596 
Animism versus Hylozoism. 
[October, 
implanted it. And this affords me an opportunity of illus- 
trating what I mean by a chain of causation. The several 
actions stand thus: — The Deity — Will — Force — Motion. 
God exerts his Will, producing Force, which, when acting 
upon Matter, results in its Motion. I contend, therefore, 
that the Divine afflatus (by no means a happy phrase) is not 
superseded by this vis insita, but is equivalent to it. 
The analogy suggested with relation to phlogiston and 
oxygen is fallacious. If phlogiston was supposed to be a 
“ levitating fadtor,” expelled by heat, while oxygen was a 
gravitating one, absorbed by the metal when calcined, it 
does not follow that such a substance as phlogiston could not 
have existed. If there were a form of matter lighter than 
air (e.g., hydrogen), and it could have united with a metal 
without beingcondensed into a solid (as oxygen is in an oxide), 
while so united it would have made the metal lighter (in air) 
than when driven off from it. It is not so, in fadl ; but the 
possibility of it wholly vitiates the analogy here suggested, 
beside that no one supposes that the ‘ anima ’ is subjedl to 
gravitation. The subsequent assertion that certain truths 
have been corrupted into Dualism, is nothing better than a 
notion , and a very unfounded one too. 
I beg to say, that I do not misapprehend the illustration 
taken from odours and poisons, but I deny its appositeness. 
Why combinations of the same elements in different propor- 
tions, when brought into contadl with our nerves or senses, 
affedt them so differently, it is impossible to say. I believe 
it to be an arbitrary appointment. But how totally different 
are the uncertain adtions of a voluntary being from the defi- 
nite effedts of chemical compounds upon other matter ! 
In answer to the remarks in p. 525, upon animal life being 
the“ outcome of certain chemical changes” — if the ambiguous 
word c outcome 9 means ‘ initiation,’ I ask, with confidence, 
What chemist has succeeded in producing a living organism 
except through the agency of previously existing life ? The 
inferences from the late Mr. Crosse’s eledtrical experiments 
were soon entirely abandoned. 
Passing over the unseemly flippancy of the remark about 
a “ ghostly Archseus,” I fully admit the influence which 
alcohol, opium, &c., exert upon the mind through its mate- * 
rial associate, the nervous tissue. But instead of this being 
a case of the “ fiddle playing on the musician,” it is one of a 
broken fiddle producing sounds quite different from a well- 
tuned one. The musician has (perhaps wilfully) damaged 
his fiddle. 
With regard to the quotation from Dr. Lewins, I see little 
