ery social state, animal or man. The one class rules and the 
 other is ruled, and as a direct result of this social division we 
 have all the well known social evils, from the milder forms of 
 the industrial exploitation of the ruled by the class that rules 
 to the extremes of cruel inhuman opression. 
 
 Autocracy is as old as the animal kingdom and it has an es- 
 sential part to play, not only in the making of the higher an- 
 imals including man, but in the making of the nations. But in 
 
-332— 
 the natural course of human evolution a point must be reached 
 at which the highest beings must become more and more alike. 
 There is but one moral law, one principle of justice, one pure 
 democracy, one Kingdom of God. These are only different names 
 of the one great principle of life. The problem of human evolu- 
 tion is extremely simple and it is only necessary to understand 
 it in its present stage, in order to know what to do in order to 
 keep it going. It is now a simple matter of the right use of the 
 principles of democracy and the first thing to do is to enforce 
 and maintain a complete unity of the present social organism 
 with all its imperfections. The severance of any part in any case 
 wherein a cure or a reformation is possible, is undemocratic. 
 Loyalty to the present constitution is a first principle of pure 
 democracy exactly as self-preservatisn is a first principle of life. 
 
 The next thing to do is to seek out and carefully apply eve- 
 ry available remedy for social evils. No one can dispute the fact 
 that the most notorious and perpetually menacing social evil, 
 not only here in these United States but all over the world, is 
 that which directly results from the fact that labor and capital, 
 the two most necessary factors of industry, are not now and 
 never have been, organized and managed on a national scale so 
 as to work together for the benefit of all the people. This evil 
 is undeniable and the remedy is equally conspicuous but the peo- 
 ple do not understand the remedy and they will have none of it. 
 When a man is sick he knows it because he feels that way. He 
 has faith in the doctor and in most cases the doctor can help 
 him. The social body is sick all the time and everybody knows 
 it but they have no faith in doctors, no use for remedies and so 
 they stay sick. That there is something wrong in the social body 
 no one doubts. The public press all over the world contains its 
 daily output of reports of labor strikes, riots, impending revo- 
 lution and all the common forms of social disease. A general 
 strike movement is now sweeping Canada from the Atlantic to 
 the Pacific. Canadian labor is closely affiliated with the Ameri- 
 can Federation of Labor. In Canada it is reported that the la- 
 bor organizations have for several months been showing a steady 
 trend toward a form of industrial unionism similar to that of 
 the I.W.W. in this country and now put in operation in Russia. 
 This move is regarded as dangerously significant. It is admitted 
 by those who claim to have inside information that a widespread 
 strike, involving all industries and even approaching a revolu- 
 tion the same as in all Europe, is a clear possibility in America. 
 
 And the reason. The frenzied "get rich quick man," with 
 a highwayman's sense of justice and no respect for any one not 
 worth skinning, is still doing business in the old familliar way, 
 and a suffering public is still sending forth its never ceasing 
 howl of distress. Since the war began retail prices of all the ne- 
 
— 333 — 
 cessaries of life have advanced nearly a hundred \ . ■ «. - . no 
 proportional advance in wag38 for labor can be no .iced. And is 
 this high cost of living altogether a result of war-time condi- 
 tions? No. Millionaires have increased in numbers faster within 
 the last four years than ever before in this country Of course 
 the social chasm has grown wider and deeper, for on the one 
 aide the destitute suffer in silent dread, while on the other there 
 is abundance, luxury and profligacy. Think of this Salaries for 
 labor, even the highest, never make the millionaire. There is 
 one and only one simple way, and they call it profiteering — the 
 management of labor, money, materials and force, in the way 
 that brings large returns in money. This is "Americanism. Big 
 Business," and it has assumed a variety of forms going under 
 a variety of names as the exploitation of labor in production and 
 distribution, speculation, tricks in trade, gambling and theft. 
 
 We sometimes hang a man for stealing horses and it is not 
 always easy to catch him. But how about the food profiteer? 
 He goes about his business as free as air, skinning people every- 
 where, and loudly boasting about it; yet he is worse than a horse 
 thief because he subjects helpless children to slow starvation. 
 If this is a government of the people for and by the people why 
 don't the people do something. The truth is, the majority of the 
 people are so infatuated with habits of industry, so besotted 
 with the fooish passion for wealth and so ready to take hold of 
 any project that promises great gain for self, in two words so 
 utterly selfish, that they are not able to get together on some 
 plan of cooperation that secures justice to all. The American 
 people either don't want government interference and restraint, 
 or they don't know how to get it. Nearly everybody is either 
 rich or want3 to be rich. During the war we had government 
 control of industries forced upon us as a war necessity. In an 
 emergency like war all the people and the country's resources 
 must be united to beat the enemy, and united action is possible 
 only under the one and only principle of government properly 
 called social self-government — the central administration of the 
 power that governs. But this government interference was a 
 series handycap to private enterprise. Now the war is over and 
 the people want no more of it. They want to be free to resume 
 the old game of American life — skin or be skinned. 
 
 It is now the common belief that any political party that 
 advocates the permanent establishment of any bureau or agen- 
 cy for government control of industries, will not have the sup- 
 port of the people. No doubt; but when I say 'the people,' I do 
 not mean all. There is a considerable part of the people who 
 would do anything in their power to secure universal peace but 
 they do not know what to do. There is another part of the peo- 
 ple who do know what to do but they are far in the minority. 
 
—334— 
 To these people, no doubt, president Wilson had reference when 
 said in his address to the International Law Society in Paris 
 that "we have been wrong because we have not recognized 
 that the heart of humanity beats under plain clothes and by hum- 
 ble firesides. Those who lead hard lives are to be consulted and 
 cared for." True, and it was this and similar utterances from 
 the president that aroused the protest of the predatory inter- 
 ests. The following rather lengthy quotation is from an edito- 
 rial in a leading paper which evidently belongs to a class which 
 has been called "the capatalistic press/' and which passage is 
 representative of a great deal of like purport that may be found 
 in many papers thruout the country, and which, no doubt, must 
 have a strong influence upon the public mind. 
 
 "The president is undoubtedly correct in supposing that a 
 momentous change has come over the spirit of most employ- 
 ers in relation to their employes. No longer does the average 
 manufacturer experience spasms of pain every time he raises 
 a man's pay or puts in a rest room or provides some comfort 
 for the female workers of his force. Probably this is due more 
 to the discovery that such acts pay well on the investment than 
 to the excited ravings of authors and teachers. Yet if the pres- 
 ident means that the heart of humanity under plain clothes and 
 by humble firesides knows better what is good for it in a com- 
 mercial and industrial way than the heads of experienced and 
 trained men of business, then he is not only wrong in theory 
 but offers a considerable contribution toward the cause of still 
 plainer clothes and humbler firesides. If he means that business 
 should be run from the shops and not from the office, then he 
 has much to learn about business, however shrewd he may be 
 in politics and diplomacy. When this sort of gospel has matured 
 and fruited, it brings forth exactly what Mayor Hanson of Seat- 
 tle justly pronounced an element in society for whom we should 
 prepare cemeteries instead of conferencs. Too much in the past 
 we have been given by penalizing the man who knows enough 
 to make 10,000 jobs grow where one grew before. What we 
 want now is to give these geniuses and benefactors of the plain 
 clothes and the humble fireside more scope for their operations, 
 instead of taking away from them, not only the power to do 
 things on a colossal scale, but also the incentive to do so that is 
 involved in the enjoyment of the fruits of their enterprise for 
 themselves and their descendants. Higher wages, profit-shar- 
 ing, welcome for friendly requests for improved working con- 
 ditions — all these are coming in apace and mean much for the 
 benefit of capital as well as labor; but to destroy the control 
 which exceptional ability exerts over colossal enterprises will 
 be to kill the goose that had laid the golden egg of progress and 
 prosperity for the happiest, the most intelligent and most effi- 
 
— 335 — 
 cient body of labor in the world today or at any time in the his- 
 tory of mankind." (Rocky Mountain News, May 25 1919.) 
 
 The above is certainly a strange jumbling of fact and falla- 
 cy. It is true that the heads of experienced and trained men of 
 business are necessary in the management of industries great 
 or small, but it is not true that the manager must own the bus- 
 iness and be free to manage it to suit himself. It is true that a 
 shrewd manager can make millions for himself when he owns 
 the business, but it is not true that he can do this when working 
 for some one else on a salary. Many cases proving the truth of 
 this statement and the fallacy of the claims of the above quoted 
 passage are at hand. Mr. Charles M. Schwab became a multo- 
 millionaire by his management and private holdings in the steel 
 industry; but as manager of the ship-building industry he served 
 the government on a salary less than that of the president, and 
 of course he did not make a fortune on this, yet he performed 
 his service and proved his ability just the same. Mr. McAdoo is 
 another example. He proved his fitness as railroad administrator 
 and received only a salary. He did not own the roads and the 
 government held them only under a leace. The president of the 
 United States can and does serve his country with honor and is 
 satisfied with a salary of $75, 000 a year. Cabinet members $8,000 
 Senators 5,000. So far not one of the presidents ever became 
 millionairs. Jefferson was oblged to sell his library to keep out 
 of the poor house and Monroe died so poor that he had to be 
 buried at the expense of his relatives. Yet we have it from a 
 trustworthy source that the millionaires of this country have in- 
 creased more rapidly than our national wealth. "We have cre- 
 ated 16,696 of these huge fortunes in the last ten years, most 
 of them in the last four years." (Senitor Capper of Kansas, in 
 Benson's "Reconstruction." June 1919.) 
 
