Thus matter is described as passive, not capable of producing any motion, and also as constantly producing motion, and exerting power at insensible and inconceivable distances. How can these views be reconciled? There is much confusion as to the meaning of Attraction. It is described in all its operations as the same power, but manifested under different circumstances. It causes the descent of all falling bodies, and, at the same time, forces liquids to ascend through tubes and the pores of plants. It is said to be proportioned in its force to the quantity of matter; how, then, in opposition to the whole attractive force of the earth, can the capillary attraction of a tree cause liquids to ascend to its highest leaf, and even extend its leaves and twigs? The most curious manifestation of this power is called Affinity, -sometimes single elective, at others, double. Under its influence, the particles of bodies, forsaking old combinations, form new ones; "for there seem," says Comstock, "in this respect to be very singular preferences and dislikes existing among the particles of matter." While some particles have this strong mutual affection, others have a degree of dislike amounting to aversion; hence repulsion is often so great that they cannot remain peaceably in the same neighbourhood. Some degree of knowledge of circumstances seems absolutely essential to the exercise of these preferences and dislikes; hence, we have the manifestation of intelligence and the passions by the inert, utterly powerless particles of matter. That matter is impenetrable, inert, and has extension, we can readily conceive. These terms imply only facts relating to an existing substance. They leave the changes and phenomena of matter, usually ascribed to attraction, to be referred, as we think they ought, to an independent, intelligent cause. The supposition that there is power, energy, force, or intelligence in an inert lump of matter, we cannot regard otherwise than as absurd. Let any one point out, if he can, the connexion between what are usually denominated cause and effect in matter. It is said to be the nature or law of bodies mutually to attract each other; hence a stone falls to the earth. In this statement no efficient cause is described, no explanation given; but a fact is named, and referred to a class of results of a similar character previously observed. A law of nature is a term applied to a class of phenomena supposed to be similar; but to call this law their cause would be a perversion of language. Many of the phenomena of nature are incorrectly classed. Who at present is prepared to enunciate the general law of chemical composition and decomposition? The name attraction is given to the affinity, by which we suppose the particles of the various ingredients of bodies to be aggregated; but who can point out any common feature between this and the attractions of which alone we know the exact effects? Newton did not regard gravity as an inherent cause in matter. He did not pretend to have discovered the cause of a stone's falling to the ground, or of the revolution of the planets. Considering attraction as a phenomenon, he hesitated as to the cause, sometimes considering it as material, (Optics, p. 343,) and sometimes as immaterial, (Ib., p. 325.) In a letter found in Bentley's Works, he says, "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and effect other matter without mutual contact, as it must, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws."-Bentley's Works, vol. iii, pp. 211, 212. The only reasonable mode of accounting for the phenomena of the material world is to refer the physical effects, usually ascribed to gravity and other laws of nature, to the direct action of the Deity. The laws of nature, such as the laws of motion, gravitation, affinity, are only a figure of speech, expressions of the regularity and continuity of one infinite cause. The course of nature is nothing but the will of God producing certain effects, in a constant and uniform manner. The changes in the external world, the least and the greatest, the fall of a stone, the motion of the planets in their orbits, the growth of plants, the murmuring rivulet, the gently rolling stream, the impetuous cataract, sunshine, dew, rain, storms, tempests, the flashing lightning and the rolling thunder, must be referred to the will and power of God. Matter is wholly passive and inert, having no powers or active inherent properties. Mind alone is active, and all changes must result from its volitions. All the researches of science have not pointed out with certainty a single active cause apart from the operation of mind. In nature we see antecedents and consequents, yet no connexion but sequence in time can be discerned between them, the former are the mere signs, not the causes, of the latter. We see regularity and similarity of effects, but the attribution of these effects to certain hidden qualities inherent in particles or atoms, is inconceivable and absurd. Much of the language used relative to matter, in the generalizations of science, is figurative. Of this character are the terms force, power, agencies, action, &c. It is absurd to speak of one particle of matter as literally acting on another. These terms, properly speaking, are characteristic only of will, of mind. With reference to the cause of the changes in matter, the simple child of nature,— "The poor Indian, whose untutor❜d mind Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind," is far wiser than he who แ 'Steps forth the spruce philosopher, and tells Of homogeneal and discordant springs Of action and reaction." It is certainly incumbent on those who ascribe material phenomena to inherent power, or properties of matter, either to demonstrate their existence, or to show the plausibility of their supposed operation. But neither has been done. The effects witnessed are referred to the operation of what are called the laws of nature, because some cause must be assigned; but the mode of that operation is confessedly shrouded in deepest mystery. The fall of a stone is ascribed to the attraction of the earth. Let us for a moment examine this. Suppose a stone suspended in