the medical student, and the chief information he has to seek lies concealed where the probe or dissecting knife can alone disclose it. Who, for instance, would consent to the amputation of a leg, or to be cut for the stone, by one who, however skilful or ingenious he might on all hands be allowed to be, had never had the opportunity of making himself thoroughly acquainted with all the minutiae belonging to the parts by actual operation on a real subject? And if a single life be saved by each living surgeon in consequence solely of his practical and experimental skill in operating upon dead bodies, the value of the purchase is inestimable and worth any sacrifice to attain. Unfortunately, though this principle will be generally admitted, causes have, from time immemorial, been operating to counteract its beneficial tendency, and have placed our judgment and feelings in irreconcileable opposition. Our public journals are daily exhibiting the absurd anomaly of magistrates being called upon to punish what they must inwardly acknowledge to be for the public good; and our anxiety for the welfare of the living is absorbed in horror for the violation of the rites of the dead. How, then, can these contradictions be made to harmonize? If the present laws are made more severe, we shall only increase the difficulty of procuring subjects without decreasing the demand; and if all restraint is abandoned by our Legislature, as well may we at once decline all our churchyard burials, for there will be no security whatever for our dearest relatives retaining their cold and silent beds for even a single night after interment. If we place our dependence upon the supply which would be afforded by criminals who may be placed by execution in the hands of the Sheriff, how totally inadequate would be this supply! If every county furnished two cases annually, the number would be about 100 to supply perhaps not fewer than 12,000 students, rating the male population of England at 6,000,000, and one surgeon to every 500. Supposing, then, that we resort (as has been so frequently hinted) to the Hospitals and Poor-houses, and use all the unclaimed bodies for the purpose required, this may be a reasonable mode of proceeding; for, no kindred feelings being injured, of course no complaints would be made. But, without pretending to know the secrets of the "charnel house" in the slightest degree, I apprehend that this source is already made available to its full extent, and the supply found far inadequate to the demand. Else, why do our resurrectionists ply their calling under such universal execration? The late disclosures at Liverpool shew an extent of dealing far beyond what the public had previously conceived; and no doubt many a funeral service is pronounced over a coffin laden with ballast, which never teemed with animal life; thus carrying on a farcical mockery in the very face of Heaven. In France, I am told, the average price of a subject is about ten shillings; in England it is six or eight pounds, which proves that with us the supply is still attended with much difficulty. As the last resource, the country is called upon to petition the Legislature to "do something;" but no one (as far as my information extends) ventures to hint what that something should be. If it should be to authorize Hospital Committees and Overseers to surrender their dead promiscuously into the bands of the faculty, this I conceive would be an outrageous violation of the common feelings of humanity which the country would not and ought not to endure. The prejudices of the poor are as strong, and in this case would be as delicate, as those of the rich, and deserve as much protection. However Providence may permit inequalities in rank and comforts during life, they cease at its termination, and those humiliating agents, the worms, know of no distinction of persons between the prince and the pauper. "Here all are equal; now thy case is mine; Under these apparently insurmountable difficulties, there appears to me one, and only one, mode of proceeding which would effectually obviate them, and that is, to encourage in all classes, and without any invidious distinction, the voluntary surrender of each individual, as a personal request or injunction to his family or executors, consigning his remains for dissection on such conditions as he himself may dictate. I have long entertained this opinion, and the late perusal of the Memoirs of Major Cartwright has removed all my hesitation on the subject. A paper in his own hand-writing was found, but not till after his interment, directing that his body should be given to some responsible person for dissection, and then returned to his family for interment. I have passed the book from my hands and cannot recollect his expressions, but his ideas are plainly these-that as his mind had been occupied during his long-continued life in endeavouring to serve and benefit mankind, so it was his wish that his body to the last moment should be rendered subservient to the same end. The more I reflect on this determination the more I feel convinced of its propriety, and see no sufficient reason why the sentiment may not become general and even popular. And why should it not? The horror so generally entertained in former times at having bodies opened before interment for the advancement of science, has been slowly but progressively subsiding, so that now families or individuals of the most exquisite sensibilities can consent to and even approve the practice. Where, then, is the agonizing difference between opening a corpse and a partial dissection? The friends of the deceased may easily stipulate