 It is true none the less that the majority of the business peo- 
 ple of this country will believe the above quoted statements. In 
 fact it is the real sentiment of big business daily set forth in 
 the capitalist press thruout the country. In a speech at the Re- 
 construction Congress held at Atlantic City last December, Mr. 
 Schwab explained his business creed as follow. 
 
 "The real development of any great enterprise depends on 
 the individual initiative of the American business man. I do not 
 believe we will ever get the full economic development of any 
 great branch of American industry that is not developed under 
 private enterprise and under private capital. I am one who be- 
 lieves in the fairness of American labor. I am one who believes 
 that the only foundation upon which anything can permanently 
 rest is the economic use of everything, whether it be labor, ma- 
 terials, manufacture or what not. Any foundation of organized 
 labor or capital that is on a false basis must fall." 
 
—336 — 
 Here again we have a muddling of truth and fallacy most 
 surprising. Surprising because it comes right from the brain of 
 one of America's successful and most efficient men of business. 
 It is true that the successful carrying on of any great industry 
 or undertaking, must depend upon the individual managment of 
 a competent person or cooperating body of persons, but it is not 
 true that the complete success of any such undertaking must 
 depend on private capital and private management. It is true 
 that the only permanent foundation upon which any form of in- 
 dustry can rest, is that which employs labor, capital, and force, 
 (in the changes of raw materials into useful things, and in the 
 transportation and distribution of useful things,) in the way nee 
 essary to compensate each person concerned according to the 
 value of his service; and it is not true that any other foundation 
 can be permanent. Capital is a useful thing — a measure of the 
 value of, and a medium for the exchange of, other useful things. 
 When the capital, material and means of production, necessary 
 in any productive industry, are owned and managed by one or a 
 few persons, they have the power to fix prices on labor, materi- 
 als and finished products, in the way that will bring them large 
 profits; and so in all the forms of industry. To get rich the two 
 things most necessary are capital and business ability Every- 
 body knows this and most of them do not seem to know any- 
 thing else. The present capatalistic foundation of American in- 
 dustry is that which, under private capital and private manage- 
 ment secures exorbitant profits. This is the self-confessed foun- 
 dation or system that makes the millionaires, that divides soci 
 ety into contending classes with all their attendant evils. If de- 
 mocracy and peace is the end of social evolution the foundation 
 of American industry is false and it must fall. 
 
 THE END OF BOOK ONE 
 
 [NOTE: The new electron theory of the atom and of the na- 
 ture of electricity, now holds the general attention of scientists 
 and philosophers. This book was set up and electro-plated before 
 I heard of the electron theory. Here I wish to mention my belief 
 that all the phenomena of radium or radio activity, may be ac- 
 counted for as due to mechanical electric repulsion as described 
 in Chapters 5 and 6, this dook. (see appendix book 2. J 
 
APPENDIX TO BOOK ONE 
 
 A CRITICISM OF EINSTEIN'S 
 
 THEORIES OF RELATIVITY 
 
 AND GRAVITATION 
 
—PREFACE— 
 
 The Scientific American Publishing Company of New York 
 is now publishing a book entitled EINSTEIN'S THEORIES 
 of RELATIVITY and GRAVITATION. The object of this book 
 is to prepare the mind of the layman for the reception of the 
 Einstein theories. These theories are said to be not more difficult 
 to understand than other scientific theories when once the mind 
 is prepared for them. The general reader who thinks in the or- 
 dinary ways of common sense is lacking, not only in the neces- 
 sary vocabulary, but in the mental background on which to base 
 the vocabulary; hence his liability to shock. 
 
 This book contains the $5,000 prize essay (which prize was 
 offered for the best explanation of the Einstein theories) also 
 the best thought of the 300 contestants for this prize, along 
 with a large amount of editorial matter; and it is offered as the 
 book of all books for the layman; and for the philosopher, it is 
 the one book to afford a mathematical basis for his speculations. 
 
 Now, the object in this pamphlet is to offer a just criticism 
 of the Einstein theories. According to reports Einstein has em- 
 ployed the advanced ealculus in his work and there are only a 
 dozen men in the world today who can understand him. 
 
 The object herein is to make it plain that the true theory 
 of the universe must be worked out by a process of reason, and 
 that reason is only a higher development of ordinary common 
 sense. When the rational theory is once complete, then and only 
 then, the mathematician may apply his formulas as a conclu- 
 sive test. Another object of this pamphlet is to advertise a new 
 work of SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY. This work is now com- 
 plete in one volume of 700 pages and ready for the press. The 
 relativity of Hamilton, Mansel, Bain and others, along with the 
 Newtonian Mechanics, has been amended and applied to the en- 
 tire universe. As examples of this application a new form of the 
 ether medium and a new theory of gravitation are described. 
 
II —PREFACE— 
 
 From rational relativity and from Newton's laws of motion, 
 and in order to make this physical universe complete and secure, 
 it is necessary that all that part of it which lies within and be- 
 yond the range of the best telescope, and which is now in active 
 motion, should be enclosed on all sides by motionless matter. Or 
 at least should be completely environed by something which is 
 so constituted as to prevent the ultimate diffusion of the inner 
 and active portion. Whether this outer substance be an absolute 
 solid, whether it consists of closely packed particles having no 
 motion, whether there be anything outside of it or whether its 
 limits terminate with an abrupt surface, are questions which 
 we need not try to answer at present. But that the universe of 
 life and energy which consists of ponderable bodies floating in 
 a vast sea of ether, the expansive energy and outward pressure 
 of which must be greater than the highest estimate of man, is 
 limited on all sides by matter which does not receive its motion, 
 is a mechanical necessity which challenges recognition. 
 
 This conclusion, tho not acceptable to many critics, is far 
 less inconsistent with known physical facts than the idea of an 
 inscrutable power of attraction, which acts in empty space, in 
 order to hold together the substance, and maintain the life, of 
 the universe; and since the most powerful telescope has failed 
 to reveal any limit to the ether medium perhaps the mind of 
 man may never reach it in any other way. 
 
 See the illustration on page 23 of this pamphlet. It does not 
 mean that the universe must be a perfect sphere; but it does 
 mean that like the hen's egg it must have a shell or a solid ex- 
 terior to preserve its life and democratic utility. In this system 
 all the facts and all the mysteries known to physical science, 
 have been explained and united undear the laws of motion now 
 recognized as the basis of all astronomical calculatins. The only 
 assumptions necessary to start with are, an atomic ether medi- 
 um and a limited universe as above described. 
 
-§I- 
 
 MODERN PHILOSOPHY 
 
 We are not missing the truth very far when we assert that, 
 for the average reader, philosophy ia the most uninteresting of 
 all subjects. From press reports we learn that profits from the 
 sale of the works of Herbert Spencer, said to be the worlds fore- 
 most philosopher, and which works are contained in eight or ten 
 large volumes, never exceeded $8,000 a year. There are many 
 scientific, historical and religious books which have overreached 
 the million mark, and books on fiction, with nothing in them 
 but creations of the imagination, have far outstriped everything 
 else. Of the eight recent books by Harold Bell Wright over eight 
 millions have been sold, and returns are still coming in. Zane 
 Gray's latest books are now selling at the rate of 5,000 a day. 
 To my knowledge there are two philosophical magazines pub- 
 lished in the United States, but I have never seen one of them 
 on any news stand while the story and photoplay magazines are 
 there in attractive dress and great variety. 
 
 What's the matter with philosophy? If I put this question 
 tothe present day philospher he tells me that the human race is 
 still in its juvenescent stage of mental development, and so not 
 able to grapple with the deeper questions of life. Man, he says, 
 has not yet freed himself from his native common sense frame 
 of mind, and of course his thinking is only that which concerns 
 the ordinary affairs of life. What he needs most is to be touched 
 by the regenerative influence of the real philosophy now being 
 taught in the colleges. This so-called real philosophy has no use 
 for common sense except as the object of its uplift. I might 
 quote from the writings of more than a dozen of the professors 
 of philosophy in the high seats of learning in the Unitsd States 
 and Great Britain, to justify this statement. 
 
 No doubt the human race is still in its necessary stage of 
 adolescence, and modern science and philosophy, so far as they 
 are concerned with ultimate truths, are in the same fix. For my 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 2 
 
 part I am strongly impressed with the idea that present day 
 science and philosophy, in particular the last named, in their 
 search for fundamental truths, are far behind the most ordinary 
 common sense. The true system of philosophy must rest on prin- 
 ciples — indisputable fundamental truths which are known to be 
 true by the best known criterions of truth. The present situa- 
 tion is simply this: The world has no philosophy and never had, 
 and until it has, no one but a narrow specialist can find it inter- 
 esting. All the scientists and philosophers past and present, have 
 confessed their ignorance of the fundamental truths upon which 
 the true system must rest. A system of philosophy without a 
 foundation of truth is not a system and ignorance is not philoso- 
 phy — not according to my understanding of the subject. 
 
