Lecture VII — Man’s Place in the World — The Relations of Science and Religion by Henry Calderwood

Lecture VII Man’s Place in the World

The accumulated interest gathered around the direct and collateral investigations bearing on the development of species, has naturally turned greatly increased attention on man’s position in the universe. As has been shown by study of the nervous system belonging to animal life, all organism has been constructed on a uniform plan, advancing in complication as the organism becomes more intricate in structure, having separate parts assigned to distinct functions. This uniform plan is seen to culminate in man. Thus it follows, that man appears to the scientific observer, as the last or most advanced figure in a gradually ascending scale. That this is man’s place in the field of organized existence no one will doubt.

The prevailing view of our nature, however, recognizes more in it than bone, muscle, nerve, and cellular tissue, while observational science is capable of recognizing no more than these, so that, if there be any thing more, it is quite beyond the range of physical science, and within the territory of mental philosophy. Here then, is preparation for conflict, which may be accepted as inevitable, because of the advance of science. The occasion for this expectation should, however, be fully understood. Its certainty may be maintained on two obvious grounds. The first is concerned with the history of scientific progress. Science is pushing its way up the extended scale of existence with no exact knowledge of its own limits; knowing what its achievements have been, animated to a high degree by the vastness of the problems still before it, but knowing nothing quite definite as to its own boundaries. The aggressive force of science at such a stage must be great. On the other hand, there is a large body of settled conviction, which has swayed men and moulded society in all ages, which is an opposing force operating on that very line along which science is advancing, and which must be encountered whenever man’s place in the universe becomes the subject of inquiry. This opposing conviction is not necessarily religious in type, though it is supported by the whole range of thought concerned with the supernatural. The conviction here referred to, as lying more obviously across the path on which science is travelling, is that concerned with the personality of man, with the rights and responsibilities of individuals, implying accepted conclusions on which the government, and police, and administration of affairs in every nation are based. It must, then, be clearly recognized that the conflict anticipated as inevitable is the conflict of knowledge of one order, with knowledge of a different order. It is conflict of knowledge obtained by the slow and difficult processes available to science, with knowledge possessed by all, applied in the regulation of individual and social life, and systematized in the annals of mental philosophy; or, we may more nearly describe the condition of matters by saying that the occasion of conflict is the determination of science to include all within its own area, rather than the possession of actual knowledge as to the highest order of life, for science is only seeking, and can not profess to have found, an explanation of the functions of human life, as it can profess to have done in the case of lower orders. There could, therefore, be no more mistaken representation of the pending conflict than the allegation that it is a conflict of knowledge with ignorance. To put it in the best light for science, it is the conflict of one kind of knowledge with another; but there is a nearer approach to accuracy if we say that the conflict is occasioned by the want of verified conclusions within the boundaries of science itself, in contrast with very definite conclusions belonging to men generally, and verified by practical tests which scientific men can not refuse. It is not essential to the point, but may be of consequence in view of the range of application belonging to this inquiry, to remark that religious thought is not itself directly involved here; nevertheless, religious thought is deeply concerned in the issue of the conflict.

Having thus briefly indicated the occasion of the conflict, and the contending forces, it is desirable to find the standpoint of science. The nature and origin of life having been passed as problems for which no solution has yet been found, science has concentrated on the functions of the various portions of each organism, and on the contrivances for its protection and continuance in the world; and still more in advance, on the laws favoring the development of species. From outward form it has passed to inward structure, and pressing still more closely towards the secrets of life has endeavored to ascertain by microscopic investigation what provision has been made for maintaining the vital processes involved in the action of organism. Travelling up the advancing orders of animate existence, science has discovered a uniform plan adapted to varying complexity of structure. Thus entered and far advanced on the course of investigation, science sees no limit to its field of inquiry save the limits of organism itself. What has already been achieved, gives full warrant for the claim of inclusion, in which all scientific men naturally concur, and with which men generally will readily agree. This agreement, however, lies on the very boundary line of disagreement and dissension. Immediately when an attempt is made to set forth what is implied, it becomes clear that some scientific men include very large expectations as to what science is yet to accomplish, while others, showing more of the caution of the scientific spirit, decline to commit themselves to dogmatic assertions. Up to the line of agreement indicated we are dealing with science; beyond that line, where we come upon disagreements, we are not dealing with science, but with the comparative sanguineness or caution of scientific men.

