istakenly ascribed
to the power itself, as properties _per se_. Are we warranted in
calling in an independent agent to account for phenomena which are
governed in their appearances by every different _surface_ in
connexion with which they are exhibited, and which can be produced
only in certain classes of _surfaces_ in fixed relations to other
_surfaces_? Can the cause of phenomena, of which we have no knowledge
but in the antagonist relations of _surfaces_ called conducting and
non-conducting, be philosophically considered but as _the mere effect_
of those nicely-adjusted relations? Can that power be said to be
distinct from the inherent properties of various matter, which can
never be exhibited except in contrast, as _plus_ on one surface, and
_minus_ in another, or, if positive on A. necessarily and
simultaneously negative on B.? Are the phenomena called #LIGHT#,
#HEAT#, #GRAVITATION#, #COHESION#, #ELECTRICITY#, #GALVANISM#, and
#MAGNETISM#, produced by different powers of nature, or by the action
of one power on different bodies, or by the action of different bodies
on one active power? Do not the phenomena appear constantly to
accompany the same bodies, and are they not therefore occasioned by
the qualities of the bodies? May not the different qualities of bodies
be sufficient to explain the phenomena on the hypothesis of one active
power? Is it necessary that the phenomena should be confined to
particular bodies, if there are as many active fluids as phenomena? Is
not the exact limitation of each set of phenomena to particular bodies
conclusive evidence that the phenomena grow out of some antagonist
qualities of those bodies? In fine, do not the varying powers
calculated to produce the phenomena, consist of the varying qualities
of bodies, and the varying circumstances in which they are placed in
regard to each other; and may not the active power be fixed and always
the same? Does not this conclusion best accord with the simplicity of
nature? Is it probable that two active powers could be co-existent?
May not the elasticity of a universal medium account for most of the
intricate phenomena of bodies? May not motion grow out of the vacuum
between the atoms of that universal medium? May there not be set
within set, each necessary to the motion of the other, till we
approximate a plenum? May not certain varieties of these involved
series of atoms constitute the several media which produce the several
phenomena of matt