 In as few words as possible let us review the present ten- 
 dencies of science and philosophy. The doctrine that matter ul- 
 timately consists of immaterial electrons or small charges of 
 electricity which play the part of atoms and molecules, now 
 holds first place in speculative thought. But leading authorities 
 appear to disagree somewhat as to the nature of the ultimate 
 atom. One prominent author says of the ether and the atoms: 
 
 "When I say that matter is atomic I do not mean that ether 
 is atomic. I hold that ether is most certainly not atomic — not 
 discontinuous; it is an absolutely continuous medium, without 
 breaks or gaps or space of any kind in it, the universal connec- 
 tor; permeating not only the rest of space but also the space 
 occupied by the atoms themselves. The atom is a something su- 
 perposed upon, not substituted for, the ether; it is most likely 
 a definite modification of the ether, an individualization with a 
 permanent existence and a faculty of locomotion which the 
 ether alone does not possess." 
 
 This author thinks that electricity is not a form of energy. 
 He says: "Electricity may possibly be a form of matter — it is 
 not a form of energy. * * Understand the sense in which I use 
 the word electricity. Electrification is a result of work done, 
 and is most certainly a form of energy; it can be created and 
 destroyed by an act of work. But electricity — none is ever cre- 
 ated or destroyed; it is simply moved and strained like matter." 
 ("Modern Views of the Ether and Electricity," By Oliver J. 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 3 
 
 Lodge, Professor of Physics in University College Liverpool. 
 
 Another brilliant scientist of England, Dr. Hugh Elliot, in 
 his recent book "Modern Science and Materialism' ' has express- 
 sed the belief that common sense is an obstacle to the progress 
 of physical science. He thinks the first step in the real progress 
 of modern physics must consist in the resolution of our common 
 ideas of matter into the new idea of "disembodied electrical 
 charges. Electricity, he says, is one form of energy. Light and 
 heat are other forms of the same energy and they traverse the 
 empty space between the earth and the sun without any basis 
 of matter whatever. ' And so with all the forms of energy. This 
 assumption rules out the present distinction between matter 
 and motion, or matter and physical energy, and substitutes for 
 it positive and negative electricity — positive electricity playing 
 the part of energy and negative electricity taking the place of 
 matter. It is not denied that motion or physical energy plainly 
 manifests the characteristic which we call inertia but it is as- 
 sumed that there is such a thing as immaterial inertia. And tho 
 it is admitted that we have not yet reached a complete solution 
 of any of the great mysteries of physical science it is insisted 
 that this doctrine has brought us far nearer to that complete 
 unification of knowledge which is the goal of philosophy. 
 
 So much for the drift of English science, and it is the same 
 here in America and in fact all over the world. But the most 
 noteworthy contribution to this tendency has come to light in 
 the last few years. Dr. Albert Einstein a German mathemati- 
 cian, fifteen years ago worked out a Special Theory of Rela- 
 tivity which attracted the attention of mathematicians but was 
 generally regarded as of little importance. During the late war 
 Einstein developed his special theory making it broad enough 
 to be called a General Theory which is supposed to include the 
 Universe and so to pave the way to a true philosophy. 
 
 Within the last two or three years this general theory has 
 aroused the attention of scientists an mathematicians to an ex- 
 traordinary extent all over the world. Many of those who think 
 they know all about it are now making big money trying to 
 show the rest of us how to understand it. A wealthy American 
 now living in Paris offered a prize of $5,000 for the best explan- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 4 
 
 atory essay on the subject. The contest was lively; 300 compet- 
 ing essays being offered from all parts of the world. A Mr. L. 
 Bolton of England was the winner. The prize was offered thru 
 the Scientific American, New York, and they have just issued 
 a book containing the winning essay and other matter selected 
 from other contributors and by the editor. 
 
 It would be impossible for me to offer an adequate review 
 of this book, besides, it would not be safe to try it because I 
 cannot understand it myself. I will only attempt to mention a 
 few of their results and to explain why I cannot feel assured 
 that I understand them. What I say here is only my opinion. 
 
 Page 27.: "The results of observation are the raw material 
 of physical science. The finished product is obtained by the bring- 
 ing together of a large number of such observations with the 
 view of obtaining some generalization to be finally established 
 by a simple mathematical formula. This formula is then called 
 a law of nature. ' " 
 
 The above quoted passage, relieved of some redundance, is 
 clear to me, and I believe it to be a correct statement of an im- 
 portant truth. When we have pushed our generalizations to the 
 natural limits in any case, we can safely affirm the discovery of 
 a natural law. There are Laws of Nature, and they are known, 
 or can be known, to man. The one and only test for the truth 
 of any affirmed law of nature, must be found in its sufficiency 
 to harmonize the facts of common sense experience. 
 
 The following on the same page is not clear to me. 
 
 "Laws of nature are man's imperfect attempts to explain 
 natural phenomena; they are not inherent in matter and the 
 universe, not an iron bar of necessity running through worlds, 
 systems and suns. Laws of nature are little more than working 
 hypotheses, subject to change or alteration or enlargement or 
 even abandonment, as man's vision widens and deepens." 
 
 The only sense that I can get from the above is this: What 
 we call natural laws are not natural laws; "they are man's im- 
 perfect attempts to explain natural phenomena;" It may be pos- 
 sible to find them true in whole, in part, or it may be found 
 necessary to abandon them entirely. Now, if this writer had 
 been talking about methods of research I think I could under- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 5 
 
 stand him but he is certainly talking about law3 of nature. 
 
 Page 69. "Einstein builds his structure on the thesis that 
 relativity must be admitted, must be followed out to the bitter 
 end. * If admitted at all, it must be admitted in toto; no matter 
 what else it contradicts." 
 
 In a number of places it is stated that Einstein's theory is 
 a law of nature or a principle. He says himself: 
 
 Page 288. "Every law of nature which holds good with re- 
 spect to a coordinate system K must also hold good for any other 
 system K, provided that K and K, are in uniform movement of 
 translation." * "Light in a vacuum has a definite and constant 
 velocity independent of the velocity of its source." 
 
 These two sentences I believe are correct presentments of 
 what are now generally recognised as laws of nature and they 
 are said to be the foundation of the Einstein theories. But if 
 laws of nature are nothing but man's imperfect attempts to ex- 
 plain natural phenomena, as declared on page 27, then there is 
 nothing in this entire book to support the assumption that the 
 Einstein theory is an established law of nature. 
 
 There are a number of statements in this book which tend 
 to discredit the Einstein theory. The following from Professor 
 W. H. Pickering, Harvard College observatory, is noteworthy. 
 
 Page 297. "But we must not as yet conceive of the theory 
 of relativity as a universally accepted and unquestioned truth 
 of science. Eddington is its leading English exponent, and he is 
 supported by such men as Jeans, Larmor, and Jeffreys. On the 
 other hand, the theory has been severely criticised by Lodge, 
 Fowler, Silberstene, and Sampson. Few American scientists 
 have expressed any opinions in print on the subject, and the re- 
 cent eclipse observations, to which we shall refer later, are to 
 be repeated with more suitable instruments for verification in 
 1922, in hopes of obtaining more accurate and accordant results. ' 
 
 In a number of other places in this book it is freely admit- 
 ted "that Einstein's theory of relativity has been partly, but 
 not completely, verified." 
 
 Outside of this book may be found damaging criticisms of 
 the Einstein theory. In the "Scientific American Monthly" for 
 June 1921, appears an article by Charles Lane Poor, Professor 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 6 
 
 of Celestial Mechanics, Columbia University, which should be 
 read by all who are interested in this matter. With the utmost 
 brevity I will try to mention what this writer says about it. 
 
 "For many years the Newtonian law as applied by mathe- 
 maticians has failed to account accurately for the motions of 
 Mercury, and this failure has been made the basis of many at- 
 tacks upon the Newtonian law, of which Einstein's is merely 
 the latest and best executed. * At first sight this agreement of 
 figures appears to confirm the Einstein theories in a brilliant 
 manner. But striking as these figures are, the confirmation is 
 not complete, for it is possible to explain the motion of Mercury 
 in full accord with the Newtonian law.' 7 
 
 Then follows a noteworthy account of well known facts all 
 of which plainly discredit the conclusion that the Einstein form- 
 ulas are necessay and sufficient, and which, it seems were over- 
 looked by Einstein and his followers. This author concludes: — 
 
 "Thus the motions of the planets do not prove the truth of 
 the Einstein theory, nor, on the other hand, do they prove its 
 falsity. * It is a problem of observational astronomy to investi- 
 gate the actual distribution and density of the matter in the 
 solar lens, and to determine whether or not it approximates the 
 conditions necessary to account for the planetary motions." 
 
 Perhaps if we knew the mechanical cause of gravitation, 
 the as yet unexplained discrepancies in planetary movements 
 might disappear entirely, and the Newtonian mechanics would 
 be justified as necessary and sufficient. 
 