What we have before us as clearly admitted on all sides is that human life presents the common characteristics of organic life, and is subjected to the ordinary laws of organism. The problem with which we have now to deal in view of this admission is this,—How far do the functions of organism account for the universally recognized characteristics of human life?

In facing this problem there are not a few scientific inquirers who look upon the mere raising of it as a claim to include all that belongs to human nature within the realm of physical science. They have allowed themselves to regard the two things as interchangeable, and all their researches are in their view so involved in this identification, that they resent the challenging of it, as if it implied antagonism to science. But the scientific inconsistency of this is easily shown. That science must extend its investigations to human organism, admits of no doubt; that by means of this investigation all the phenomena of human life will be traced to organism, is the very thing to be proved, and until established on clear and full evidence is not to be regarded otherwise than problematic. If we are in this matter to be influenced by regard to the slow and difficult procedure in cases of much greater simplicity, we shall be guarded in the utterance of expectations; if we make account of the enormous difficulties to be encountered in arranging the facts to be explained, we shall be still more guarded; and if we remember that the practical demands of life must all be met day by day without waiting for science as an aid, it will not appear strange that the non-scientific thinker regards the whole scientific investigation as wide of the sphere in which questions of self-government are settled, even though this view seems to affirm, without knowledge of both sides, that there is a sphere belonging to human life into which science can not enter.

Still, it must be allowed that in the pathway of science nothing is to be foreclosed, and no area, whether large or small, is to be shut off on which the appliances of science can be brought to bear. Science can not exclude man from the range of investigation; can not on any warrant supplied by the conditions of its own procedure, draw a line within the circumference of nature, even though it may be constrained to allow that there are many things within nature of which it can offer no explanation.

That science has by recent research done much to explain phases of human activity previously unexplained, may be clearly shown. The modification of previously received opinion may be indicated thus,—that many forms formerly regarded as in the true sense voluntary, and so described in the life not only of man, but also of the higher animals, can be explained by the action of brain and nerve. This involves a considerable extension of the area of the mechanical in human action, and a considerable restriction of the area of the voluntary. In seeking to indicate roughly the form of this restriction, we may find enough for our purpose in the distinction between what we may describe as muscular action, and what we would more naturally denominate personal conduct. This contrast will serve throughout, as we proceed to estimate the explanations which science has reached in dealing with the characteristics of human life.

The proved superiority of brain and nerve in man affords an adequate explanation of his generally recognized superiority in the variety of the forms of his muscular activity. In mere muscular power man can not compete with the more powerful animals. His practical superiority is seen in manipulation and the vastly greater variety of occupations to which he can turn; and in the greater wisdom he has for self-government. Leaving meanwhile out of account comparative intelligence, we have only to consider the superior use man has of the general sensibilities of the body, and of the special senses of touch and sight; the greater variety of the joints and muscles in his body; the more complicated arrangements of his nerve system; and the relation of all these in a single economy, in order to perceive a distinct phase of the superiority of man, sufficiently accounted for by clearly recognized facts, anatomical and physiological. In a multitude of well-known forms of action, of which the mechanical arts afford illustration, man can do what can not be attempted by lower forms of organism.

Another step higher is taken by the advance of physiological science, involving an explanation of acquired aptitudes. The interaction of sensibility and motor activity has been shown to be great. A message conveyed along a sensory line is readily transferred to a motor line; the sense of touch becomes a natural guide to familiar forms of action; a form of sensibility may thus be connected with a given range of motor apparatus, just as the history of the blind illustrates how much more can be accomplished by aid of touch without sight, than is ordinarily achieved. By these means, what at first requires consideration and care (neither of which is accounted for by physiological explanations), comes at last to be done without deliberation, and with so much facility, that it does not seem to engage much attention. Physiological science thus accounts for a considerable amount of superior activity characteristic of man in his daily engagements. It must, however, be noticed that the explanation is not a complete one, inasmuch as the action of the sensory and motor apparatus referred to, presupposes consideration and care, that is intellectual and voluntary guidance commensurate with the initial difficulties of attainment, in order that the nerve system may be brought to accomplish what becomes possible afterwards by mere mechanical and chemical contrivance within the living organism.

