Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

which is the only active part, and its thin, cordy, fibrous and shining extremities or tendons: the only purposes of the last are to fix the muscles to the moveable part in a concentrated form, in consequence of which a greater power is permitted to act, as manual labour is assisted by ropes, especially in moving very heavy bodies, hence they are principally employed in implanting muscles upon bones, and are not discoverable in the heart, stomach and intestines.

Muscles, no doubt, are the organs of motion in all animals, although we cannot always detect their peculiar structure in some of the minuter organs, and still less in the smaller animals. The whole fleshy portion of the human body consists of muscles, that is of distinct fleshy bundles, whose parts, though apparently in contact, are still separate, sliding over each other, in their alternate contractions and elongations, and having both ends fixed into the parts which they are intended to move.

Muscles are of different shapes and sizes, according to the degree of force required of them, and the form of the part on which they are situated: those on the body are usually flat and broad, while the muscles of the extremities are of a long, round figure with tendinous ends. Each muscle performs its action by contracting both ends towards the centre, when one of these ends is a fixed point, the other to which the bone is united is in every movement necessarily drawn towards it, and thus by the co-operation of many muscles, the motion of the limb, and even of the whole body is effected the instant any motion is accomplished, the muscles, which performed it, relax, and allow their ends to elongate to their former position.

:

It may be noticed here, that the end of the muscle, which forms its more fixed point, is called its origin; while the other end which is fastened to the bone to be moved is termed its insertion-moreover, that the shape and turn of the part depend chiefly upon the size and proportions of the muscles which are situated thereon. Thus the shape of the human body in different persons being extremely different depends altogether upon the magnitude of the muscular parts. Hence also many of them taper into

long slender tendons, where a decrease of size is necessary and beautiful, as at the small of the leg, while others swell out in symmetrical proportion.

In describing the muscles of different parts of the body we shall be very brief, yet the description cannot consistently be wholly omitted. Dr. Keil has reckoned in the human body 446 muscles which may be dissected and described by anatomists, and he himself hath assigned an use to every one of the number. Galen, who wrote long before Keil, says, there are ten things to be attended to in each particular muscle, viz. its figure-magnitude-fulcrum-point of actioncollocation with respect to its two ends-the upper and lower surfacethe position of the whole muscle-and the introduction into it of nerves, arteries and veins. How are things, including so many adjustments as these several circumstances require, to be made; or when made, how could they have been combined without intelligence?

Muscles of the Head. The forehead is wrinkled and drawn upwards, and likewise the eye-brows, by a broad thin muscle which rises at the backpart of the skull, and covering the head, runs down the forehead to be inserted into the skin of the eye-brows. The eye-brows are drawn to each other and the skin of the forehead pulled down and made to wrinkle, as in frowning, by a pair of small muscles, which rise from the root of the nose, and are inserted into the inside of the eye-brows.

The ear is moved by eleven muscles, three move the whole: five give motion to particular parts, while the other three are internal to move the small bones situated within the

ear.

The eyelids are closed by one muscle and opened by another. The eyeballs, that is the eyes themselves, are carried through all their motions by six smail muscles to each. They arise from the bottom of the socket and are inserted into the outer coat of each eye-ball at different points. Four of these move the eye upwards and downwards, to the right and to the left, while the others give oblique directions to the eyes, at the same time protruding them: they all act in quick succession, and enable the

636 Natural Theology. No. X. Of the Posture of the Human Body.

ball of the eye to describe a complete circle.

In speaking of the muscles of the eyes, Dr. Paley exclaims, “how many things must go right for us to be an hour at ease! How many more to be vigorous and active! Yet vigour and activity are in a vast plurality of instances preserved in human bodies, notwithstanding that they depend upon so great a number of instruments of motion, and notwithstanding that the defect or disorder of a very small instrument, of a single pair, for instance, out of 446 muscles which are employed, may be attended with grievous inconvenience." "Hence," says the author of an old, but, in its day, excellent work, "with much compassion, as well as astonishment at the goodness of our Creator have I considered the sad state of a certain gentleman who, as to the rest, was in good health, but only wanted the use of the two little muscles, that serve to lift up the eye-lids, and so had almost lost the use of his sight, being obliged, so long as this defect lasted, to lift his eye-lids up with his hand. In general, how little do those who enjoy the perfect use of their organs, know the magnitude of the blessing, the variety of their obligation. They perceive a result without thinking of the multitude of concurrences which go to form it."