 A few of the other deductions from the Einstein theory may 
 be mentioned here and I shall present them in my own words 
 and with as little discussion as possible, giving only the pages. 
 
 Page 70: The Einstein theories are built upon first principles. 
 Their results are a shock to ordinary common sense and we 
 must either give up relativity or cease to follow the leadship of 
 common sense. Common sense must be educated up to the nec- 
 essary level of comprehension. 
 
 Page 99: The Euclidean and Newtonian idea that time and 
 space are not the same thing, must be abandoned and the Ein- 
 stein idea that they are one and the same, must be accepted in- 
 stead in order to attain universal relativity. Time-space thus 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 7 
 
 united as one should have four dimensions — time having one, a 
 continuous line, and space three, length, breadth and depth. But 
 do these dimensions belong to space and time, or do they belong 
 to the real things which must occupy space and time? I have 
 failed to find a definite answer to this question, anywhere in 
 this book. It is admitted that all dimensions are obtained by 
 measurements. It is admitted that space or time cannot be meas- 
 ured directly, and it is even admitted that they are not things 
 in the same sense that matter is. Nevertheless it is a conspicu- 
 ous fact that these people thruout this book continually talk of 
 space and time as real things, or a thing, having four dimen- 
 sions, and they have given to this substantial entity the eupho- 
 nious title of "The Four Dimensional Continuum." 
 
 Page 26. "The only reality that we can know is that which 
 we observe directly. Anything which we may think of as exist- 
 ing beyond the range of observation is purely conceptual." We 
 think a great deal about space and time but we cannot observe 
 them directly. Are they purely conceptual? and if so, how can 
 we use them as a basis for mathematical calculations? 
 
 It is mentioned in the Monist for April 1921 that Einstein 
 has demonstrated mathematically the truth of the curvature of 
 space, also the fact that time may proceed in one direction in 
 one part of the universe and in some other direction in another 
 part, simultaneously. Here we have a conspicuous disagreement 
 between mathematics and common sense. Our common sense 
 plainly tells us that all calculations must begin with and proceed 
 on real measurable things; not on non-existing, non-dimensional, 
 unnumbered, purely imagined things. It seems clear to me that 
 Einstein and his adherents have built on a pure assumption, in 
 no sense capable of serving as the basis of a computation. It is 
 admitted in this book that this postulate is entirely unsupported 
 by experiment or observation, and that it is justified wholly on 
 mathematical and philosophical conceptions. It may be possible 
 to figure on a theoretical conception of the external reality and 
 the figures may justify the theory, but the theory may not be 
 a true representation of the reality. There are laws of nature 
 and the one and only test for the truth of such laws must be 
 found in their sufficiency to harmonize all the facts to the natur- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 8 
 
 al limits of the universe, or to some natural part of it. If Ein- 
 stein's relativity can be applied to a limited whole as required by 
 methods of science its truth as a general law will be established. 
 
 Page 35. Here is the way these people think they have over- 
 come this difficulty. I quote their own words: ' 'Whether we be- 
 lieve space and time to have real existence or not, it is obvious 
 that we can measure neither directly. We shall have to measure 
 space by measuring from one material object to another; we 
 shall have to measure time by some similar convention based 
 on events." This is the basis of their space-time four dimen- 
 sional continuum, and right here we are confronted by the one 
 question most significant in this controversy. When we meas- 
 ure the interval between two material objects in space, do we, 
 or do we not, measure space? For me and I think for all com- 
 mon sense people, there is only one answer to this question. 
 WE DO NOT MEASURE SPACE. 
 
 The same is true of time. When we measure the distances 
 between objects in space or the intervals between events in 
 time, we are not measuring real things. Space, time, all the de- 
 partments of mathematics, such as arithmetic, geometry, al- 
 gebra, which deal with points, lines, curves, circles, angles, 
 ovals, numbers, magnitudes, dimensions etc. are not real things 
 in the sense in which I have used the word in my system. In 
 that system all things are classed under two heads: Real things 
 and Relative things. All real things must be found in a space 
 occupying substance properly called Matter. All relative things 
 (space, time, and the things constituting mathematics etc.) are 
 found only in the well known relations which they bear to real 
 things. The distance from one object to another in space cannot 
 exist without the objects. The interval of time between two 
 events cannot exist without the events; in short, relative things 
 cannot exist without real things. Nevertheless, relative things 
 are real in a certain legitimate sense of the word. Space in its 
 self may be an object of thought — a boundless void, in which 
 there is no difference, no things, no relations, nothing but noth- 
 ing. It is the best example of nothing that the human mind can 
 have and there is only one nothing. Time in itself is the same 
 nothing. The word 'time' is the name we have given to the du- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 9 
 
 ration or past, present and future of existing things. Without 
 existing things there would be nothing enduring and of course 
 no time. The words "time, duration, past, present and future," 
 when applied to nothing, have no meaning. Still we must admit 
 that empty space and empty time would exist whether any real 
 things existed or not, and of course they must be objects of 
 thought tho not real things. And so with all the truths of math- 
 ematics, geometry etc. The laws of computation, the truths of 
 circles, angles, curves and right lines, are true whether such 
 things exist in reality or not. 
 
 So it comes to this. Einstein and his follower have tried 
 to build a system of the universe which may agree with their 
 mathematical formulas, but which certainly may not agree 
 with the reality. They have proved to be better mathematicians 
 than reasoners. They have overlooked the important truth that 
 the real system of the universe must first be worked out by a 
 process of reason based on the facts of common sense experi- 
 ence, before the test of mathematics can be applied. It seems 
 certain that they have failed to grasp the most important of all 
 truths — the laws or conditions of existence; the fundamentals, 
 which must be eternally true whether anything else exists or 
 not (Chapter II, Book 1, "The Philosophy of Things.") 
 
 Pages 33 and 34. "Space and time are concepts, and the ex- 
 ternal world is the same. We use a mechanical terminology and 
 mode of reasoning only because they facilitate our reasoning. 
 Two things are involved; our perceiving minds which build con- 
 cepts, and the external world about which we build the concepts 
 and not having absolute knowledge of either, we cannot affirm 
 complete knowledge of anything." Or to put the situation in the 
 vernacular of the common people we do not know how to think 
 nor do we know what we are thinking about. 
 
 The above seems to de further justified by what follows. 
 Pages 173-177. ' 'The mathematician can think in symbols created 
 by himself, and he can figure on them. In this he has the ad- 
 vantage of the ordinary thinker. He builds a coordinate system 
 in space and time and makes use of this as a reference frame. 
 On this he figures and brings out results which cannot be visu- 
 alized by ordinary thinking. He explains this by saying that 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 10 
 
 mankind does not possess the requisite faculties." 
 
 In conclusion a few more of their results may be mentioned. 
 "We do not explain the universe; we only describe our per- 
 ceptions of its contents. All things are relative and all knowl- 
 edge must be relative. There is no such thing as absolute rest 
 nor absolute motion, and this is so because we cannot detect 
 either by any possible cotrivance. There is nothing but relative 
 rest and relative motion. " So far as known to me it is not even 
 admitted that absolute rest and absolute motion are a rational 
 possibility. "In free space light presents the same velocity to all 
 observers, whatever be the source of the light or the position 
 or movements of different observers/ ' The possibility of there 
 being some mistake in the experiments is not mentioned. 
 
 From page 174 to page 180 the law of gravitation is deduced 
 and explained from accelerated motion. It is stated that this 
 law stands preeminent among natural laws. In other places it 
 is called the basic law of mechanics because it covers the whole 
 realm of physical science. This law requires a special geometry 
 suited to the space-time, fourth dimensional continuum. The old 
 geometry of Euclid and Newton is inefficient. How these peop- 
 le have managed to explain the law or cause of gravitation from 
 the acceleration due to rotary motion, is, for me, the most diffi- 
 cult part of this discussion to understand. But I am not a math- 
 ematician. What follows is the best I can do. 
 
 Einstein, as quoted by Mr. Bolton, describes a rotating disk 
 to make clear how acceleration may give rise to the effects of 
 gravitation. On this disk stands a man accompanied by objects 
 as in ordinary life. The disk is isolated in space so the man is 
 not sensible of his rotary motion. But he is sensible of a force 
 acting in one direction, and the amount of this force is in pro- 
 portion to the inertia or quantity of matter in the man and in 
 surrounding objects. The situation is to some extent similar to 
 our own situation on this planet, but the illustration is not com- 
 plete. We are not directly aware of the rotary motion of the 
 earth and we are aware of the force of gravity. We also know 
 of the centrifugal force acting more or less on all bodies on the 
 surface of the earth according to their distance from the axis 
 of the earth's rotation, and we know that this force acts in the 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 11 
 
 opposite direction from that of gravity. From these facts and 
 this knowledge it seems that they have derived the law of grav- 
 itation and here it is in Mr. Bolton's own words. "Inertial masB 
 and gravitational mass are one and the same." 
 
 In the essay by Mr. M. Francis of New York, (page 192) 
 the law is stated in these words. "Gravitation then is not a 
 force at all; it is the fundamental nature of things. A body free 
 to move must follow some definite path. According to Einstein 
 it will move in a 'geodesic* thru time-space — in every day lan- 
 guage, it will fall." 
 