Having thus briefly indicated the advances in knowledge of the working of our own organism gained by recent research, and the explanation thus afforded of much of the superiority manifest in human life, we come upon the grand difficulty of science,—How to account for intellectual superiority. It is obvious that animals give proofs of intelligence as well as men; and that the human brain has a marked superiority in the frontal region, to which intelligence is commonly referred, as it certainly is superior also in the back part of the organ, to which intelligence is not so commonly referred. But the pressing difficulty is this, to show how nerve cells, confessedly concerned with the development of nerve energy, and the production of sensory and motor activity, can be further considered capable of performing the function of thought, covering the whole variety of mental occupations. Attention has been directed to the recognized diversities of nerve cells, which are unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar, on the hypothesis that these diversities may point to differences of function so great as to provide what is required. But there is a total failure of evidence to substantiate this hypothesis. The differences among the nerve cells of the brain are differences in size, and in the number of the lines of communication taking rise from them. In accordance with the plan of arrangement everywhere recognized, the number of protoplasmic lines originating from a cell gives an index to the points of contact it has in the surrounding tissue, and thus to the part it may perform in the work of coördination or interaction. A small cell with only a single line or fibre proceeding from it, must be regarded as a cell conveying nerve stimulus in only a single direction, and to only a single destination. A bipolar cell in accordance with the same rule of interpretation, is a cell having communication in two opposite directions, and thus may be capable of transmitting stimulus by the one channel or by the other, besides which it is possible, so far as structure is concerned, that such a cell may receive stimulus from one direction and send it forth in an opposite, thus proving a centre of intercommunication. On the same plan, a multipolar cell, being of greater size, and having from five to ten fibres proceeding from it, holds a more important place in the manifold ramifications of cellular tissue, sending out stimulus in an increased variety of courses according to the number of the lines pertaining to it, and proving thus an intermediate station in communication with a variety of distinct centres. No observation yet directed upon the nerve cells has proved sufficient to establish all this, but the supposition is in strict harmony with what has been ascertained as to the laws governing the action of the nerve system.

When, however, an attempt is made to proceed farther, selecting the largest cells as “mind cells,”CX or cells generating thought and volition, there is a complete break away from evidence, and from the clear lines of interpretation already established. We are dealing with conjecture, not with science. There is no reason in the interests of truth to object to hypothesis in this region, any more than in another, for conjecture has often proved the handmaid of discovery, and it is likely to be so in a still larger degree. But an essential condition of this acknowledgment is, that conjecture do not claim any respect beyond what its nature warrants, and specially do not take to itself the name of science,—knowledge, or certainty. Beyond this, it must be recognized in every intelligent circle, that conjectures, like men of different character, are entitled to different degrees of respect, some to only a moderate and guarded measure, others to a very high degree, and some to very little indeed. In a case like the present, we can have no sure test for a provisional judgment entitled to regulate provisional procedure, other than the harmony of the conjecture with scientific knowledge already acquired as to the same region of existence. Judged by this test, the conjecture that the intellectual life of man is to be accounted for by the presence in the brain of myriads of thought cells, volitional cells, memory cells, imagination cells, and emotional cells, has little on which to claim a high degree of consideration. Its most obvious scientific difficulties are these two, that it implies a departure from the scheme of brain action scientifically established, and that it passes away from the scientific appliances employed to obtain knowledge of brain action. The real discoveries which have been made are the existence of sensory and motor apparatus, and the interaction of these two branches or divisions of the system. Beyond this, science has made no advance. The scientific appliances by which these discoveries have been reached are those available in post-mortem dissection, and in experiment under such exposure of the brain tissue as has been found compatible with functional activity of the organ. This conjecture of “mind-cells” does not either experimentally or logically connect itself with the recent advances in knowledge of the brain. The system of sensory and motor apparatus spread over the body for which the brain is the great central and governing organ does not under the scientific explanation of it already obtained, lead on by natural sequence to the conjecture of additional and greatly higher functions being assigned to the brain. Besides, the suggestion that place should be found in the brain for something more and higher than sensori-motor activity, does not come from any necessity which has arisen in the course of scientific observation. It is only because we know, in a manner quite different from that in which scientific knowledge of nerve and brain has been acquired, that man does observe, and reason, construct hypotheses and cherish expectations, contemplate rules of conduct and regulate his actions in accordance with them, that scientific inquirers, attempting to include the whole range of human powers, have felt themselves urged forward to seek an explanation of the characteristics of mental life which are the familiar facts of man’s experience. The course of experiment has not brought them up to these facts; common acquaintance with them has pressed on scientific inquirers the need for dealing with them in order to make good the claim that science contains the explanation of all existence, man included. The dilemma for this conjecture that the brain thinks and wills is serious. If the brain is capable of what is commonly named mental activity, all that science has demonstrated is susceptibility and motor activity, that is nerve impulse involving molecular and muscular action, and this carries no explanation of mental action.

