stand an animal, we do not speak philosophically; the truth is, we do to some extent interpret the cries and sounds animals make in our presence. If we say we have no means of clearly understanding them, those animals may retort and say they have no means of clearly understanding us. As far as I know many of those animals may pity our helplessness in that we cannot converse with them. If you say that you do not believe this, I reply you are welcome to your belief, and say with Max Mueller: "We can imagine anything we like about what passes in the mind of the animal,— we can know absolutely nothing.” (S. of Th. 9).

We cannot doubt that the lower animals have unmistakable, elementary signs, or means, of communicating their feelings or desires to one another; and as human language is but an elaboration of such simple signs or means, it would properly follow that man is not in exclusive possession of language. That language is not an exclusive possession of man, I myself have no doubt. There was a time when language was looked upon as something very mysterious, as not having a natural origin, as having been a creation, or a result of miraculous intervention. Ignorant theologians believe and teach this to-day. Such a belief is not accepted by any scientific scholar. To speak on this subject no one has a higher right than Lazar Geiger who says: "Reason does not date from all eternity, but like everything else on earth it has an origin. Although man is always rational, he cannot always have been so. Reason does not spring into existence finished in all its perfection, as it were by a kind of a catastrophe, but it had its own devel

human nature, no one can form a true conception of the origin of language, who does not clearly see, that for a time every human being and, therefore, the ancestors of the human race themselves were without language, without reason. Language which formerly seemed so wonderful a thing as to require a superhuman framer, is now seen to be very intelligible and a purely human piece of workmanship. Language seemed a very mysterious thing, the most wonderful gift bestowed on man by a divine power; but now, how different! So far from being mysterious and wonderful, language has become perfectly simple and intelligible. It is in fact no more than addition and subtraction. How a student of the science of language can be anything but an evolutionist, is to me utterly unintelligible." Prof. Noiré, points out that "wherever our senses are excited and our muscles hard at work, we feel a kind of relief in uttering sounds; that these sounds are almost involuntary vibrations of the voice, corresponding to the more or less regular movements of our whole bodily frame.” By the repeated use of these natural sounds or grunts expressive of the consciousness, they finally became understood. This was the natural beginning of language according to Prof. Noiré, and in his opinion Max Mueller concurs.

(Vid. Sci. of Thought). Speaking further on this subject Max Mueller says: "We cannot doubt that language had an historical beginning, and represents the work of man carried on through many thousands of years, and cannot avoid the conclusion that, before those many thousands of years, there was a

was laid, and that before that time man was without lan-guage and therefore without reason. (Sci. of Th., 83). Physiology has something to say on

this subject: In the year 1886 there was discovered in a. cave at La Naulette, in Belgium, a skull from which Prof. Mortillet, on examination, found the mental tubercle absent. In place of it there was found a hollow as with monkies. From this he argues that the Neanderthal man was speechless. With this discovery of physiology all philological conclusions agree. Says the learned Spencer: "It is now universally admitted by philologists that languages instead of being artificially or supernaturally formed, have been developed." (Biol. 347). If there ever was a truth uttered, Prof. Schunk uttered one when, as President of the Chemical Section, he said in his address before the British Association, Aug., 1887, "all differences within the sphere of our experience are quantitative." So in the power of expressing the acts of consciousness, we do not differ from the lower animals in having a power different in quality, but in quantity only. Says Darwin: "Grant a simple archetypal creature, like the Mud-fish or Lepidonsiren, with the five senses and some vestiges of mind, and I believe that natural selection will account for the production of every vertebrate animal." (Life & L., I, 528). Should one ask how long man has been developing his language, I should say it is beyond our power to answer; nevertheless, rough guesses can be made. Max Mueller says: "True no method of calculation will enable us to fix the time when Sanscrit and Latin separated, but I believe if on

1

B. C., the students of language would have no difficulty in accepting it." (Sci. of Th. 249). A vast time must have rolled into eternity for the development of language as we have it to-day, a time vastly greater than the chronology of the Bible will warrant; but philologists and scientists of every school have but little faith in the Bible as a book exclusively divine. With the scientists of the world our Bible stands about on a level with the different bibles of the human race. "I had gradually come by this time to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos." (Darwin: Life and Letters, I, 277). "The application of botanical and zoological evidence to determine the relative age of rocks, indicates one of the most glorious epochs of modern geognosy, which has finally, on the Continent at least, been emancipated from the sway of Semitic doctrines." (Humboldt: Cosmos, I, 272). Knowing what we do of the development of language, and of the nature of man, we cannot find in man's possession of a highly elaborated language any certain proof of his immortal nature. In so far, then, as man builds his hopes for immortal life upon the fact that he is in possession of a very complicated and highly elaborated language, I find no certain warrant for using any other words than those of Isaiah: "6 "The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pit, cannot hope for thy truth. Should you prefer the words of Job, I have no objections to giving you them: "He that goeth down to the grave, shall come up no more." We have fearlessly and truthfully stated certain facts in disproof of the immortality of the soul; we will now notice

b: PRESUMPTIONS IN DISPROOF OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL:

(a): IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MIND IS BUT A MODE OR RESULT OF MATERIAL ACTION:

That mind can be a product of molecular activity, may seem horrible to those brought up outside philosophical thought; yet it is by no means impossible. It is well known that every energy or motion of the mind is in every case immediately preceded by chemical activity. This seems to show that in some way unknown to us physical force has been changed into mental force. Says Spencer: "That no idea or thought arises save as a result of some physical force expended in producing it, is fast becoming a common-place of science; and whoever duly weighs the evidence will see that nothing but an overwhelming bias in favor of a preconceived theory can explain its non-acceptance."

(First Principles, 217). These are words of grave import, not like the words of our revivalists; but to me they are much more reasonable. You may think mind has nothing in it like matter, that matter has nothing in it like mind; but we should know that we have no knowledge whatever of matter except in terms of mind, nor of mind except in terms of matter. Therefore, when we say that matter and mind have nothing in common, it must be admitted that we talk about things we know nothing about. For aught we know to the contrary, one common essence may underlie them both. Says Spencer: "Those modes of the Unknowable which we call motion,