 Other contributors in this book have made statements to 
 the same effect. From all which I am led to the inference that 
 there is no cause of gravitation or falling motion. A body free 
 to move must of course follow some definite path. But suppose 
 that it has no relative motion in itself. It has no relative mo- 
 tion of its own but it is free to move. If it moves where does it 
 get the motion? Here is a better example. I am standing before 
 a fifth story window. My right arm is stretched out of the win- 
 dow and I hold in my right hand a pound weight. I let go of the 
 weight and the moment it begins to fall that moment it begins 
 to receive relative and sensible motion from the outside. We 
 have absolutely nothing to support the idea that a body or a 
 particle of inert matter can create its own motion out of noth- 
 ing. It is, or ought to be, a dictum of science that the sum of 
 universal motion is constant. The law of acceleration as it ap- 
 plies to falling bodies is well known and it requires the velocity 
 of falling bodies to increase as the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 
 and so on, showing plainly that gravity is a constant force ac- 
 ting during the descent of the body as well as at its start. Here 
 is a question for the Einsteins. Where does the falling body get 
 the motion necessary to start with in its downward flight, and 
 from whence comes the extra motion which is continually being 
 added during the time of its fall? If gravity and inertia are the 
 same thing, and if motion is not transferred from some insensi- 
 ble form of matter to the sensible falling body, then we must 
 admit that inert matter can create motion out of nothing. 
 
 From Newtonian mechanics and from common sense many 
 similar discrepancie might be pointed out but it i3 hardly nee- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 12 
 
 eary here. All that I need to say further is that the contents of 
 this book have encouraged me to renew my efforts to get my own 
 work before the public. It is my belief that if the three hundred 
 competitors for the Higgins prize would cultivate their bumps 
 of common sense a little more they would not fail to see the fu- 
 tility of any attempt to explain the Einstein theories. 
 
 My review of this book is brief and perhaps not as just as 
 it might have been, but the fact is there is a great deal in it 
 that I cannot understand, in particular the mathematical discus- 
 sions. I have no education or special qualifications for this work 
 unless it be ordinary common sense and in the next section I 
 shall try to explain what I think common sense is. 
 
 -§II- 
 COMMON SENSE, JUDGMENT, REASON 
 
 It is a well known fact that all animals from the lowest 
 forms up to man, must have sense communication with this ex- 
 ternal world in order to live. Thru this sense experience all first 
 knowledge is obtained and nothing can live without some of this 
 first knowledge. It is here assumed that there is but one uni- 
 versal mind, one state of consciousness for each individual, one 
 mode of sense-perception and one method of knowledge for all 
 living things. In the lowest forms of life this universal power 
 of mind is used with sense-perception in guiding the individual 
 in the many acts of self-conservation. In the higher forms, in- 
 cluding man, it is used with the same sense-perception in the 
 same acts of self-preservation, also in the many ways and means 
 of obtaining useful knowledge of the world and life. All sense 
 knowledge is relative because all things are in some way related. 
 To know any one thing perfectly it is necessary to know all of 
 its true relations to all other things viewed collectively. Knowl- 
 edge, to be of value must be of truth and the only criterion for 
 truth that seems available may be found in the practical meth- 
 ods of common sense, judgment, reason. These three are names 
 of the three stages in the development of the one universal mode 
 of procedure in the acquisition of knowledge. Common sense ex- 
 perience must preceede judgment and reason for the reason that 
 both are dependent on sense experience. All the lower forms of 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 13 
 
 life must have some common sense in order to live and so with 
 the higher forma. Man is the legitimate progeny of the animal 
 world and human reason is the natural descendent of animal 
 common sense. Nature's course in mental evolution may be read- 
 ily traced from the lowest animal up toman, and thence upward 
 to the highest of men, and in every higher step there is always 
 and necessarily a wider, deeper and better use of the same com- 
 mon sense. Briefly stated the initial experience of every living 
 thing in this life, is first, Sensations, Perceptions, Knowledge. 
 Every new or first sensation must involve some degree of per- 
 ception and knowledge. If not, it is not a sensation. In all our 
 sensations we at least perceive and know that something affects 
 us. What it is we may not know; that it is we do know and we 
 must exercise some curiosity, wonder, imagination, judgment 
 or reason, in order to decide what to do about it. What we de- 
 cide to do about it will depend on the amount and right use of 
 our knowledge of things, acquired in the past sense experience 
 of self and ancestors, stored in our brains in the forms of mem- 
 ories and faculties. When our sense-perceptions have presented 
 the same thing many times, under the same and different rela- 
 tions we gradually come to know that thing in a number of its 
 true relations to other things. In this way and in the indispens- 
 able use of our common sense-perceptions, we acquire all our 
 ideas about things. And let us never forget that right here we 
 have a first glimpse of the most fumdamental law of the cons- 
 cious activities of mind — The Relativity of Knowledge. 
 
 This is not only a law of knowledge, but also of things. We 
 cannot know any one thing as existing out of all relations to 
 other things and any one thing so existing could not be known 
 as a thing tho it might exist as a rational possibility. Relativity 
 will be considered further in the next section. 
 
 Another thing to be remembered is this. First knowledge 
 is always purely sensuous. Higher up in mental development it 
 becomes more and more deliberative or intellectual. But from 
 first to last it is always more or less closely affiliated with sense 
 experience of our physical surroundings. Common sense is thus 
 intimately woven into our mental being from first to last, no 
 matter what we are, animal or man. 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 14 
 
 The necessary steps in the acquisition of the knowledge and 
 mental culture that makes a human being, under the laws of 
 mental evolution, may be described as follows: (1), The careful 
 observation of things by the best use of the physical senses: (2), 
 The retention of memories acquired by the sense-perception of 
 things and their relations: (3), The formation of ideas about 
 things and their relations: (4), All ideas are first formed in this 
 way; but later, the individual may obtain the same ideas by in- 
 formation: (5), There are two classes of ideas; those which re- 
 present the truth about things, and those which do not, and it 
 is very necessary to know both and to hold fast to the truth: 
 (6), The one and only test for the truth of true ideas may be 
 found in the careful use of the well known methods of analysis 
 and synthesis. First, carefully distinguish things by a clear and 
 often repeated sense of their differences; then learn their true 
 relations by numerous and careful observations. When a large 
 number of related things have been brought together in this 
 way we begin to look for a general law of nature — the deeper 
 and wider the generalization the more certain we can be of the 
 law and the special science: (7), The final step, the goal of Sci- 
 entific Philosophy; simply to first discover the true relations and 
 general harmony among the special classes of things, as in the 
 sciences, then to discover the true relations and general har- 
 mony of the sciences, as in philosophy. 
 
 — § HI — 
 RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION 
 
 It is here supposed or assumed that there are laws of na- 
 ture which are as true of the universe, as they are of the most 
 minute part of it. For examples, the lawB of motion which gov- 
 ern the motion of inert matter, as defined by Newton, are as 
 true of this material universe as they are of the smallest par- 
 ticle of inert matter. The law of relativity as defined by Hobbes, 
 Hamilton, Mansel, Bain, Spencer, Condillac, Lodge, Fisk, and 
 Burroughs, with a few slight amendments, is as true of all 
 thought and all things, as it is of any small part of the same. 
 
 But what is relativity? Here is what I think about it: The 
 relativity of Einstein and his followers may be true in princi- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 15 
 
 pie; but like the truths of mathematics it cannot be applied un- 
 til we know the great reality which we call the universe — until 
 we know its actual form, construction in detail, the relations of 
 its parts and their mode of operation. How can we estimate the 
 holding capacity of a corn crib unles we have before us either 
 the actual crib or a plan of its construction? And so with this 
 universe of material and mental things. It is a great reality, as 
 real and as enduring as anything can be, and it certainly could 
 not exist without having space and time in which to exist. 
 
 If space and time were empty, relativity would still exist 
 as a principle; but there would be no real relations for there 
 would be no real things. And so with all relative things or laws 
 of nature. In one sense of the words there are no laws of nature 
 without nature. In another and more correct sense, the laws of 
 nature are eternal truths, with or without nature. Real things 
 cannot exist without space and time and all things are number- 
 ed and related. Relative things have no dimensions. 
 
 Relativity is a principle of both material things and mental 
 things, and many eminent men have believed in it and have left 
 on record what they thought about it. I quote a few of them: 
 
 "It is all one for a man to be always sensible of one thing, 
 and not to be sensible at all of anything." Hobbes. 
 
 The knowledge of opposites is one: thus we cannot know 
 what is tall without knowing what is short: we know what is 
 virtue only as we know what is vice: the science of health is 
 but another name for the science of disease." Hamilton. 
 
 "The very conception of consciousness in whatever mode 
 it may be manifested necessarily implies distinction between 
 one object and another. To be conscious is to be conscious of 
 something: and that something can only be known as that which 
 it is, by being distinguished from that which it is not. " Mansel. 
 
 "The first, the deepest, the most fundamental experience 
 of the human mind is relation or relativity." Bain. 
 
 "We think in relations. This is truly the form of all thought. ' 
 
 Spencer. 
 
