composed._ That _no_ two bodies are absolutely alike, is a simple corollary from all that has been here said. Electricity, therefore, existing always, is _developed_ whenever _any_ bodies, but _manifested_ only when bodies of appreciable difference, are brought into approximation. To electricity—so, for the present, continuing to call it—we _may_ not be wrong in referring the various physical appearances of light, heat and magnetism; but far less shall we be liable to err in attributing to this strictly spiritual principle the more important phænomena of vitality, consciousness and _Thought_. On this topic, however, I need pause _here_ merely to suggest that these phænomena, whether observed generally or in detail, seem to proceed _at least in the ratio of the heterogeneous_. Discarding now the two equivocal terms, “gravitation” and “electricity,” let us adopt the more definite expressions, “_attraction_” and “_repulsion_.” The former is the body; the latter the soul: the one is the material; the other the spiritual, principle of the Universe. _No other principles exist._ _All_ phænomena are referable to one, or to the other, or to both combined. So rigorously is this the case—so thoroughly demonstrable is it that attraction and repulsion are the _sole_ properties through which we perceive the Universe—in other words, by which Matter is manifested to Mind—that, for all merely argumentative purposes, we are fully justified in assuming that matter _exists_ only as attraction and repulsion—that attraction and repulsion _are_ matter:—there being no conceivable case in which we may not employ the term “matter” and the terms “attraction” and “repulsion,” taken together, as equivalent, and therefore convertible, expressions in Logic. I said, just now, that what I have described as the tendency of the diffused atoms to return into their original unity, would be understood as the principle of the Newtonian law of gravity: and, in fact, there can be little difficulty in such an understanding, if we look at the Newtonian gravity in a merely general view, as a force impelling matter to seek matter; that is to say, when we pay no attention to the known _modus operandi_ of the Newtonian force. The general coincidence satisfies us; but, upon looking closely, we see, in detail, much that appears _in_coincident, and much in regard to which no coincidence, at least, is established. For example; the Newtonian gravity, when we think of it in certain moods, does _not_ seem to be a tendency to _oneness_ at all, but rather a tendency of all bodies in all directions—a phrase apparently expressive of a tendency to diffusion. Here, then, is an _in_coincidence. Again; when we reflect on the mathematical _law_ governing the Newtonian tendency, we see clearly that no coincidence has been made good, in respect of the _modus operandi_, at least, between gravitation as known to exist and that seemingly simple and direct tendency which I have assumed.