Rev. P. Keith oti the Co?idiiions of Life. S3 



definition is very brief. It is as follows : " Life is the active 

 state of the animal structure*." This evidently excludes the 

 torpid state. It excludes also vegetables, which it might 

 indeed be made to embrace by the insertion of a single woi'd. 

 But if life may exist even in a state of rest, surely it cannot 

 be well defined, merely by calling it a state of action. 



A writer, who regards the above definitions as savouring 

 too much of materialism, not to say atheism, gives us another 

 definition, — the briefest of all: "Life is inherent activity f." 

 This, it must be acknowledged, is scanty enough : but it 

 is abundantly comprehensive ; for it includes everything of 

 which inherent activity can be predicated, be it mind, or be it 

 matter. Yet this is going a great deal further than its author 

 intended, seeing that it is an approach to the materialism of 

 which he accuses others. There is an inherent activity in the 

 movements of the Aurora borealis, the merry dancers of the 

 North ; but it is not life. There is an inherent activity in the 

 vivid coruscations that dart across the sky, and illuminate the 

 loaded atmosphere in a night of electrical tempest ; but it is not 

 life. There is an inherent activity in the cause that occasions 

 the eruption of a burning mountain, — that subterraneous ar- 

 tillery which melts the solid and primaeval rocks, and upheaves 

 them in floods of liquid lava ; but it is not life. Yet according 

 to the definition we ought to say that it is life, because it is a 

 manifestation of inherent activity. Now inherent activity is 

 not even an entity, but an abstraction. It is not life, but a 

 property of life. It is not peculiar to living bodies, but is 

 possessed by many bodies that are thought to be inert. What 

 are chemical, magnetical, and electrical repulsions and attrac- 

 tions, if they are not examples of inherent activity ? 



It would be presumption in me to attempt to do that which 

 the above distinguished physiologists, or their more orthodox 

 criticizers, have failed to do ; namely, to exhibit a correct 

 idea of life, by the selection of a single trait. But as their 



• Lawrence On Physiology. 52. 



+ Remarks on Scepticism; by the Rev. T. Rennel. 1819. 



[.Mr. Kennel's work, not long ago, made some noise in the world. We 

 believe, however, that this writer is destined to find his place in the temple 

 of fame among those worthies who in former times insinuated charges of 

 atheism against Newton and Locke ; and we trust that the same freedom 

 will be claimed for the piiilosophy of mind, which has of late been ahly as- 

 sertc-d, by Professor Sedgwick and others, for Geology and Zoology. Surely 

 nothing can be less calculated to confirm the religious belief of mankind than 

 «ltem|)tH to persuade them that every discovery or new view in jihilosophy \i 

 hostile to religion. Can those be justly charged with irreligion who refuse 

 to assign arbitrary limits to the power of the Deity, as to the properties 

 which he may confer on matter? 



We shall have to notice a recent instance of misrepresentation similar to 

 that to which we here allude, in our next. — Edit.] 



ii. S. Vol. 1 0. No. 55. dull/ 1831. F failure 