 The truth of this law is made conspicuous in the striking 
 effects in consciousness of things which bear the relation of op- 
 posites. Consciousness is always most vivid in the presence of 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 16 
 
 strong contrasts or sudden changes. Things opposite in any re- 
 spect are always more conspicuous when viewed together as a 
 single couple. Prominent among such couples we might mention 
 nothing-something, space-matter, rest-motion, silence-sound, 
 cold-heat, dark-light, negative-positive, less-more, small-great, 
 crooked-straight, low-high, falling-rising, young-old, foolish- 
 wise, drunk-sober, cowardly-brave, vice-virtue, pain-pleasure, 
 disease-health, inertia-consciousness, death-life, and others. 
 
 But what is the most fundamental couple among all things 
 viewed ultimately? The only writer known to me who reached 
 a conclusion on this question was the Aberdeen Prof, of Logic, 
 Alexander Bain. Since this is an exceedingly important question 
 I must quote his argument in full because I do not agree with 
 him and I do not want to be found guilty of misrepresentation. 
 
 "The highest universe of all must contain at least two things 
 mutually explained and equally real. This remark is necessary, 
 because a fallacy is often committed by using the forms of lan- 
 guage where there is no longer a reality to correspond. Thus 
 matter-mind, or more correctly extended-unextended — object- 
 subject — signify a real couple, mutually explaining. Up to this 
 point we are in the region of actual experience. There is a tran- 
 sition familiar to us, between certain states of consciousness 
 called matter, and other states called mind; we know both by 
 mutual contrast; while our knowledge can ascend no higher. 
 Still language can take a flight beyond. We can in words, sum 
 these two facts together — mind and matter, subject and ob- 
 ject; we can even use a single term as the equivalent of this sura 
 — Universe, Existence, Absolute; but our knowledge is not ad* 
 vanced by the step. There is nothing correlative to the supposed 
 universe, existence, the absolute; nothing affirmed, when the 
 supposed entity is denied. Matter we can conceive, because of 
 its real opposite mind, but existence has no real opposite. " 
 
 In a certain proper sense of the word 'real,' existence has 
 no real opposite. But from the following sentence it appears 
 that Prof. Bain did not use the word in this sense. As an object 
 of thought, space in itself is a reality; as a substantial entity 
 like matter, it is nothing of the kind. The Prof, continues: 
 
 "Granting for a moment that there were such a thing as 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 17 
 
 non-existence, to give reality to existence, what is to prevent 
 us from summing these two together, giving a name to the sum 
 and insisting on the reality of this new entity, with a correla- 
 tive reality, and so on without end? We must obviously stop 
 somewhere; and the proper point is the highest couple that gen- 
 eralization can carry us to. This is to conform to the essential 
 relativity or doubleness of knowledge. An absolute unity is not 
 knowledge, but an unmeaning phrase." 
 
 Certainly no one can mistake the meaning of the above quo- 
 ted words. "The highest universe of all must contain at least 
 two things, mutually explained and equally real." 
 
 And these two equally real things are not space-matter or 
 nothing-something, but they are matter-mind, or more correctly 
 extended-unextend or object-subject. Prof. Bain asks: "what is 
 to prevent us from summing these two together, (non-existence- 
 existence) giving a name to the sum, and insisting on the real- 
 ity of this new entity, with a correlative reality, and soon with- 
 out end?" To this question I would answer: "common sense." 
 The simple common sense of any person should be sufficient to 
 keep him from the assumption that nothing can be an equal 
 correlative with something. Non-existence may be a real noth- 
 ing, but it is certainly not a real something. This nothing-some- 
 thing relation is the most conspicuous of all couples. It stands 
 pre-eminent, simply because there is nothing beyond space and 
 nothing can be in space without being something. This is to con- 
 form to the essential relativity of things and nothing and the 
 doubleness of knowledge. 
 
 The principle of relativity involves three subordinate facts, 
 first, difference in something, second, real things, third, the re- 
 lations of real things among themselves and to nothing. These 
 three are related in the order named above. Without difference 
 in something there are no real things, without real things there 
 are no real relations of real things. So the difference between 
 the real relativity, and the relative relativity, is the same as 
 the difference between real things and relative things. 
 
 Now, it is my firm belief that this space-matter or nothing- 
 something relation, has been unknown to the world, or over- 
 looked, from the earliest times to the present day; and the rea- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 18 
 
 son is simply the fact that the principle of relativity has never 
 been completely understood and never applied as it might have 
 been to the foundation truths of the universe. In book one of 
 my system I have briefly quoted the words of twenty of the 
 leading authorities, from Plato to William James, on this sub- 
 ject, but not one of them have seemed to know what space or 
 time, in themselves, really are; and as to the whole truth about 
 relativity, all of them seem to be equally in the dark. 
 
 Feeling convinced from the start that this is the primary 
 law, that there is nothing deeper and that there is no limit to 
 its application until we reach the limits of the universe, I have 
 followed it as my chief guide thruout this work. To define any 
 one thing is first, to describe all of its differences from other 
 things and nothing, second, all of its relations to other things 
 and nothing. When we have simply done this much, we then 
 know what that thing is, to the utmost extent of possible knowl- 
 edge. And when we get this far, then what? We shall have a 
 complete definition of things — any thing or all things 
 
 I will here mention one failure to follow the leadship of this 
 law because it has a significant bearing on the direct cause of 
 gravitation or falling motion; in fact on all physical phenomena. 
 I believe the great majority of the scientists of to day admit 
 the existence of a material medium which is supposed to fill the 
 space between the stars, planets, molecules and atoms of pond- 
 erable matter, called ether. But no scientist known to me has 
 expressed the belief that the ether must be an atomic medium. 
 In his book, "Modern Views of Electricity/ ' Sir Oliver Lodge 
 describes the ether as follows: 
 
 Page 319. ' The material universe seems to consist of a per- 
 fectly continuous incompressible and inextensible medium, fil- 
 ling all space without interstices or breaks of continuity; not of 
 a molecular or discrete structure, and as a whole completely at 
 rest:" Also on page 410. "The ether is not atomic, not discon- 
 tinuous; it is an absolutely continuous medium, without breaks 
 or gaps or space of any kind in it." 
 
 From relativity it stands out as plain as any truth can stand 
 under any law of nature, that the ether must exist as a neces- 
 sary vehicle of motion and connecting medium between sensi- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 19 
 
 ble material bodies, that in order to convey wave or current mo- 
 tion it must be first, a medium of inert matter — simply a nec- 
 essary part of the one universal substance of all real things, 
 second, that in order to be the vehicle of motion it must be an 
 elastic medium of inert matter, third, that in order to be such 
 a medium it must be an atomic medium, and fourth and last, be- 
 ing an elastic, atomic medium of inert matter capable of con- 
 veying motion, it must be both expansible and condensable, like 
 any ponderable gas. All these requisites fit together in perfect 
 harmony, forming a complete mechanical system, without a flaw 
 or break in structure and mode of operation. And most note- 
 worthy of all is the fact that this sjrstem is the one and only 
 seemingly indispensable foundation for a mechanical explanation 
 of the cause of gravitation or falling motion, electric and mag- 
 netic attraction and repulsion, chemical or molecular attraction 
 and repulsion and a host of minor mysteries of physical science. 
 
 This system is not only mechanical thruout but it is the on- 
 ly one admissible under the true relativity. An ether medium as 
 described by Lodge could be nothing less than an absolute solid, 
 in which there are no differences, no things, no relations, noth- 
 ing but a single formless mass of matter in all its interior. 
 
 The general application of the law of relativity and physi- 
 cal laws, in the explanation of the well-known mysteries of the 
 physical universe, may be illustrated by a brief account of how 
 these laws are applied in explaining the cause of gravitation. 
 
 In the illustration on page 22 (A A) is a ball of cork, first 
 in air, then in water. The line (B B), shows the surface of a 
 body of water. The ball in air, when free to move, will fall or 
 move down to the surface of the water. In water, the ball when 
 free to move, will rise or move up to the surface of the water. 
 Science has explained, and it is now generally believed, that the 
 upward motion of the cork in water is due to difference of pres- 
 sure in and from the water, and this difference of pressure is 
 explained as follows: 
 
 The weight of all ponderable bodies, solid, liquid or gaseous, 
 is known to be in proportion to their density or the quantity of 
 matter they contain. Cork is less dense than water, hence light- 
 er than water equal volumes compared. The water exerts prea- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 20 
 
 sure (due to its weight,) on all sides of the cork and the pres- 
 sure is equal in all directions from any point within its body; 
 but this pressure increases with the depth from the surface as 
 the weight of the water above increases. As an example, the 
 weight of a cubic foot of water at the depth of one foot from 
 the surface is about 62 lbs. At two feet twice that amount and 
 so on. It is therefore clear that the cork must rise in water for 
 two reasons; first, because it is lighter than water equal volum- 
 es compared; second, because the pressure of the water must 
 be greater on the under side of the cork than on its upper side, 
 for the reason that the under side is at greater depth from the 
 surface. This, I believe, is the explanation now offered by sci- 
 ence for the upward motion of the cork in water and to me it 
 seems to be unquestionably true. But the cause of the down- 
 ward motion of the cork in air is still a mystery and a very great 
 mystery it is believed to be. Following is the explanation of the 
 cause of gravitation which this philosophy requires. 
 