On this same subject Mr. Home, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1800, part i., has observed, that the most important and the most delicate actions are performed in the body by the smallest muscles; such, among others, are the muscles in the iris of the eye and the drum of the ear. These are but microscopic hairs, and must be magnified by glasses to be visible; yet they are real and effective muscles, and not only such, but among the grandest and most precious of our faculties: the sight and the hearing depend on their health and

action.

The nose is affected by several of the muscles of the face, but one only on each side is proper to it. This muscle straightens the nostrils, and corrugates the skin of the nose.

The mouth and lips are moved by nine pair of muscles, which arise from the contiguous bones of the face, and are inserted into the lips and angles of the mouth. It is from the ac

tion of these muscles on the mouth, that emotions of the mind are expressed, and the predominance of particular feelings in characters is indelibly stamped. The distortion of the features produced by palsy, is owing to the inaction of the muscles on one side, while those on the other contracting with their usual force, the mouth and other parts are drawn on one side.

The lower jaw has four pair of muscles for pulling it upwards, as in manducation or eating. Of these two pair act powerfully in pulling the jaw upwards, and may be felt swelling out in the flat part of the temple, and upon the back part of the cheek. The other two pair enable the jaw to move from side to side, the more effectually to grind the food. The lower jaw is pulled downwards by muscles which extend between it and the bone of the tongue, and which serve also to raise the throat upwards in the act deglutition.

But

The muscular motion of the jaw is mentioned by Dr. Paley as very curious and complicated. The problem is to pull the lower jaw down. The obvious method should seem to be to place a straight muscle from the chin to the breast, the contraction of which would open the mouth, and produce the motion required at once. the form of the neck forbids a muscle being laid in such a position, therefore some other method must be looked for, and the mechanism is as follows: A muscle rises on the side of the face above the insertion of the lower jaw and comes down, being in its progress changed into a round tendon. Now the tendon while it pursues a direction descending towards the jaw, must by its contrac tion pull the jaw up instead of down: to obviate this difficulty, the descending tendon, when it is low enough, is passed through a loop, or ring or pulley, and then made to ascend, and having thus changed its line of direction, it is inserted into the inner part of the chin; by this turn at the loop, the action of the muscle necessarily draws the jaw down. Thus the mouth is opened by means of this trochlea in a most wonderful manner.

Muscles of the Neck. The neck is covered with numerous and complicated muscles, the uses of which are to bend the head forwards, back

[ocr errors]

wards and sideways, to open the mouth by pulling the lower jaw downwards, and to move the parts concerned in deglutition and speaking. Hence we see a property of muscles which could only be the result of care; this is their being almost universally so disposed, as not to obstruct or interfere with one another's action. Now when we reflect upon the number of muscles, nearly 500, dispersed in the human body, how very contiguous they lie on each other, in layers sometimes over one another, crossing one another, sometimes embedded in one another, sometimes perforating one another, an arrangement which leaves to each its liberty, and full play, must necessarily have required meditation and counsel.

It has been asserted, but without reason, that wherever nature attempts to work two or more purposes by one instrument, she does both or all imperfectly. Surely this is not true of the tongue considered as an instrument of speech and of taste, or con

for dividing the pneumatic part from the mechanical, and for preventing one set of actions interfering with another. The mouth is a single machine, with its parts neither crowded nor confused, each at liberty for the end to be attained.

There is one case of this double office which the mouth could not perform alone, and that of the first necessity, viz., sucking and breathing: a route is therefore opened through the nose, which allows the breath to pass backward and forward, while the lips in the act of sucking are shut close upon the body from which the nutriment is drawn. The nose would, therefore, have been necessary, although it had not been the organ of smelling. The making it the seat of a sense was superadding a new use to a part already wanted; it was taking a wise advantage of an antecedent and a constitutional necessity. See Paley's Nat. Theol.

SIR,

London, Aug. 15, 1815, sidered as an instrument of speech,ssion in your valuable and highly AM happy to see that in the disof taste and of deglutition. Do not a vast majority of persons by the instrumentality of this one organ talk, and taste and swallow extremely well! The constant warmth and moisture of the tongue, the thinness of the skin, the papillæ upon its surface qualify this little organ for its office of tasting, as much as its inextricable multiplicity of fibres do for the rapid movements which are necessary to speech.

