Additional Notes. 465 



abound are alone sufficient to refute Dr. Darwin. He is 

 contradicted by the experience of every day. 



5. Finally, this theory is unnecessarily complex, and of- 

 fends against the best rules of philosophic simplicity. Irrita- 

 tion is an exertion of the sensorial power^ or of the spirit of 

 animation, exciting the fibres to contraction. By this con- 

 traction no end appears to be gained. It is not the fibre which 

 is sentient, but the sensorial power resident in the fibre. The 

 contraction can, therefore, be of use only by communicating 

 a certain effect to the sensorial power. But the sensorial 

 power, according to this theory, was itself affected, previ- 

 ously to the contraction, and was itself the proximate cause 

 of the contraction. Of what use, then, is this combination 

 of effects? It may, indeed, render error more complicated 

 and perplexing; but it cannot assist us in the developement 

 of truth. 



Such are some of the numerous defects and errors of this 

 celebrated system of intellectual physiology. The author 

 falls into the grand mistake adopted by all the materialists, 

 viz. a belief that we are acquainted with the nature of cau- 

 sation. In the physical world we see events connected with 

 each other, with respect to time and place; but we know- 

 not the relation which they sustain. At most, a series ^ of 

 facts is all that we can determine. The links which bind 

 them together, and the nature of the respective processes by 

 which they succeed to each other — in a word, the nature of 

 causation we can never understand. We are equally un- 

 able to understand the nature of causation in the intellectual 

 world. Dr. Darwin, like a number of ingenious and 

 learned men before him, has attempted to explore this im- 

 penetrable region. But in the attempt, instead of enlighten- 

 ing us by the exhibition of facts, he amuses by presenting 

 phantasms of his own creation. To these he ascribes such 

 powers as suit his purpose; and having drawn out in detail a 

 statement of the actions and variations of these fictitious be- 

 ings, he would persuade us that the phenomena of mind are 

 explained. But let none mistake words for ideas, or crea- 

 tures of the fancy for realities. " The affections of the sen- 

 tient principle are not rendered in the least degree more intel- 

 ligible by resolving them into motions of solids or fluids; for 

 the cause of motion is as inexplicable as the cause of the sen- 

 tient affection. If the science of mind were less sure than 

 that of matter, the systems of materialism might have some 

 claim to our respect; but though they were liable to no, 



•o 