 The ether must be a real material thing; which, to exist, 
 must be in space because there is no out of space. According to 
 this philosoply, all things (using the word things in its widest 
 possible application) may be regarded as having three forms of 
 existence or as belonging to three classes: first, laws of nature, 
 of the universe, of existence: second, mental forms or ideas of 
 laws of nature and of all other things; (the mental universe): 
 third, forms of matter and forms of motion; (the physical uni- 
 verse). The ether must be a part, and a very necessary part, of 
 the physical universe. It must be a discontinuous, expansible, 
 compressible, atomic medium; in which the atoms must be ab- 
 solutely solid and as small as possible. They must move contin- 
 ually, in straight lines, thru space otherwise empty, strike to- 
 gether and rebound, exactly as required by the laws of the mo- 
 tion of inert matter. Sensible motion may be communicated di- 
 rectly to the atoms of the ether from ponderable matter, in a 
 number of familiar ways; by friction, heat, light, chemical ac- 
 tion and magnetic influence. Motion thus communicated at any 
 point will expand the medium at that point, making it propor- 
 tionally more dense at other points. As a result the ether must 
 exert enormous pressure in all directions from any point within 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 21 
 
 its universal body. This pressure would be equal at all points 
 and in all directions if the ether was the only body or form of 
 matter in the universe. But a large part of the universe is com- 
 posed of the atoms, molecules, and the sensible aggregates of 
 molecules which constitute ponderable matter. Now, when mo- 
 tion is communicated to the ether from ponderable matter at 
 any point, the ether is expanded at that point. This expansion 
 will cause a difference of pressure .on all ponderable bodies with- 
 in the limits of the expanded field; and this difference of pressure 
 is the direct cause of gravitation, gravity, falling motion, elec- 
 tric and magnetic attraction, and chemical or molecular attrac- 
 tion. For a more detailed explanation we will continue the case 
 of the ball of cork first in water then in air. 
 
 From the foregoing it may be seen that the bail of cork 
 must fall in air for two reasons: first, because cork is more 
 dense than air, will displace more ether and receive more pres- 
 sure from the ether on its outside than air, equal volumes com- 
 pared: second, the pressure of the ether (due to its atomic mo- 
 tion or expansive force) on the upper side of the cork must be 
 greater than on its under side because the upper side is further 
 from the surface of the earth, and so must receive the pressure 
 or expansive force of a larger volume of the more expanded 
 part of the ether. If the cork was lighter than air it would go 
 up in air by difference of pressure from the air. If the cork was 
 heavier than water it would go down in water by difference of 
 pressure from the ether. 
 
 The above should be sufficient to make it plain to the lay 
 reader that the direct pressure of the air and water which caus- 
 es the sensible motion of the cork is due to superior weight, 
 while the weight of the air and water is a direct result of the 
 atomic motion and expansive force of the ether medium as re- 
 quired by Newton's laws of motion. 
 
 Gravitation or falling motion is therefore a simple result 
 of a change of the insensible motion of the ether medium, into 
 the sensible motion of ponderable matter; and the same physi- 
 cal laws which govern in this case, also govern the entire phys- 
 ical universe. This physical universe is the essential basis of a 
 mental universe, both subjects of this philosophy. 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 22 
 
 B 
 
 B 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 23 
 
 THE UNIVERSE 
 
 A TRANSVERSE SECTIONAL VIEW 
 
 1. Empty space. 
 
 2. An absolutely solid material shell. 
 
 3. A great cavity or inclosed space filled with a vast ocean 
 of ether, in which floats the stars, planets and other bodies. 
 
 The ether is an atomic medium of inert matter, governed 
 by the established laws of motion, and its atoms are the smallest 
 existing particals of ordinary matter. This assumption is nec- 
 essary in order to explain all mystery and unite all known facts, 
 of both the Physical and the Mental sides of the Universe. 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 24 
 
 -§IV- 
 
 COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS 
 
 In a number of places in this pamphlet, also in my books 
 on this subject, I have made statements which were not suffic- 
 iently guarded or accurate to escape criticism. 
 
 On page 4 of this pamphlet I attempted in as few words as 
 possible, to describe the meaning of a passage, on "Laws of 
 Nature/' which I find in the book "Einstein's Theories Etc" 
 page 27. As stated I aimed to convey only my understanding of 
 the matter but what I said has been severely criticised by the 
 Einstein Editor. I will here reproduce in full the passages from 
 which I quoted, also the Editor's reprimand, and let the reader 
 judge for himself how far I am the transgressor. 
 
 Page 26-27: "Laws of Nature: The observations which we 
 have been discussing, and which we have been trying to endow 
 with characteristics of "reality" which they are frequently not 
 realized to possess, are the raw materials of physical science. 
 The finished product is the result of bringing together a large 
 number of these observations. The whole underlying thought 
 behind the making of observations, in fact, is to correlate as 
 many as possible of them, to obtain some generalization, and 
 finally to express this in some simple mathematical form. This 
 formulation is then called a "law of nature." 
 
 I found no fault in the above passage but for brevitys sake 
 I did not quote all of it. But this author evidently regards this 
 term as a misnomer, or to some extent inapplicable. He says: 
 
 "Much confusion exists because of a misunderstanding in 
 the lay mind of what is meant by a "law of nature." It is per- 
 haps not a well chosen term. One is accustomed to associate 
 the word law with the idea of necessity or compulsion. In the 
 realm of nature the term carries no such meaning. The laws of 
 nature are man's imperfect attempts to explain natural phe- 
 nomena; they are not inherent in matter and the universe, not 
 an iron bar of necessity running through worlds, systems and 
 suns. Laws of nature are little more than working hypotheses, 
 subject to change or alteration or enlargement or even aban- 
 donment, as man's vision widens and deepens." 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 25 
 
 I quoted only as much of the above passage as seemed nec- 
 essary to get the writer's meaning, and what I said about it was 
 exactly what I thought and still think; but I did not say half 
 as much as I ought to have said. Webster says the word "law" 
 means "a rule prescribed by authority; a statute; a precept." 
 In the realm of nature it means: "a formal statement of facts 
 observed in natural phenomena." 
 
 This has always been my understanding of the meaning of 
 this word and never before have I heard of it being questioned. 
 Time and again I have found it true in all my daily observations. 
 That the course of nature plainly appears in a number of uni- 
 formities, really seems to be at least one, of the most striking 
 facts of human experience. Days and nights succeed each other 
 in perfect order and everybody, even the animals, know it. 
 Where is the man who does not believe that Christmas is com- 
 ing, and what would our golden hopes and expectations amount 
 to if this was a world of chance? And why are we able to enjoy 
 the uniformities of nature and so to avoid the inconveniance of 
 chance? Simply this: NATURE IS GOVERNED BY LAWS. 
 
 There is no other answer to this question, yet in this day 
 and age our highest scientific authorities are actually telling us 
 that: "in the realm of nature the term ('law') carries no such 
 meaning." 
 
 On page 5 of this pamphlet I quoted in part the following 
 passage on page 69 of the Einstein book. 
 
 "Einstein builds his structure on the thesis that relativity 
 must be admitted, must be followed out to the bitter end, in 
 spite of anything that it may do to our preconceived notions. If 
 relativity is to be admitted at all, it must be admitted IN toto; 
 no matter what else it contradicts, we have no appeal from its 
 conclusions so long as it refrains from contradicting itself." 
 
 I ought to have quoted this passage exactly as I did here, 
 then there would have been no complaint. But I am not worried 
 for it gives me a chance to say more. I can tell him and the rest 
 of the followers of Einstein that he has set forth, in the above 
 quoted passage, a very important truth without knowing it. 
 
 It is true that figures cannot miss the mark when handled 
 right. But Einstein builds his structure, not on real, but on rel- 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 26 
 
 ative things; and of course they must be accepted in to to, if 
 accepted at all. To this day the world has believed that 2, and 3, 
 and 5, make 10; but the truth is, they make nothing. Relative 
 things are the only nothing that can be expressed by any word 
 in our language, yet they must be something because we can 
 think of them. In the working out of thiB system I am compel- 
 led to recognize the two classes of things, Real and Relative. 
 All real things may be found in the one substance — Matter. All 
 relative things may be known as Space, Time, Difference, Re- 
 lations, Mathematics and its dranches; and these are the Laws, 
 or Conditions, absolutely necessary to the existence of Things. 
 
 No real thing could exist without space and time, and the 
 space-time occupying substance, in which to exist. 
 
 No relative things without real things: No laws of nature 
 without nature. To put the truth plainer, language fails. 
 
