ON ANCIENT AND MODERN SKEPTICS. 



419 



altogether of a different kind, and though undoubtedly much simpler than 

 any of the preceding, does not seem to be built on a more stable founda- 

 tion. According to his view of the subject, organized differs from inor- 

 ganized matter merely by the addition of certain troperties which are 

 called vital, as sensibility and irritability. Masses of matter endowed with 

 these new properties become organs and systems of organs, constitute 

 an animal frame, and execute distinct sets of purposes or functions ; 

 for functions and purposes carried into execution are here synonymous. 

 ' Life is the assemblage of all the functions (or purposes), and the gene- 

 ral result of their exercise.'* , 



Life, therefore, upon this hypothesis, instead of being a two-fold or 

 three-fold reality, running in a combined stream, or in parallel lines, has 

 no reality whatever. It has no esse or independent existence. It is a 

 mere assemblage of purposes, and accidental or temporary properties : a 

 series of phaenomena,t as Mr. Lawrence has himself correctly expressed 

 it ; — a name without a thing. " We know not," says he, " the nature of 

 (he link that unites these phaenomena, though we are sensible that a con- 

 nexion must exist ; and this conviction is sufficient to induce us to give it 

 a NAME, which the vulgar regard as the sign of a particular principle ; 

 though in fact that name can only indicate the assemblage of the ph.e- 

 NOMENA which have occasioned its formation. "| 



The human frame is, hence, a barrel-organ, possessing a systematic 

 arrangement of parts, played upon by peculiar powers, and executing 

 particular pieces or purposes ; and life is the music produced by the 

 general assemblage or result of the harmonious action. So long as either 

 the vital or the mechanical instrument is duly wound up by a regular supply 

 of food or of the wince, so long the music will continue ; but both are 

 worn out by their own action ; and when the machine will no longer 

 work, the life has the same close as the music ; and in the language of 

 Cornehus Gallus, as quoted and appropriated by Leo X., 



redit in uihilam, quod fuit ante nihil. 



There is, however, nothing new either in this hypothesis or in the pre- 

 sent explanation of it. It was first started in the days of Aristotle by 

 Aristoxenus, a pupil of his, who was admirably skilled in music, and by 

 profession a physician. It was propounded to the world under the name 

 of the system of harmony, either from the author's fondness for music, 

 or from his comparing the human frame to a musical instrument, and his 

 regarding life as the result of all its parts acting in accordance, and pro- 

 ducing a general and harmonious effect.§ 



We have already had occasion to notice this hypothesis in a former 

 lecture, and the triumphant objections with which it was met by the Stoics 

 as well as by the Epicureans ;ll as also that it has at times been revived 

 since, and especially by M. Lusac, who extended it lo even a wider range : 

 while the same objections remain unanswered to the present hour, and 

 seem to be altogether unanswerable. 



There is, moreover, the same looseness in the term phjenomena, em- 

 ployed by Mr. Lawrence, and the French writers just adverted to, as we 



* Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology, &c. p. 120, 

 1 Ibid. p. 122. X Ibid. 



§ Stud, of Med. ut supra. 

 1 Series I, Lect. IX. onthe PrincipI»of T.<ife, 



