Unless, then, it is argued that the electric fluid which we can collect by an electrifying machine, is a modification of the spirit of God, it must be matter, and we must be convinced from facts, that matter has motion inherent in itself, and may in some degree influence our wills and passions, in opposition to the will of God.

The human frame, after its spirit has fled, can be acted upon by the electric fluid, and motion produced in its various muscles. -If it produces motion in the dead body by acting on the nerves, which convey motion, and produce the feeling we call sensation, may it not be the medium of conveying motion in the living?-and if it conveys motion in the living, may it not be influenced by the materials we are composed of, as well as by the breath or spirit of God which was breathed into us?-Particular kinds of meat and drink produce peculiar sensations in the mind; and as we know by experi

stationary, that we should be able to calculate the motions of bodies on their axes through its openings?

ence, that the stomach has a most powerful influence upon it, we cannot wonder that abstinence was recommended by Christ, where the greatest exertion of mind was necessary.

It may be said, that by allowing matter has motion, I support the atheistical theory of Epicurus, which Lucretius illustrates in his poem on atoms: but, in admitting the fact, the conclusion does not follow; for mechanism and design are evident and conspicuous in the formation of all animated nature, from the structure of the daisy to the anatomy of man. With Paley, when we see a watch, we must believe that it had a maker; and when we discover more refined mechanism in nature, we must look up to its God with feelings of respect, love, and adoration, and solicit more wisdom and knowledge of his works, to cheer the path of life, and to give a foretaste of the joys of eternity.

But if matter, you may say, has motion inherent in itself, and can influence our pas

sions and desires, is it not through sensation it does so? And if motion in matter and sensation are synonymous, what occasion have we for the words spirit, soul, mind, to explain what are merely the results of organization and sensation?-Are we not organic matter?And is not what we call spirit material?

In reply I would say, that sensation is not an attribute of matter, but merely an effect of the disturbance of the nervous fluid, which communicates with the sensorium, or soul, instantaneously from every part of the body through the medium of electricity, producing a sense of pain, for the benevolent purpose of drawing our attention to the part affected, that a remedy might be sought for, and applied, and the system preserved, or prolonged from decomposition. It is the spirit which feels pain—not the flesh.

That the sensation is not in the part, but in the mind, is proved by the testimony of many individuals who have had an extre

mity amputated, who have complained of pain and itch in the limb years after it was cut off the trunk, and had been mouldering into dust. Surgeons, also, who have had much practice, will adduce cases where pain and various sensations have been complained of by their patients, as if in the extremity amputated, on pulling the ligatures. More particularly when a nerve has been tied up with the artery, in the hurry of the operation, as it has sometimes been done on the field of battle. It is evident the pain and sensations could not have been in the part separated from the body, but in the mind, sensorium, soul, or breath of God, call it what you will, with which the nerves communicated, and was equally liable to feel from the disturbance or irritation of the same nerves, on the stump and in the limb before amputation. It still continued to exist as a whole when the parts were removed to which it gave sensation and motion; and, from analogy, will still continue to exist, when its surrounding shell shall have

been removed, that confined it to a spot in creation.

The more we examine the opinions of philosophers on the subjects of mind and matter, the more we must be convinced that passion, or prejudice, has more or less influenced their arguments, and the conclusions drawn from them. We find that some of them have leaned towards materialism, some towards idealism, and others towards the ne plus ultra of absurdity, scepticism.A few of their premises I shall now briefly examine.

Surgeon Lawrence, whose lectures show great talent and research, but whose conclusions were so degrading to man, may differ with me, and continue to say, THAT THE

66

PHENOMENA OF MIND ARE TO BE REGARDED, PHYSIOLOGICALLY, MERELY AS THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ORGANIC APPA"* But

RATUS CONTAINED IN THE HEAD.'

how has he proved this?-Where are his

* Lectures on Physiology, &c., &c., by W. Lawrence, F.R.S. Vol. I. Chap. vi.