 I sent this pamphlet to the Einstein editor before adding 
 the four last pages and I was not a little surprised to receive 
 an answer, and here is what he said: 
 
 233 Broadway New York November 15, 1921. 
 Mr. James Ferguson, 
 1345 Curtis Street, 
 Denver Colorado. 
 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 I have your letter of October 31st, and at the same 
 time I have found time to examine in some detail your pamph- 
 let "The Philosophy of Things". I cannot comment upon this 
 in full but I do wish to make the observation that if you are 
 going to quote my book for the purpose of making adverse com- 
 ments, you would do better to quote it accurately. In your quo- 
 tations from my pages 27 and 69 you have reproduced not what 
 I have said but something quite different. I judge from your 
 failure to discriminate between the term "expressed in mathe- 
 matical form", which I used, and the term "established by 
 mathematical formula", with which you credit me, that you 
 lack the mathematical training which is a prerequisite for com- 
 plete understanding of this rather difficult topic. I think that 
 you could have covered the ground of your objections to my book 
 by saying just this and adding that you prefer classical science 
 and the things that you have been taught to recognize as com- 
 mon sense. Lots of people are in this state of mind and it calls 
 for no apology. As for your alleged quotation from my page 
 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THINGS: PAGE 27 
 
 69, it is simply garbled. I have been very careful to say "If rel- 
 ativity is to be admitted at all, it must be admitted in to to; no 
 matter what else it contradicts we have no appeal from its con- 
 clusions so long as it refrains from contradicting itself." You 
 have suppressed in your quotation not merely the words which 
 I have underlined but the very essential ideas which they con- 
 vey, and you have thereby succeeded in giving to this passage 
 a character which the original does not possess." 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 J. Malcolm Bird: Einstein Prize Essay Editor. 
 
 If the reader will compare my abridged quotation on page 
 5 with the one in full on page 25 of this pamphlet, I believe he 
 will be able to see that there is very little if any justification 
 for the derogatory remarks in the last part of the letter above 
 quoted. The gist of that passage as I see it is simply this: Ein- 
 stein builds on relativity as a general principle or law of nature, 
 which, if admitted must be admitted in toto as any general law, 
 no matter what else it contradicts. This was my understanding 
 of the meaning of that passage and I aimed to convey it by quo- 
 ting as few words as possible. And I believe I have succeeded. 
 
 But controversy is useless. My principal reason for quoting 
 this letter is to show the reader the present state of scientific 
 progress and how it may be helped to move faster toward its 
 natural goal The Philosophy of Things. 
 
 From this letter and from the book in question, it is plain 
 that a mathematical training is believed to be a prerequisite 
 for the complete understanding of difficult quesions of science. 
 Since I do not possess this training I am not a capable judge of 
 the meritorious work of Einstein, Bird, and many other trans- 
 cendental mathematicians who can soar so high above human 
 experience. But the fact remains; I am offering a common sense 
 and scientific explanation for every one of the mysteries of the 
 mental and physical universe. Whether true or not I feel con- 
 vinced that the lay mind can understand it, and more and more 
 I believe that the progress of physical science has been retard- 
 ed by too much mathematics. 
 
APPENDIX TO PAMPHLET No 1 PAGE 28 
 
 In my efforts to get my books before the people I have met 
 with some difficulty, about which, it may interest the reader to 
 know. Since 1880 I have submitted my work in Mss. or in prin- 
 ted proofs, to all of the leading publishers of the United States; 
 but all have declined my offer for the reason, that the demand 
 for books on philosophy was to email to make good profits on 
 their sale. But a number of them offered to publish the books 
 at my expense; I to allow them 50 per ct. of net profits. They 
 would holesale the books to booksellers who would require at 
 least 25 per ct. of retail price. The printing and binding of the 
 books would cost another 25 per ct. of retail price. So in the 
 end there would be nothing left for the author; and worse, he 
 would have no chance to get back the cost of composing and 
 electro-plating, which is the largest part of the expense of 
 publication. To obtain publicity for my books in this way was 
 out of the question, so I gave jt up. 
 
 In 1910 I bought a small font of type and commenced learn- 
 ing to set type with the view of setting up my own work. At 
 the present time (1922) I have the electro-plates for three books, 
 described as follows: 
 
 Book I, The Physical Universe, 12mo cloth, 362 pages. 
 
 Book II, The Mental Universe, 12mo cloth, 338 pages. 
 
 Book III, Telepathy or the Spirit Sense, 12mo 257 p.p. 
 
 About 200 of the pages in these books have been reset to get 
 rid of mistakes. The total cost of type, plates, a proof press 
 and other requisites, was at least $2,000, not including my own 
 work. If all the work had been done in one of the regular print- 
 ing plants at present prices, the total cost would have been lit- 
 tle short of $5,000. 
 
 Thru corresponding and talking with publishers and book 
 manufacturers, I have been told a few things which shonld be 
 mentioned here. I quote their own words: 
 
 "To succeed, your books must be fathered by a well known 
 publisher. Our imprint is the most valuable part of our assets." 
 
 This, an old and well known publishing house, would pub- 
 lish my books with their imprint on title page, and list them in 
 their catalogues which go out to all booksellers. They would 
 
APPENDIX TO PAMPHLET No 1 PAGE 29 
 
 Bell the books under the 50 per ct. plan, as described above and 
 they assured me that I would make some profit if the books sold 
 at all, but they would guarantee nothing. This was explained to 
 me by the manager in the A. C. Mc Clurg Cos office Chicago. 
 
 Other publishers made the same offer and from their unso- 
 licited comments on my work it appears that they were not to- 
 tally blind to the merits of books which do not promise at least 
 a safe investment. I quote from their letters 
 
 "Nov. 8th 1886. Your ms. came duly to hand and has been 
 examined by our reader; but we regret to say that, while he 
 does not doubt the scientific value of the work, he thinks the 
 class of readers sufficiently interested in a discussion of this 
 character would not be large enough to assure a profitable sale. 
 Our experience with similar books leads us to coincide with this 
 opinion, as it is very rarely the case indeed that they meet with 
 more than a slight temporary demand unless their authors are 
 well known in scientific and like circles. Under these circum- 
 stances we do not feel warranted in publishing the book on the 
 plan you suggest, and therefore return the Ms. Thanking you 
 for allowing us to read the work and wishing the outlook more 
 promising we beg to remain, Yours respectfully, 
 
 J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia. 
 
 This company would publish the book at my expense but I 
 did not have the money, 
 
 "Dec. 20th 1886. Your ms. has been carefully examined by 
 two readers, who recognsze in it a great deal to commend, but 
 who do not think its publication a venture such as they can re- 
 commend. It may be very difficult indeed for any work on such 
 a subject to obtain more than a very limited circulation, and so 
 we are under due necessity of declining the work. We do this 
 with reluctance, thanking you all the same for your offer." 
 
 Very respectfully yours, D. Appleton & Co., 1, 3 & 5 
 
 bond street New York city. 
 This co. did not offer to publish books on the 50 per ct. plan. 
 
 The following is a part of a letter from a Boston Co. now 
 defunct, under date, August 20th 1894. 
 
 "I have before me the report of our reader on your Ms., 
 
APPENDIX TO PAMPHLET No 1 PAGE 30 
 
 and of its intrinsic merit he speaks very highly. I quote: 'It is a 
 good, well reasoned and interesting book, reconciling, as far as 
 I can judge, the domain of physical science with pure philosophy 
 as the universal science of knowledge. Now, he says, if this 
 book had been written by Kant, Spencer, Bain, Hegel or other 
 writers of note, there would be no question as to its commercial 
 value, but as it is and however meritorious the work, the sales 
 could not be counted on as being very rapid, at least at first; as 
 our reader says, it would be much more difficult to get the news- 
 papers to notice such a book than if it were light literature. We 
 believe your book would be what is called in the trade a stayer'; 
 that is, sales would be slow, but would continue, and as the 
 public became better acquainted with the book they would prob- 
 ably increase. I have no doubt but that it will give you much 
 good reputation in scientific circles and would be a credit to us, 
 but you will understand that we are to some extent in this busi- 
 ness for at least a living return in money." 
 
 This company offered to publish the book at my expense, on 
 the 50 per ct. plan. This seemed to be my only chance. So I sent 
 them $350, all I had, and signed the contract. This money was 
 to pay for the composing and plating of book one, then much 
 smaller than at present. When the plates were ready they asked 
 for $400, more to pay for the printing and binding of 2,000 cop- 
 ies. I could not raise the money. They insisted on a first edition 
 of at least 2,000 copeis, and they offered to bear the expence, 
 charge it to me and hold the plates and copyright as security. 
 This was not a part of the contract so I declined the offer and 
 asked them to send me the plates which they did. 
 
 In this venture I could see a small chance for profit, and a 
 big chance to lose $750; and I did lose $350. It would be neces- 
 sary to sell at least 5,000 book at the retail price of $1,50 each, 
 to get back $750, the cost of publication. On this plan and num- 
 ber of books sold the publisher would make at least $2,000. 
 
 These are facts. The reader can judge for himself what they 
 mean. Publishers publish books for profit, not for merit. Profit is 
 the foundation of American industry. But there is a detter plan; 
 better for the author and better for the reader. Be a profiiteer 
 and cut out the publisher. See Advt. on inside of back cover. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 WB 
 
 ■ mi\:^:m 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ ill Iff 
 
 I 
 
 ' 
 
 
 , . ■ 
 
 
 f Am 
 
 TB Hi 
 
 
 ■1 ; 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 l I : ii ■ > * i'\M