e fact of causation at all.

The complete and perfect answer to this last view is that the qualities
manifest in an effect never are manifest in the cause, were it so it
would be impossible to distinguish one from the other. The theist is,
as is often the case, saying one thing and meaning another. What he says
is that the cause must be adequate to the effect. There is no dispute
here. But what he proceeds to argue is that the effect must be
discernible in the cause, which is a different statement altogether.
When he says that an effect cannot be greater than its cause, what he
means is that an effect cannot be different from its cause, which is
downright nonsense. He asks, How can that which has not life produce
life? as though the question were on all fours with the necessity for a
man to possess twenty shillings before he can give change for a
sovereign.

Of course, the reply to all this is that the factors which when combined
produce an effect always "give" something of which when uncombined they
show no trace. There is no trace; of sweetness in the constituents of
sugar of lead, or of blueness in the constituents of blue vitriol. In
not a single case, if we are to follow the logic of the theist, is there
a cause adequate to produce an effect, if we are to follow the reasoning
of some theists; in each case we should have to assume some occult agent
as responsible for the result. In reality and in strict scientific
truth, it is of the very essence of causation that there shall be
present in the effect some quality or qualities that are not present in
the cause. And all the confusion may be eliminated if there is borne in
mind the simple and single consideration that in studying an effect it
is the qualities of a combination with which we are properly concerned.
And to expect to find in analysis that which is the product of synthesis
is in the highest degree absurd.

Sir Oliver Lodge in his little work on "Life and Matter" properly
corrects the fallacy with which I have been dealing, and points out that
"properties can be possessed by an aggregate or an assemblage of
particles, which in the particles themselves did not in the slightest
degree exist." But in his desire to find a basis for his theism
immediately falls into an error in an opposite direction. We are on safe
ground, he says, in asserting that "whatever is in a part must be in the
whole." This is true if it is meant that as the whole contains the part,
t