In this, as in previous cases, it is better to take purely scientific statements concerning the structure and functions of the nerve cells, without regard to theoretical result. The following quotations will show what account has been given of the variety of appearance and position of the nerve cells. Professor Turner says, nerve cells are “the characteristic structures in the nerve centres, are susceptible to impressions or nervous impulses, and are the texture in which the molecular changes occur that produce or disengage the special form of energy named nerve energy, the evolution of which is the distinctive mark of a nerve centre.”CY “The central extremities of the nerve fibres lie in relation to, and are often directly connected with the nerve cells.” From opposite points of the surface of the bipolar cell “a strong process is given off, which is directly continued into a nerve fibre.CZ” When we pass next to multipolar cells, we have the following explanations. “In many localities they present characteristic forms. In the gray matter of the spinal cord, more especially in its anterior horn,DA they give rise to numerous processes, and have a stellate or radiate form. In the gray matter on the surface of the convolutions of the cerebrum they are pyramidal in shape; the apex is directed to the surface of the convolution, the base towards the white matter; the processes arise from the base, apex, and sides of the pyramid.”DB “The processes which arise from a multipolar nerve cell as a rule divide and subdivide as they pass away from the body of the cell, until at last they give rise to branches of extreme tenuity. These branching processes apparently consist exclusively of cell protoplasm, and have been called protoplasm processes. Gerlach has described the protoplasm processes of the multipolar nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord as forming an excessively minute net-work, from which minute medullated nerve fibres arise.”DC “From the observations of Lockhart Clark, Arndt, Cleland and Meynert, there can be no doubt that the pyramidal nerve cells vary in relative size and in numbers in the different layers of the gray cortex, and that the largest sized pyramidal cells lie in the third and fourth layers.”DD “Large pyramidal cells are found in the frontal lobe in considerable numbers,” but it is added, “there is no difficulty in recognizing in the occipital lobe” (the back region of the brain) “a small proportion of cells quite equal in magnitude to the largest cells of the frontal lobe.”DE

From these statements, it is easy to judge what value can be attached to the conjecture that multipolar or pyramidal cells are to be regarded as “mind-cells.” The result may be summarized thus; (1) The larger cells are invariably distinguished by the number of fibres given off, or the lines of communication they have with other parts of the tissue; (2) As to distribution of these cell-fibres appearing in the brain, it is found that as the cells themselves are in the lower strata of the gray matter, the majority of their fibres stretch downwards, the mass of the nerve fibres thus communicating with the organism; (3) These pyramidal cells are not peculiar to any part of the brain, and they do not belong to the brain alone, but are found in the gray matter of the spinal cord, and also of the sympathetic system, which provides for the action of the heart, lungs, and other vital organs. All these characteristics are adverse to the conjecture that for the larger sized cells a claim can be made assigning to them distinctively intellectual or mental functions.

In contrast with this view, I shall here introduce an extract from Hæckel’s Evolution of Man, as he may be accounted the most advanced advocate of the theory of “mind-cells.” He says,—“The nerve cell of the brain is an extremely one-sided formation. It can not, like the egg-cell, develop from itself numerous generations of cells, of which some transform themselves into skin-cells, some into flesh-cells, and others into bone-cells, etc. But instead, the nerve-cell, which is formed for the highest activities of life, possesses the capacity to feel, to will, to think. It is a true mind-cell, an elementary organ of mental activity. Correspondingly, it has an extremely complex minute structure. Innumerable filaments of exceeding fineness, which may be compared to the numerous electric wires of a great central telegraph station, traverse (crossing each other again and again), the finely granulated protoplasm of the nerve-cell, and pass into branched processes, which proceed from this mind-cell, and connect with other nerve-cells and nerve-fibres. It is scarcely possible to trace, even approximately, the tangled paths of these filaments in the fine substance of the protoplasmic body. We thus, have before us a highly complex apparatus, the more minute structure of which we have hardly begun to know, even with the help of our strongest microscope, and the significance of which we rather guess than know. Its complex mechanism is capable of the most intricate physical functions. But even this elementary organ of mental activity, of which there are thousands in our brain, is only a single cell. Our whole intellectual life is but the sum of the results of all such nerve-cells, or mind-cells.”DF