the air: it is itself inert, having no more tendency to approach the earth than to recede from it. Beyond the fact that these bodies meet, what shadow of proof is there that any force is exerted by the one on the other? If the earth draws the stone to itself, by what cords, what means, or in what conceivable mode is this done? If a stone were brought from a distant planet, and placed within our atmosphere, how would the earth become aware of its presence? Is it conceivable that the peculiar power necessary to cause its fall was exerted ere it came within the vicinity of the earth? If so, on what, or for what purpose, was it exerted? and what connected this force with this new mass? Many other facts in nature may be mentioned, the explanation of which cannot be found in the alleged properties and laws of matter. By means of a lever a man can raise a weight which, with his hands simply, he cannot move; a force equivalent to a weight of ten pounds on the long arm of a lever ten feet in length, will move ninety pounds on the short arm one foot in length, and nine pounds on the long arm will exactly balance the larger weight. In what law or property shall the cause of these facts be found? If it be referred to gravity, its force exerted on the two bodies evidently can only be the same it would be, were they placed in any other circumstances at the same distance from the centre of the earth. In what consists the difference between a body in motion and the same body at rest? A pebble may be thrown from the hand with a force that will carry it several yards; a train of cars will continue in rapid motion, which a very great force would be required suddenly to stop, long after the steam, which is supposed to originate that motion, has ceased to act on them, and frightful accidents often result from their momentum. We ask, what and whence this force? In these cases, and also in those of the lever, the effects are said to result from acquired velocity. Velocity is defined by philosophers to be rate of motion, and motion as change of place; hence the cause, literally interpreted, is, acquired rate of change of place. Is there anything more than the fact to be explained, contained in this statement? The flowing of rivers is ascribed to gravity, which draws all bodies toward the centre of the earth; but the mouth of the Mississippi is several miles higher, that is, farther from the centre of the earth, than its source; hence, contrary to the law of gravity, it runs up hill. As an explanation of this, and other similar instances where streams run nearly south, it is said that the centrifugal force of the earth counteracts gravity. Centrifugal force is defined to be, "the effort of bodies, when moving in curves, to proceed directly forward in a straight line."* It is a result of the first law of motion, which asserts that all moving bodies have a tendency to move in straight lines. But shall we deem that sound philosophy which assigns as the cause of so important facts a mere law, an effort or tendency of inert matter? As a specimen of a different class of facts in the operations of nature, we select germination. Soon after a seed has been placed in appropriate soil a change ensues, evidently resulting from design and intelligence. Shoots come forth, a part of them extend downwards and form roots; others, extending upwards, are developed into all the parts of the future plant. Will any modification of attraction or any property of matter be assigned as the cause why some of the shoots grow downwards, and others extend upwards? Before the seed was cast into the soil, was the power necessary to form the tree in exercise? If not, is it conceivable that the earth perceived its presence, and put forth the intelligence and power necessary to min * Olmsted's Rudiments of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, p. 34. gle the diverse elements in due proportion, that constitute the trunk, juices, leaves, and fruit? In the formation of compound bodies the elements unite in definite proportions, which cannot be changed. Thus, water is formed of one part hydrogen and one proportional of oxygen, whose atomic number is 8, making the representative number of water 9. Protochloride of mercury is composed of one part of chlorine 36, and one part of mercury 200, making its representative number 236. Perchloride of mercury is composed of two proportionals of chlorine 72, and one of mercury 200, making its number 272. No substances can be formed from these elements in any other than these proportions, or multiples of them. What property of matter, understanding when the requisite quantities are in contact, causes these combinations, which no power under other circumstances can effect? We hold that it is inconceivable that ages ago a mere property implying no intelligence, no choice, was given matter, which now begins to operate in the production of a given plant or animal. There is nothing in the mere contact of elements to produce action, this being only one of the circumstances in which it takes place. Every action implies intelligence, and also choice, a direct volition, immediately preceding it. All the changes in nature must be referred to the will of some intelligent agent. Who is this agent? "Has matter more than motion? has it thought, If art to form, and counsel to direct, And that which greater far than human skill, Not only does he reign, but continually exerts his power in changing, combining, and dissolving the inert substances that constitute his material universe. If we exclude the immediate agency of God from the works of nature, we must suppose each atom of matter endowed with a voluntary intelligent spirit; the action of masses exhibiting the union of the power of particles, while the phenomena of repulsion manifest instances of disagreement. On this theory, the sun chooses to attract the earth, and the earth, by its own act, yields to his influence; and a tree standing exposed on a plain, perceiving its danger of being overturned by the tempest, extends its roots farther and deeper than it would were it standing in a grove. This theory would hardly be an improvement on one of the early conjectures of |