4 



which has just been quoted, that, in favour of this opinion, Dr. 

 Prichard (to whose reputation my humble tribute can add nothing), 

 the late Dr. Fletcher (whom few have surpassed in acuteness of 

 reasoning), Mr. Roberton of Manchester, and many other wTiters, 

 have expressly contended ; and that to none of their arguments 

 has any formal reply been made. In the " Essay on the Doctrine 

 of a Yital Principle" by Dr. Prichard, there is a long digression, in 

 which the two questions — as to the distinctness of Mind and Mat- 

 ter, — and the separate existence of a Vital Principle, are clearly 

 shown to have none but a remotely analogical relation. The same 

 is stated by Dr. Alison. Our notion of the nature of Vitality, he 

 remarks (p. 3) "has no connection whatever with the notion of 

 Mind as distinguished from Matter." This testimony from Dr. A. 

 is the more valuable for my present object, since he does not accord 

 with the second proposition. What, then, are we to think of the 

 qualifications of a Reviewer who could thus mix up what writers of 

 the first authority have separated, and denounce opinions as danger- 

 ous that have no tendency Avhatever to the " materialism" which 

 he regards with so much horror ? 



But, fortunately for myself, I can produce an unasked testi- 

 mony in behalf ojp my real views, from an individual whose name 

 should silence any imputations of this kind from an anonymous 

 Reviewer. In the Treatise on Physiology contributed by Dr. Roget 

 to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the substance of my Essay already 

 alluded to, with its conclusions, is embodied ; and the original is 

 thus referred to: — "However the laws which regulate the vital 

 phenomena may appear, on a superficial view, to differ from those 

 by Avhich physical changes taking place in inorganic matter are 

 governed, still a more profound investigation of their real character 

 will shew that, when viewed abstractly from the consideration of 

 final causes, there is really no essential difference between them, 

 either as to their comprehensiveness, their uniformity of action, or 

 the mode in which they are to be established by the generalization 

 of particular facts.*" I shall not, therefore, occupy further space in 

 defending myself from charges so groundless ; since it wull be easy 

 for me, should they ever be repeated, to bring forward a body of 

 testimony, which, with those unaccustomed to enquiries of this kind, 

 will weigh more than argument. 



I should not think it worth while to notice the remainder of the 

 Critique, were it not that in some parts of it the bad faith and 

 ignorance of the Reviewer are manifested in a way which may 

 confirm, if confirmation be needed, what has been already stated. 

 I shall take for illustration, from among many of which the fallacy 

 could be as easily exposed, two of the remarks upon my Chapter 

 on Respiration. 



The Reviewer commences by asserting that, "with a strange 

 want of consistency, the author attributes the changes effected on 

 the nutritious fluid in plants by the air to a vital process, whilst in 

 animals, he avers that the aeration of their nutritious fluid is ' a 

 change dependent on physical laws.'" — {Review^ p. 223). So far 

 is this from being true, that the whole discussion of the physical 

 character of the true Respiratory process, including the phrase 



" * See an Essay by Mr. Carpenter on the difference- of the Laws regulating Vital 

 and Physical Phenomena," 