From this passage it will be seen that ascertained facts are given in harmony with previous descriptions; but that while naming some as sensory, others as motor, there is no distinct evidence for classifying certain cells as “mind-cells.” Along with the admission of our comparative ignorance of the minute structure of the cell, is the assertion that this cell “possesses the capacity to feel, to will, to think.” This latter statement is advanced without any trace of scientific evidence, and has no better substratum on which to rest than the admission that man not only feels, but also thinks and wills. Further, when we recall the singular variety of situation in which these cells are found, as they lie within the spinal canal, subordinate centres, and the brain, the insufficiency of the whole theory of “mind-cells” is apparent. Still more conspicuous does this become when we turn to Hæckel’s illustrative diagram, and read underneath it this description,—“A large branched nerve-cell, or ‘mind-cell’ from the brain of an electric fish.” The investigator who makes in the directest manner statements as to thinking and willing, which he has not verified and can not verify; and who with undisturbed composure of mind proceeds to illustrate and support his position by giving a drawing of the “mind-cell of an electric fish,” does almost every thing that can be done to discredit his testimony on scientific subjects.

Having now set forth the grounds on which I think it clearly shown that physiological science has done no more than identify sensory and motor cells; and that the search for the true “mind-cell” has proved a failure; I pass from this division of the subject with the acknowledgment that the front and back portions of the brain still present area for fresh research, and to this must be added the striking fact that in all the brains subjected to electric excitation these two portions have uniformly remained silent. These considerations may possibly hereafter afford valuable suggestions towards guidance of the work yet to be done in the investigation of brain structure and functions.

In view of the limits of the present discussion, I shall at this point pass over at once and directly to the region concerned with the government of human conduct, with the view of illustrating in what respects human life differs from merely animal life. On this single test, I must here be content to rest an argument for the insufficiency of physiology, and the necessity for observation of our own experience, if we are to have an intelligible account of the most familiar characteristics of human life. By way of securing a sharp contrast serviceable for illustrative and argumentative purposes, I take an extract from Mr. Darwin. His statement is this,—“There is no evidence that any animal performs an action for the exclusive good of another.”DG Alongside of this statement, for the purpose of comparison and contrast, let me place this. It is an essential law of human life, having daily application, that man shall so act as to make the good of his fellowman the express end of his action. This is a law of moral life which we do not dream of applying to any lower order of beings, but which we do regard as binding on all men equally. Explicit testimony to this law of human life may be drawn from the philosophy of Greece and of China in times so remote as to precede the Christian era, or from the teaching of our Saviour, or from the daily life of men in any land in this nineteenth century. The contrast is thus sharp enough, and it presents the most perplexing difficulty for physiologists of the school of Hæckel; while it affords the strongest line of evidence for that philosophy which accounts for the higher characteristics of human life by reference to mind as distinct from brain, and immeasurably higher in function.

Whether Mr. Darwin’s account of animal conduct will be uniformly accepted by naturalists, need not concern us, as the possibility of dissension would not seriously affect the argument, the main stress of which must fall on these two points, that the law of pure benevolence is a law of human life, and that the mere recognition of this law (I do not say obedience to it, which is a stage further in advance), can not be included within the functions of brain.DH

From what has been written by some naturalists as to the “benevolence” of animals, it is probable that some may be prepared to take exception to the statement of Mr. Darwin. There is no need for here entering upon discussion which might thus be raised, and which would entail the task of criticising multitudes of statements made in a singularly loose and unscientific manner. There is not any more careful observer than Mr. Darwin, the whole record of whose observations gives confidence in his testimony, and his patient reflection on the real significance of what he has seen. We may, however, leave this matter to naturalists, that they may decide whether this conclusion as to animals requires some modification. The purpose of the present argument is to show that an authoritative law of benevolence does apply to human life, in direct contrast with the ordinary law of animal life, giving special force to the struggle for existence as witnessed in the history of the lower orders of beings.

