but as an actuality, as real to the soul as its corresponding earthly truth is to the body. As a petty illustration, we will say that where an apple is eaten, a harmonious man receives not only the nutriment contained in the fruit, but he also receives its spiritual correspondence, so as to be doubly nourished by it.

1761. "Men having a stronger magnetic relationship to the spirit world, are easily exhausted, for they do not receive strength enough from the earth sphere to keep soul and body in harmony.

1762. “Persons en rapport with the earth are the labourers and tillers of the ground, living only in the lowest plane of mental life.

1763. "The truly harmonious men receive equally the spiritual and physical elements: they are electrical conductors, whose attracting points bend downward as well as upward, dispensing, equally, thought and strength to their less harmonious fellows, with but little exhaustion.

1764. "Men originate nothing: they have merely different degrees of receptivity; are merely more or less in magnetic relationship with the higher world. A principle, or truth, is not your truth, or my truth, but God's truth; as much as a drop of water in the ocean, or a sand-grain in the great desert; as little a personal possession as the cloud above your head. If we look at it abstractly, we perceive the absurdity of all quarrels in relation to originality of ideas-water refreshes the thirsty traveller, whether drunk from his own cup or the cup of another; and if we can incorporate a new truth into our lives, it is unimportant whether we receive it directly or indirectly from the great fountain.

1765. “The intellectual struggle of the student is but an education of the soul, training it to become susceptible to higher influences-an attempt to enter into unalloyed magnetic relationship with the spirit world.

1766. “Prayer is a simple and natural method of becoming en rapport with higher beings and a higher world: yet no thinker ever believed that prayer would move the Divine Being to alter His eternal plans. As He is the fountain of all Love and all Wisdom, His designs must be without flaw-must be for eternal good: yet prayer is one of the most holy, beautiful, and useful of things; it is the earnest asking of the soul for comfort-whatever the words may be-and by the exaltation of feeling, we rise up from the earth-life into the higher spiritual planes, and become harmonized by the indwelling harmonies of those spheres. Prayer is aspiration. Prayer is the desire to embrace the Infinite. The form of prayer is unimportant; its power lies in the indwelling desire of good. Men should not have forms and times of prayer, but their whole lives should be long, unending acts of prayer."

1767. It seems that the light of Spiritualism had begun to dawn in the mind of the author of the preceding passage. His language respecting prayer is in strict conformity with the doctrine of Spiritualism.

1768. As the author, to whom reference is thus made, was on terms of

great mutual friendship with my late sister, as well as with myself, I have consulted her spirit as to the origin of the impressions which had been thus indited by our common friend. It appears from her reply to my inquiry, that these ideas were communicated to him by my spirit father, and that his conversion to Spiritualism had commenced prior to his decease, which took place about two years ago.

OF MATTER, MIND, AND SPIRIT.

Of Matter.

1769. It is a fact, that as we study more deeply the nature of matter, we find that we know the less about it. The crude impressions by which it makes us sensible of its presence are, of course, intuitively received, and are reiterated incessantly. Hence, the mass of mankind do not imagine that there can be any mystery respecting that ponderable matter which influences the scale-beam. The existence of any other matter, people generally are slow to admit. The electric fluid and caloric, the supposed causes of electricity and heat, were rarely believed in, out of the scientific world, but ponderable matter is the last thing of which any person would imagine himself ignorant. Yet we find that some of the most experienced investigators of nature, have not made up their minds as to what ponderable matter is.

1770. According to Newton, matter consists of hard, impenetrable particles, endowed with vis inertia, gravitation, and chemical attraction for other particles; vis inertiæ being that force by which a body, if in motion, requires a certain degree of force to arrest or retard it, or to put it into motion if at rest. Gravitation causes all masses to attract each other reciprocally, with a force exactly proportioned to their vis inertiæ; so that these forces are reciprocally measures of each other. It is usual to make gravitation its own measure, by estimating it to be as the weight of the mass; while weight is only the reciprocal attraction of gravitation between the body tried, and the earth. (64.)

