SPECTRES OCCASIONED BY DISEASE. 1^3 



<he interior of nature will always prove beneficial to the hu- 

 man mind ; as long as we do not prefume to have completely 

 inveftigated the fubjedt; but continue our exertions by uniting 

 the obfervations of fadts with deliberate reafoning. 



Since men have forgotten that what philofophy h as fepa- Thehypothefia 

 rated is not on that account feparated in nature, and fincefiom °^. ''?'!^ ^"\ 

 the earlielt ages, the mind and body ot man have been conli- many difquifi- 

 dered as if diftind from each other, numberlefs queftions have ^'"^^^ refpefting 

 arifen which have given room for much controverfy, without fpi^ij-s, ' 

 having met with any fatisfaftory anfwer. For example : Whe- 

 ther after the difToliition of the body, the fpirit (or mind) con- 

 tinues to exift without the body ? Whether the fpirit can adl 

 without the body, and in what manner ? And laftly, it is alfo 

 a queftion, Whether, as we confider a difembodied fpirit not 

 only in a ftate of feparate continual exiftence, but alfo in a 

 ftate of continual exiftence and continual action amotigft us, a. 

 mere fpirit and its a6tions canfiot become perceptible to our 

 fenfes? — Whether the figure of a fpirit (and in particular that 

 of a deceafed perfon) may notbefeen? and, Whether a found 

 proceeding from it may not affed the ear of the living ? All 

 the knowledge ufually confidered as poffible to be had of a de- 

 parted fpirit is confined to feeing and hearing; for as far as 

 my information extends, the devil is the only fpirit that enjoys 

 the privilege of afFeding the fenfe of fmell at his departure. 



We have lefs motive for difputing about the abfolute Why the nar- 

 poffibility of feeing a fpirit, becaufe the idea of a fpirit is fo "tivesofappari- 



* . -^ o i ' 1 tions arc ge- 



indiflind and vague, and becaufe the words fpirit and body in nerally con- 

 confidering man, do in reality indicate mere relative notions, eluded to be un- 

 it is inconfiftent with every known law of nature to fuppofe 

 that thofe terms of relation adopted by us folely for the purpofe 

 of inveftigating the nature of man do themfelves potTefs any 

 feparate and independent exiftence. This argument caufes a 

 fufpicion of deceit or impofition always to attach to narratives 

 of the apparitions of difembodied fpirits. But thofe who are 

 inclined to fee and hear fpirits, are netfatisfied with thisfum- 

 mary folution ; they appeal to experience, againft which no 

 maxim a priori can hold. This only is required, that the ex- 

 perience muft be true and well attefted. 



Individuals who pretend to have feen and heard fpirits are Butthedelufiona 

 not to be perfuaded that their apparitions were fimply the crea- °^ j,ffgf j-"^,^'"" 

 lures of their fenfes. You may tell them of the impofitions jeferveto be ia- 

 M2 that veftjgated. 