One possible entanglement for the present argument must, however, be carefully shunned. In the comparison between man and animal, we are apt to diverge into a discussion of what men and animals severally do. This is a question considerably different from that now under discussion, and yet it lies in such close proximity as to afford the greatest facilities for confusion of thought. We are not here comparing what animals do, with what men do; we are comparing the actions of animals with what we know men ought to do. It is this question of ought which appears as the outstanding and distinguishing feature in human life, on which we are now seeking to direct attention with all the concentration which physiologists secure when the microscope is directed on brain tissue. The true feature here is elevation and complexity of intellectual action, and the possibility of assigning this to brain action. The question is no doubt concerned with conduct both in the animal, and in man,—but what we wish to ascertain is, how far action or conduct in the two cases throws light on the exercise of intelligence possible to man and to animal. It is admitted that to act on a law of benevolence requires a higher exercise of intelligence, than to act under a law of desire or sensitive impulse; and we wish to reach definite conclusions on two points; first, and subordinately, whether animals ever act on the higher law; second, and chiefly, whether such action does not involve as its condition an intellectual exercise of a higher order than can be assigned to brain. The former of these questions, subordinate to the present inquiry, may be left to naturalists. The second concerns us directly here, in the more important discussion as to man.

With the view of completing the defence against disturbing entanglement, it may be well further to insert here the explicit statement that men do very commonly act in neglect of the law of benevolence, and even in violation of it. The fact is too well known in society to be overlooked. It may be enough, however, in the present connection, to admit that men do often act like the animals; or, to state the fact more precisely in form, the animal nature is often found governing men, so as to make their action resemble that of the lower animals in the struggle for existence.

These lines of severance will now make clear what is our main question,—Is man capable of recognizing a higher law of life? Does a law of benevolence apply to him as a rational creature, as it can not apply in the history of the animals around us? And if this question be answered in the affirmative, does such answer imply the exercise of a higher power than can be scientifically assigned to brain cells?

That man recognizes a law of benevolence as determining personal conduct will not be formally disputed by any one. Yet so very much bearing on the present argument is involved in the interpretation to be assigned to this admission, that it is desirable to present at least in outline, the evidence on which the statement rests. If we look at the facts in view of the ordinary actions of the lower animals, a series of contrasts is presented. The animals are seen to compete with each other for what is a common object of desire, such as a favorite article of food; and to fight with each other for possession; the consequence is that the strongest and most daring get what they seek, while the weaker and more timid must be content with what is of less value for gratification of their desire. These facts are so conspicuous and so constant in their influence on the whole race of animals that the theory of the origin of species by descent founds upon them. A complete contrast appears in what man recognizes as the rule of his conduct, when he admits the obligation to benevolence. There is a reflective exercise concerned with the right and wrong in human conduct which regards it as a wrong thing for a man to snatch from another the enjoyment within his reach, or subvert his opportunity for happiness in order to increase his own pleasure. On the other hand, there is an exercise of thought which contemplates effort for the good of others as right, even extending the application of this law of moral life so far as to require self-denial, and, in circumstances of special importance, self-sacrifice, for the good of others. These are facts so elementary, that the statement of them would be felt to be uncalled for, were we not seeking to distinguish the elements of our ordinary experience. In accordance with what has been said, we are agreed in regarding it as a wrong done to another if we deprive him of enjoyment simply for the sake of our own satisfaction. Such conduct is what we condemn as selfishness in the agent, and a wrong to the sufferer. When on the contrary we subordinate personal pleasure in order to secure the happiness of another, we commend the benevolent disposition in which the act originates, and we honor attention shown to the rights of a fellowman. As the contrary lines of conduct are so often followed, and even vindicated as permissible in the competitions of life, we need to show with some care that the law of benevolence is uniformly regarded as a law of human conduct even when its requirements are unfulfilled. This becomes obvious if we look along another line of observation. If we pass from what a man does to his fellowmen to what he is seen to expect of them, we at once perceive that the authoritative feature alleged to belong to the principle of benevolence is admitted by him. He resents the selfishness from which he has suffered, complains of the unmanly act which found its pleasure in his injury, and an appeal to public opinion, on any occasion sufficiently important to involve a question of the interests of society, at once calls forth general condemnation of the selfish act as a real injustice.

