Star.
London, England, 1824-10-30 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.

SlR—The dispute carried on between the Abernethey-
ans, or Somatopsychonoologists, and the advocates for
materialism, affords a novel instance in the history of
medcal literature, of a physiological disquisition into the
nature of the vital principle ending in a vehement theo-
logical controversy, in which surgeons, physicians, and
divines have been engaged. This controversy, which
began in a Hunterian Oration, delivered at the London
College of Surgeons, has at length ended in a series of
Essay, on Body, Life, and Soul, in which very many
lof the scientific journals of Europe have taken a part.
It has divided the speculative philosophers of the Con-
tinent, as well as those of this country, into three par-
ties, who have received the following appeliations:-
1. The Somatopsychonoologists ; '2d. The Materialists ;
and, 3dly. The Mystics, who are by much the most
numerous and popular, and who defend the true Ca-
tholic, doctrine against the above innovators. Another
remarkable thing in this controversy is, that the Phy-
siologists have shewn a spirit of persecution at variance
with the general spirit of philosophy, while the Christian
party have shewn and recommended the most liberal
discussion, and abjured all persecution whatever. In an
anonymous pamphlet, written in defence of this latter
parry, we have the following passage, which follows
an elaborate defence of the Catholic religion:
" It is absurd, as well as profane, to connect the dog-
mas of religion with the demonstrations of anatomy.
" And while I am convinced that excellence of cha-
racter is to be promoteJ by inducing moral habits in
children, and exhibiting to them a virtuous example of
benevolence and rectitude, rather than by any precepts
of philosophy, I am desirous that physiology should
take its natural course, leaving abstract speculations
concerning the mind to the metaphysicians. The truth
or falsehood of any doctrine whatever, is a question
which will always be perplexed by superfluous argu-
ments, and can never be solved but by liberal and
unrestrained inquiry, devoid of the odious shackles
of persecution and literary censorship of any sort
whatever. Let all parties follow the excellent precept
of judging of the tree by its fruits ; if we have recourse
constantly to this mode of inferring good or evil principles
from good or evil conduct, we cannot much err. When
we consider what powerful motives to action are the
passions of hope and fear, to which Religion appeals,
compared with reason and intellect, which Philosophy
labours to instruct; when we consider also the different
kind of persons likely to be influenced by each of these
respective sources of instruction, I think we need be
under no apprehension that the cause of the faithful
will suffer from any branch of natural history, much
less can the theologian fear the encroachments of the
physiologist. But past and woeful experience must, one
would think, have taught all parties to abjure inter-
ference, and to make common cause against persecu-
tion; and as the advocates of no party can justly claim
infallibility, nor pretend to predict what may eventually
-turn out to be true, I would recommend them all to
inscribe on the tablet of memory, as an everlasting me-
morial of human frailty, that Galileo was imprisoned in
a dungeon, for instructing mankind in truths afterwards
eolfirmed by Newton r'