1771. These properties being conceded as belonging to matter, and the measure of its quantity, the next question is, of what does massive matter consist? As to the ratio of weight to bulk, which is designated as "specific gravity," we see an immense disparity between solids. Potassium, for instance, weighs three-fourths of its bulk of water, while platinum weighs twenty-one times its bulk in that fluid. The density of gaseous hydrogen is to that of platina not more than 1 to 25,000, and yet it may be rarified to the one-hundreth part of its normal spissitude, while apparently filling the same space. Thus the same space may be filled successively by different portions of matter, yet the quantity of matter in the

space, in the first case, may be to the quantity contained in the second, as 2,500,000 to 1. Newton's definition of material particles was as follows:

1772. "It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that those primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no mundane power being able to divide what God himself intended to be indivisible."

1773. Boscovitch, observing that all that was essential to material atoms was attraction and repulsion, the latter being the substitute of Newton's impenetrability, suggested an hypothesis which dispensed with the atom, and assumed only the forces of attraction and repulsion; alternating, as it appears to me, in a way more original than warrantable. This idea of atoms has been modified by an accomplished mathematician, Exley, of Bristol, England. I quote here Exley's view:

1774. "The reader has only to allow that each atom of matter consists of an indefinitely extensive sphere of attraction, resting on a very small concentric sphere of repulsion, the force being everywhere, from the centre, inversely as the square of the distance, repulsive near the centre, and then attractive. Now that part which regards the attraction has already obtained the consent of all the followers of Newton; and much more than the other part, which respects repulsion, has been already received in the principles of our present philosophy.

1775. "It may be here asked-Are we absolutely to exclude solid atoms? I confess I can find no use for them. It is true, Sir Isaac Newton thought that the atoms of matter consisted of minute solids.

1776. “But this hypothesis, however convenient and consonant with our prejudices, is not absolutely necessary to the explanation of natural phenomena; for, it may be conceived, according to the theory of Boscovitch, that matter consists not of solid particles, but of mere mathematical centres, of forces attractive and repulsive, whose relations to space were ordained, and whose actions are regulated and maintained by the Creator of the universe. Both hypotheses, however, agree in one great principle, viz.: that the properties of bodies depend upon forces emanating from immovable points (whether substantial or not is of little importance) of their masses. 1777. "The atoms of matter constituted as in the theory now proposed possess all the individuality, indivisibility, and indestructibility, which the learned and illustrious Newton ascribes to his small solids, and they answer all the ends he has mentioned; the central points, indeed, will be utterly impenetrable by each other, since the repulsion there is infinite; and if at those centres we suppose small solids to be placed, they can answer no farther end than is accomplished by this immensely great repulsive force; for from what we know of matter, we must suppose them to be indefinitely small, if we introduce such solids; and hence they will occupy the place where the repulsion is infinitely great; such solids would be found only an obstacle, and an incumbrance to the free actions of matter; since, however small we imagine them to be, their magnitude will be infinite if compared with a mathematical point, the centre of an atom, which is devoid

altogether of magnitude. It may be added, that if any reader wish to retain these solids at the centres of the atoms, it will not materially affect the conclusions, provided he allow us to have them as small as we please; and so much, if he intend to philosophize, he must grant, whatever course he may determine to pursue.'

1778. These efforts to define matter derive interest from the following attempt of Farraday to sustain a view inconsistent with that of Newton, by practical illustration:

Strictures on a Speculation by Farraday, respecting the Nature of Matter.