how far the operation shall proceed, and, the practice becoming general, the operators would be satisfied with a limited authority, because of the facility of obtaining other subjects. Two modes present themselves for consideration-first, that the body be placed under the responsibility of a respectable practitioner, to be removed, say on the second evening after the decease, to some public rooms appointed for the purpose, and returned on the evening of the third day for interment, with as little parade or bustle as possible, and all entirely at the cost and trouble of the operators; or, second, that the operation should take place in the house where the death occurred; and the latter appears decidedly, on due consideration, to have the preference. To the first, the serious objections present themselves of the unavoidable display in moving the bodies to and fro-the reluctance at surrendering them into other hands, whatever conditions may be stipulated-and the insecurity there would be for the identity of the body returned, when so disfigured as not to be recognized by its relatives or friends. These objections would be entirely obviated on the second plan, and pleasanter arrangements made without any difficulty. Suppose the number of operators to be limited to two persons of established reputation and practice, and four pupils, with admission to any other persons the family might think well to appoint; and any conditions would be willingly accepted to prevent the body being mutilated or the limbs dissevered so as to excite any unnecessary pain or disgust in the minds of the relatives. It is almost needless to mention the necessity of avoiding, in every possible degree, any cause of annoyance to the feelings or comforts of the family. Every attention to decorum and quietness should be scrupulously given, and all implements provided by the operators, with the exception perhaps of a few basins with warm or cold water, and all flutter removed without any dependence on the inmates of the scene of action. With such precautions, how few objections would remain-or rather, what numberless advantages would follow! The present disgusting and detestable traffic would be annihilated-the faculty would be relieved from the offensive, humiliating and dangerous practice of operating on loathsome and putrid carcases the dread so naturally felt by many at the idea of being interred while the possibility of life remained, would cease to exist-and we might all rest in full assurance that, having once gone through the process of dissection in any degree, our bodies would never be wantonly disturbed, either for profit or experiment, but suffered in all the solemnity of peace to await the final disposal of our Maker. On these conditions, why should we hesitate? The resurrection of the body, so as to preserve its identity, is almost an universal expectation: it is natural, then, to wish for its unmutilated and safe deposit; and the feeling expressed by our unrivalled bard finds a vibrating chord in every breast"Blest be the man who spares these stones, But curst be he that moves my bones." That I may not incur the charge (too generally applicable to our public teachers, Heaven knows!) of recommending to others what I do not perform myself, I hereby declare it to be my wish that, at my decease, my family should act on this my recommendation. Circumstances may possibly occur, which I cannot foresee, that would render it exceedingly inconvenient, and in such case improper. Something must always be left to their discretion; it is enough that I follow the example of one of the most zealous, disinterested and upright of men, and request that, as they regard my memory and good will, they will endeavour to comply with my intentions. This proviso must, however, be understood, that the request must come from the intended operators themselves, and not that the application should be made to them by my friends. Let, then, the faculty themselves, if they approve the plan, voluntarily come forward and ensure its success by the surrender of their own persons when the hand of death shall have arrested their useful labours, and consigned them to "that bourne whence no traveller returns," to confer farther benefits on their fellow-men. JAMES LUCKCOCK. SONNET. "ANTI-SUPERNATURALISM." MILD Teacher! thou that once to earth brought down Is it of THEE they say that thou didst wear That Thou, deceiving or deceiv'd the while, E. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOMAS AMORY, ESQ., AND REV. SIR, To the Editor of the Monthly Repository. I SEND you a somewhat curious correspondence between the late Thomas Amory, Esq., (the eccentric author of the Life of John Buncle, Esq., &c.,) : and my father. It is stated in the Life of the latter, annexed to Mr. Wood's Funeral Sermon, that frequent communications passed between them, several of which were afterwards made by my father the foundation of articles of great value in the early volumes of the Theological Repository. The following are the only ones which I can just now lay my hands on; and if you should think them proper for insertion in your New Series, they are quite at your service. I am, with every good wish for the success of your undertaking, Newcastle, Nov. 28, 1826. SIR, No. I. WILLIAM TURNER. I return you three of the things you favoured me with a sight of; the tracts, the Livery-Servant, and the Doctor's Sermon: but still I want Bowman on the Fig-Tree. You shall have the Layman's Observations on Oxford and Gloucester, and the Conversion of a Deist, as soon as I have done with them; and, in the mean time, I observe in general, that the Quaker is