Mr. ELLIS, ON THE THEORY OF MATTER. 



601 



4. In the first place, no even moderately successful attempt has, I think, yet been made to 

 explain any chemical phenomenon on mechanical principles. It is quite true that we are unable, 

 to take a particular instance, fully to comprehend the mechanical constitution of the luminiferous 

 ether ; the determinations which have as yet been attempted of the law of attraction between its 

 molecules cannot, I apprehend, be accepted as any thing njore than hypothetical or provisional 

 results, and there are other points involved in yet greater obscurity. Nevertheless the undulatory 

 theory of light has, as we all know, given consistent and satisfactory explanations of a great 

 variety of phenomena. Thus it appears, and the same remark might be educed from other 

 though similar considerations, that we are by no means absolutely estopped by the imperfection 

 of our mechanical philosophy, from explaining phenomena really due to mechanical forces, even 

 when these phenomena are connected with subjects not as yet fully comprehended : why then 

 cannot some progress be made in the mechanical explanation of chemical phenomena, or of those, 

 to mention no other class, which we are in the habit of referring to vital action .'' In these 

 cases, we see or seem to see that the action of mechanical laws is modified or suspended ; and 

 though it is not demonstrably impossible that this is not really the case, and that no other 

 causes are at work beside the " pusli and pull" forces of ordinary mechanics, yet we are at least 

 much tempted to believe, that the difficulties we meet with do not arise from what may be called 

 the disguised action of mechanical forces but from the presence of an agency of a distinct nature. 

 And to this view we find that most of those incline who have made themselves familiar with the 

 science of chemistry or with that which has been called biology ; and further that, (with reference 

 to the latter science) the insufficiency not only of a mechanical but even of a chemical physiology 

 has been generally admitted. 



Secondly, it is to be observed that even if it he considered doubtful whether a mechanical 

 philosophy be not after all sufficient for the explanation of all phenomena, it is at least certain 

 that it has not been proved to be so : and that bv rejecting other conceivable modes of action than 

 those which are recognised by it, we unnecessarily and arbitrarily limit tlie problem which the 

 universe presents to us ; falling thereby into an error similar to that of the atomists, who starting from 

 the assumption that the dp-yat, or first principles of all things, are atoms and a vacuum proceeded 

 to construct an imaginary world, in accordance with this arbitrary hypothesis. At the same time it 

 must be granted that a purely mechanical* system such as that of Boscovich is more self consistent 

 a.id contains, so to speak, less that is discontiniious, than any which should recognise other 

 principles, for instance chemical affinity, distinct from force without enquiring into tiie relation 

 which subsists between them. 



5. It may however be asserted that this en(|uiry is altogether superfluous — that the power 

 of exerting attractive or repulsive force is one property of matter that chemical affinity, (and so 

 in other cases,) is another — that the two are not merely distinct, but absolutely independent and 

 heterogeneous. Rut to this view tile arguments which seem to have led to the ailoption of a 

 purely mechanical system, appear to prevent our assenting. I shall therefore attempt to state 

 what I conceive these arguments to have been. 



G. It is a fundamental |)rineiple of the secondary mechanical sciences, for instance of the theory 

 of ligiit, that the secondary qualities of bodies arc to be explained by means of the primary. 

 livery substance, to use for a moment the language of Leibnitz., is essentially active; in other 

 words it is to be conceived of as the formal cause of the sensible i|uali[ies which are referred to it. 

 If wc ask why gold is yellow and silver white, the answer at onee presents itsell' lliat tlu' iliU'erence 



• 'I'he word mri'linnintl i» of courKe not used in itntilhcsiH to 

 'lyrulmira/, in the NCnsi* in wliit-h the littter ix coniuitinty ein|iloye(l 

 l>y ihc philoBophii'iil wrIlerA of (ieniiiiriy. The antitheolK in (jncK- 



tion i« toreign to tile »co|>e of tile present tsiuiy, ami I hme 

 accordini-ly el«ewhcrc uned the word dyiniinicul in its urdiiiuiy 

 jveceptution. 