1779. This sagacious investigator adverts to the fact, that after each atom in a mass of metallic potassium has combined with an atom of oxygen and an atom of water, forming thus a hydrated oxide-caustic potashthe resulting aggregate occupies much less space than its metallic ingredient previously occupied; so that, taking equal bulks of the hydrate and of potassium, there will be in the metal only 430 metallic atoms, while in the hydrate there will be 700 such atoms. Yet in the latter, besides the 700 metallic atoms, there will be an equal number of aqueous and oxygenous atoms, in all 2800 ponderable atoms. It follows, that if the atoms of potassium are to be considered as minute impenetrable particles, kept at certain distances by an equilibrium of forces, there must be, in a mass of potassium, vastly more space than matter. Moreover, it is the space alone that can be continuous. The non-contiguous material atoms cannot form a continuous mass. Consequently, the well-known power of potassium to conduct electricity must be a quality of the continuous empty space which it comprises, not of the discontinuous particles of matter with which that space is regularly interspersed. It is in the next place urged, that while, agreeably to these considerations, space is shown to be a conductor, there are considerations equally tending to prove it to be a nonconductor, since in certain non-conducting bodies, such as resins, there must be nearly as much vacant space as in potassium. Hence the supposition that atoms are minute impenetrable particles, involves the necessity of considering empty space as a conductor in metals, and as a non-conductor in resins, and of course in sulphur and other electrics. This is considered as a reductio ad absurdum. To avoid this contradiction, Farraday supposes that atoms are not minute impenetrable bodies, but, existing throughout the whole space in which their properties are observed, may penetrate each other. Consistently, although the atoms of potassium pervade the whole space which they apparently occupy, the entrance into that space of an equivalent number of atoms of oxygen and water, in consequence of some reciprocal reaction, causes a contraction in the boundaries by which the combination thus formed is enclosed. This is an original and interesting view of this subject, well worthy of the contemplation of chemical philosophers.

1780. But, upon these premises, Farraday has ventured on some in

ferences which, upon various accounts, appear to me unwarrantable. I agree that "a" representing a particle of matter, and "m" representing its properties, it is only with "m" that we have any acquaintance, the existence of "a" resting merely on an inference. Heretofore I have often appealed to this fact, in order to show that the evidence of imponderable, no less than of ponderable matter, is precisely the existence of properties which can only be accounted for by inferring the existence of an appropriate matter to which those properties appertain. Yet I cannot concur in the idea that, because it is only with "m" that we are acquainted, the existence of "a" must not be inevitably inferred, so that bodies are to be considered as constituted of their materialized powers. I use the word "materialized," because it is fully admitted by Farraday, that by dispensing with an impenetrable atom "a" we do not get rid of the idea of matter, but have to imagine each atom as existing throughout the whole sphere of its force, instead of being condensed about the centre. This seems to follow from the following language:

1781. “The view now stated of the constitution of matter would seem to involve necessarily the conclusion that matter fills all space, or at least the space to which gravitation extends, including the sun and its system; for gravitation is a property of matter dependent on a certain force, and it is this force which constitutes matter.”

1782. Literally, this paragraph seems to convey the impression, that, agreeably to this new idea of matter, the sun and his planets are not distinct bodies, but consist of certain material powers reciprocally penetrating each other, and pervading a space larger than that comprised within the orbit of Neptune. We do not live upon, but within, the matter of which the earth is constituted, or rather within a mixture of all the solar and planetary matter belonging to our solar system. I cannot conceive that the sagacious author seriously intended to sanction any notion involving these conscquences. I shall assume, therefore, that, excepting the case of gravitation, his new idea of matter was intended to be restricted to those powers which display themselves within masses at insensible distances, and shall proceed to state the objections which seem to exist against the new idea as associated with those powers.

1783. Evidently the arguments of Farraday against the existence, in potassium and other masses of matter, of impenetrable atoms endowed with cohesion, chemical affinity, momentum, and gravitation, rest upon the inference that in metals there is nothing to perform the part of an electrical conductor besides continuous empty space. This illustrious philosopher has heretofore appeared to be disinclined to admit the existence of any matter devoid of ponderability! The main object of certain letters which I addressed to him was to prove that the phenomena of induction could not, as he had represented, be an "action" of ponderable atoms, but, on the contrary, must be considered as an affection of them consequent to