out in some things, and Mr. Harwood is greatly mistaken in the account he gives of Collins, Morgan and Bolingbroke, I may add Chubb: I knew the four men well. I do not believe Harwood ever saw them. Three of them were ever men of as strict morality as ever lived and if the Noble Viscount was once extremely wicked, in his younger days, he was an excellent man at last in morals. It is very extraordinary, that of all the writers against him, there is not one of them understood him; or, that had the soul to take notice, that in his works there is one of the most beautiful moral pieces was ever written. This is concealed from the public by the Answerers general, who write more like Turks than Christians, as the saying is: Warburton's book, in particular, looks as if it came from the hand of the Devil. Morgan is sadly misrepresented: it was extreme pain made him take opium and brandy sometimes: and it is not true that Collins received the Sacrament now and then for emolument sake. He was a constant communicant, for the last twenty years of his life, in the Church of England. He was remarkably punctual at the Supper every month. He never missed: and if the Scheme and Grounds of this great man are the strongest pieces against Christianity that have been written, they were designed, not for the people, but for the most learned Christian divines; to solve the difficulties which occurred to him in reading the Bible; to satisfy his mind in the first place; and, in the next, by a removal of such difficulties, to bring Turks, Jews and Infidels into the Church: and, till all hard things are made easy, the Gentiles will not come in. There are many things which yet want explication. I could wish Mr. Turner was obliged to give me all the satisfaction I require in various particulars, and then I should begin at the first leaf in the Old Testament, and be asking him questions till I came to the last of the New. Tell me, dear Sir, I would say, what is meant by Eden, the two trees, the apple and the serpent; can you make it a rational relation in a literal sense? * Probably Lowman's on the Logos, &c. W. T. Let me hear you. Or is it hieroglyphic and allegory-one thing said, another meant as the writer was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians? And if so, lend me your key. [The second question relates to the sun standing still in the days of Joshua. Both the question and Mr. Turner's answer are inserted in the Theological Repository, Vol. I. pp. 103, &c.] 3dly. Who is Baal-zebub, the God of Ekron? 2 Kings i. 2. What is the meaning of the name; and why do the Evangelists give this name to Satan? Why should one Devil go by the name of an idol-God-a real being be equipt with the title of an imaginary being- -a nothing? Does it not look a little as if there was no such real being; and Satan mean no more than the adversary, whether it be passions, persecutions, or the inimicus homo in various forms? 5thly. "Thy navel is like a round goblet," &c. Cant. vii. 2. Can this be, as the Church affirms, the Holy Ghost's description of a baptism and Lord's Supper, that were to be many ages after? Stuff. What does Mr. Turner I remain, Sir, your assured humble servant, think? Wednesday Morning, Sept. 21, 68. T. A. P. S. I must not forget to ask you, in relation to my five questions, if you think I am right in adhering to the following proposition in every inquiry I make relative to revelation: A Proposition. By taking an objection out of the hands of infidelity, we do an honour to the truth of God, by rendering it plain, rational and intelligible. The more rational and intelligible every text of Scripture is explained to be, it must carry with it so much the more stamp of divine authority: for what seems contradiction and nonsense can never come from Supreme Reason, from Divine Wisdom and Goodness: nor can the unintelligible have any more relation to rationals than laughter has to iron. No. II. I thank you, good Sir, for the anecdotes you give me concerning Morgan, Collins and Bolingbroke. From reading Shaftesbury's preface to the volume of Whichcote's Sermons which he published, and also his Letter to a Student, I am led to think that he wrote the passages in the Characteristics which seem to bear hard upon Christianity, with like views as those to which you ascribe Collins's pieces, the Scheme and the Grounds; and also to engage Christians to examine their several religious systems more carefully, and clear away the rubbish with which they had encumbered them: and, particularly, to make them ashamed of the artifices, by which the priests of all communions had metamorphosed the simple and pure religion of Jesus into an ecclesiastical polity, a kingdom of this world. Shaftesbury certainly had just and noble sentiments of the Christian institution, and highly reverenced it, on which account he had no patience with whatever he thought disgraced it. But while he employed the incision-knife of wit very freely on the wens and warts, the keen edge sometimes cut deeper than, perhaps, himself could have wished in the cool hour of sober reflection. But who could have the heart to stifle the bright offspring of genius? A parent's heart must needs feel strong reluctance against such a parricide. A fine combination of ideas may surely be pardoned for a little perverseness and mischief. But I am waiting with impatience for the appearance of the honest John Buncle, Esqr.'s Notes on Man, &c., from whence I expect much entertainment and instruction. Pardon me, Sir, if I say that I am really humbled, when you do me the too great honour of proposing Scripture difficulties for my solution, conscious, as |