[October, 
552 Notices of Books. 
This typical hearer receives the novel doCtrine very complacently, 
considering that he has just declared that he “ knows nothing of 
modern science, and looks upon it with horror,” that he “cannot 
bear to meet a man of science,” and that he has “ read some of 
the pestilent and heretical works lately issued.” 
In the argument which the author brings forward we find, as 
one step, an account of atoms in which it is asserted “ we know 
that they are formed of two distinct parts ; that they are spher- 
oids, having a dense axis and a less dense equator. For instance, 
the axis of the atom of oxygen is formed of ozone and the 
equator of antozone ; the atom of water has oxygen for its axis 
and hydrogen for its equator.” How an atom, which is ex hypo - 
thesi indivisible, can yet be formed of two distinCt parts, more 
or less dense, it is difficult to conceive. Allowing, however, the 
author to substitute the term “ molecule ” for “ atom,” we are 
still not satisfied. The very existence of antozone is too pro- 
blematical for us to accept this theory of the constitution of the 
molecule of oxygen. But even if we accept the whole of the 
author’s interesting demonstration, we utterly fail to see that it 
leads necessarily to the point at issue. Supposing that there are 
sources of evil existing “ within man, and concomitants of his 
flesh,” this by no means disproves the existence of an external 
author of evil, a parastatic spirit. 
Further, the author’s views are deficient in clearness : from 
some passages we should judge that he pronounces all Nature — 
everything consisting of matter aCted on by force Devilish — 
evil. But from others we should gather that he would consider 
these attributes as restricted to matter and force when exerting 
abnormal, morbid, and injurious influences. Accepting this as 
the more rational view, we have still to ask where is the boundary 
between good and evil — especially in a physical view — to be 
drawn, and who is to decide ? A storm that ravages our crops 
and sinks our shipping may at the same time purify the air and 
remove an epidemic. Is it, then, diabolical or non-diabolical, or 
a happy mixture of both ? The author seems to us not to dis- 
tinguish clearly enough between physical and moral evil, which 
may be perfectly independent of each other. For granting to 
the fullest extent Dr. Johnson’s diCtum that “ every sick man is 
a villain,” — granting that a diseased liver, indigestion in any 
form, and no less the mediaeval religious exercise of fasting, are 
the teeming sources of envy, “ hatred, malice, and all uncharita- 
bleness,” we must never forget that there is at any rate one 
shortcoming to which man is prone, almost in the exaCt ratio of 
his health and vigour. It is curious how completely modern 
moralists forget the distinction between “ appetites ” and 
“ passions.” 
Should the author’s views meet with acceptance they would 
not, we believe, prove necessarily antagonistic to a belief in 
man’s responsibility, but they might favour the recrudescence of 
