233 
calls the “formative power ” of even the highest parts of the 
brain to the ganglions in the sympathetic system ; and when 
he reaches one of these, he says that beyond this some think 
of something which they call spirit ; but he argues that there 
is no need for such a thing. So, in his view, all the mani- 
festations of mind are effects of ganglionic change ! 
It will be observed that this is not a matter of mere dis- 
tinction between qualities and substances, nor of distinction 
between the material and the spiritual. It is a simple denial 
of the existence of the spiritual being. Dr. Davey insists 
that the ganglion has itself the causative force by which all 
mental as well as material changes are effected ! The meta- 
physician denies that we know anything of the external world 
but our sensations — that is, when he is in his most contracted 
mood, for we see he does not always shut us up so tightly ; 
but here the physician denies that we know anything of the 
inner world beyond our ganglions ! He holds that all 
that we understand by sensation, emotion, and thought, 
springs from these ganglions ! No doubt he is quite pre- 
pared for all manner of astonishment which this monstrosity 
may excite, and not in the least staggered at its absurdity ; 
so we must analyze the case as it stands in its facts. Suppose, 
then, that I have a handful of good gunpowder and a handful 
of a substance every way the same with the exception that 
the sulphur is absent. I put a little bit of red hot wire to 
the gunpowder, and it explodes; I put the same red hot 
wire to the other substance, but it refuses to explode. Is 
it not a legitimate and scientific conclusion that there is a 
substance in the one mixture which is absent from the 
other ? No one in his right mind will deny the legitimacy of 
the inference. I may multiply the experiment millions of 
times, and the same result will necessitate the same inference. 
The experiment may be varied all over the wide field of mate- 
rial existence, and in every case certain results will be found 
dependent on the presence of certain substances. These results 
are modes of being belonging to those substances in certain 
circumstances — modes of being that can be demonstrated by 
experiment at all times when such experiments are possible, 
and that again is more than often enough for all reasonable 
evidence. 
Take then a system of nerves belonging to a human body 
from which what we call “mind” is absent, and compare it 
by experiment with one in which what we call “mind” is 
present. Dr. Davey may give this “mind”an}^ other name 
he chooses ; just as anyone may call the sulphur in the gun- 
powder anything else he may fancy. Call “ mind” “ formative 