That such a form and direction of thought belongs naturally to man has been further shown by the ready assent of the young to the law of benevolence, and their unhesitating test of their seniors by reference to it. If their irritability and resentment have been stirred, it may be difficult to gain their assent to the special application of the law of benevolence in the circumstances. This, however, is only an example in early life, of what we find in more advanced years, that it is hard to do the right, and easy to excuse the wrong we do, while resenting the wrong done to us. But, apart from exciting causes, and simply in the exercise of a quiet reflection, the child recognizes the duty of benevolence; and, notwithstanding the disadvantages of weakness and inexperience, proceeds to test others by this standard, and is felt by others to be powerful by reason of the force belonging to the law, however superior in years, and in authority may be the persons of whom the child expects that he be kindly treated. These are in very condensed form the facts of human life, which are as outstanding as the contrary facts insisted upon as characteristic of animal life. We need an explanation which shall put the nature of man as truly in contrast with the nature of the animal, while it is at the same time allowed that man has an animal nature which may operate to the influence of his conduct, in neglect of this higher law of intelligence.

Now the most advanced results of physiological science carry no explanation of this simple, ordinary fact, man’s recognition of a law of benevolence as authoritative. After we have assigned full value to the sensibilities of a physical nature overspread with a sensitive nerve-system; after we have made account of the motor activity possible to an animal possessed of a complicated muscular system controlled by motor nerves, we have not come near a region in which the reflective process takes place which applies the law of benevolence for the regulation of conduct. We discover within the range of physiological possibility, sensitiveness to impression from without, and to the influence of the cravings and appetites of a nature requiring support and satisfaction, and impelling power which urges to action for the sake of present satisfaction. All these things we find easily explained under the teaching of physiology; but we have no explanation of the act of intelligence in perceiving a law of benevolence and owning submission to it. We do not even find a scientific account of the subordinate intellectual exercises involved in the application of the law of benevolence when recognized. There is a form of discrimination here, including the distinction of men as persons, the claims involved in personal rights, and the phase of individual duty ascertained while contemplating the circumstances in the midst of which it is needful to act. All this is outside the range of the formulated results of physiological research. There can be no hesitation in accepting all that has been established as to nerve-sensibility,—the subjection of human life to the interaction of external influences,—and the inevitable forms of experience which result in individual history. But we see in these, only conditions in the midst of which man by exercise of his intelligence is to undertake the management of life on a higher level than that of animal life. We clearly recognize the laws of motor activity, including the full bearing of outward influences, and inward tendencies upon human action. But with these things we see what is meant when it is recognized that intellect must govern passion: while we see physiological science laying open to us only the laws of passion, and not the law for its government. We admit the convincing nature of the evidence by which it is shown that our nature with all the special phases of individuality, often involving strange perils and perplexities, has been inherited by us, gathering within the boundaries of our life a task which we would willingly have shunned. We perceive in this a science of the specialities of individual nature, standing alongside the science explaining the common characteristics of man which come within the range of physiological research. But it is beyond this, that the problem arises concerning the moral government of life, so that equally what is common, and what is peculiar to man shall be regulated according to rational law. For this all see to be true, excepting always cases of manifest infirmity and disorder, that equally the common and the special powers of the individual are to be regulated by the law of benevolence. There are no exemptions for special temperament, whatever diversities there may be in the task which application of the law may involve for some. The ought has ascendency over human life;DI the bare perception of this grand reality, taken with all the distinctions involved in its application to personal conduct, and all the forms of personal control exercised for its fulfilment, lies apart from the discoveries of physiology. In these things we see most clearly what mind is, and what mind does in the management of human life. We discover clearly thus what it is which makes human life superior to the life of the animals around us; what it is which makes the best in human life stand essentially connected with the subordination of the animal nature to a higher nature within; and in what respect it stands true that physiology is a science of only a part of our nature, and that the lower, because the subject part. In this man knows, apart from all science, and quite independently of philosophy too, that he has a higher life, working, rejoicing, and advancing to nobler excellence, just as he governs his body, keeping it in subjection, while revering an ideal of moral and spiritual excellence towards the attainment of which it is the duty and honor of humanity to strive.