ning
that the lightning which destroys a sheep, was a means to the same end
with the principle of its organization; for this reason, too, the two
powers cannot be represented as analogous. Indeed I know of no system in
which the word, as thus applied, would admit of an endurable meaning, but
that which teaches us, that a mass of marrow in the skull is analogous to
the rational soul, which Plato and Bacon, equally with the "poor Indian,"
believe themselves to have received from the Supreme Reason.

It would be blindness not to see, or affectation to pretend not to see,
the work at which these sarcasms were levelled. The author of that work is
abundantly able to defend his own opinions; yet I should be ambitious to
address _him_ at the close of the contest in the lines of the great Roman
poet:

"Et nos tela, Pater, ferrumque haud debile dextra
Spargimus, et nostro sequitur, de vulnere sanguis."

In Mr. Abernethy's Lecture on the Theory of Life, it is impossible not to
see a presentiment of a great truth. He has, if I may so express myself,
caught it in the breeze: and we seem to hear the first glad opening and
shout with which he springs forward to the pursuit. But it is equally
evident that the prey has not been followed through its doublings and
windings, or driven out from its brakes and covers into full and open
view. Many of the least tenable phrases may be fairly interpreted as
illustrations, rather than precise exponents of the author's meaning; at
least, while they remain as a mere suggestion or annunciation of his
ideas, and till he has expanded them over a larger sphere, it would be
unjust to infer the contrary. But it is not with men, however strongly
their professional merits may entitle them to reverence, that my concern
is at present. If the opinions here supported are the same with those of
Mr. Abernethy, I rejoice in his authority. If they are different, I shall
wait with an anxious interest for an exposition of that difference.

Having reasserted that I no more confound magnetism with electricity, or
the chemical process, than the mathematician confounds length with
breadth, or either with depth; I think it sufficient to add that there are
two views of the subject, the former of which I do not believe
attributable to any philosopher, while both are alike disclaimed by me as
forming any part of my views. The first is that which is supposed to
consider electricity identical with life, as it subsists in o