We may also consider the parts executing distinct offices within the cavity of the mouth teeth for cutting and grinding-muscles for carrying on the compound motion of the lower jaw by which the mill is worked; fountains of saliva, springing up in different parts of the cavity for the moistening of the food, while the mastication is going on-glands to feed these fountains-muscularcontractions to guide the aliment to the stomach, and for carrying it along the passage. The business of respiration and speech is also carried on within the same cavity, from which a pssage is opened to the lungs for the admission of the air only-muscles for modulating that air in its passage, with a variety, a compass and precision, of which no musical instrument is capable and lastly, we have a specific contrivance

useful Magazine upon the appropriation of the term Unitarian, the decision appears to be on the side of liberality; but it seems to me that if there be any meaning in words, the term cannot be made to relate in any way to a difference of opinion upon the pre-existence or person of Christ, any farther than as he is denied to be the Supreme God, which alone entitles a man to be called an Unitarian. If, Sir, some amongst us wish to be more particularly distinguished, I would propose they should call themselves by the name of Humanitarians

which would sufficiently express their peculiar opinions on the person of Christ, and if adopted and given in that spirit of love and meekuess which should be our object, would not lessen that liberality and goodwill which now so happily prevail amongst the professors of rational Christianity, though not all agreeing upon some points of minor importance.

I was concerned to see in your last number, p. 500) that a writer, who is capable of better things, should have condescended to use a word adopted by some from the Americans (lengthy) whilst he might have expressed himself with at least as much, or more, effect from the stores of our

638

Professor Zimmerman.—Mr. Frend on the Term Unitarian.

own noble and rich tongue; and I trust every man of true taste will discourage the introduction of such barbarismis.

SIR,

HE discussion on the term Uni

THE

tarian arose from an assertion in a defence of the Christians of this denomination, addressed by our good friend Mr. Belsham to the Lord Bishop of London. In this assertion he did not appear to me to do the Unitarians justice; and in consequence, 1 submitted through the medium of your valuable Repository my sentiments on this subject, for the use

May I venture to express a hope that the Lectures which have been carried on for the two last winters at St. Thomas's Chapel, in the Borough, will be again renewed, as I have every reason to believe they have been of great service, as well in inducing many to become inquirers as to build up and establish others in the princi-chiefly of our Unitarian brethren. ples of rational Christianity.

SIR,

Z.

Sept. 13, 1815. PERCEIVE, in your Obituary, p. 526, that you have been misled by an unaccountable error in the public prints. A Professor Zimmerman may have lately deceased, but the author of Solitude died at Hanover "the 7th of October, 1795, aged 67," as I learn from p. 147, of the interesting Life of Zimmerman, written by his friend Dr. Tissot.

The letter of your correspondent Mr. Yates (p. 270) appears upon the whole quite satisfactory. But are the inferences in the last paragraph but one correct? "We call our orthodox brethren Calvinists," without imputing to them the spirit of Calvin or a desire to imitate his conduct as a persecutor, while they receive his system arranged, as it appears in the Assembly's Catechism, with logical accuracy, horribly consistent, and wanting nothing but truth. But do "the terms Arian and Socinian," especially "as they have been in common use during the last two hundred years," as correctly describe those Unitarians who now believe or deny the pre-existence of Christ? The former, such as Dr. Price, profess not to enter into the views of Arius, respecting the rank or office of Christ in creation, while the latter oppose as inconsistent and unscriptural that worship of Christ which was so essential to the system of Socinus, that for the rejection of such worship he reviled, and as there is too much reason to fear, assisted to destroy, Davides. We certainly yet require some comprehensive terms to distinguish the species of the genus Unitarian.

CORRECTOR.

Had our worthy friend Mr. Belsham set out with a definition of his term, including in it the articles of disbelief coutained in his assertion respecting them, he would not have found in me any opposition to his right of defining just as he pleases. I should have been content with saying, such and such being a class of Unitarians according to Mr. Belsham's account of them, I desire not to be confounded with them, for I belong to a different class. Our good friend seems to have overlooked the distinction between assertion and definition. When he asserted, that Unitarians do not believe this, that and the other, he spoke of a class of men, equally known to the Bishop and himself, and who existed long before the birth of either. The term Unitarian was applied to them in reference to unity, not on account of certain opinions, in which they might agree or disagree with Christians in general. As to the grave authorities appealed to upon this occasion, I cannot but smile at our good friend's bringing forward such a prop to his opinion; as he knows full well that, if the gravity of human authority is to be the test of truth, we Unitarians must quit the field to our falsely-called orthodox brethren. But on this subject sat superque.

With respect to Arianism I must still differ with our excellent friend, though I am very glad to find that his "desire is to enlighten not to inflame." He has been unfortunate, however, for it has been communicated to me by more than one person, that several of our Arian brethren have been very much hurt at the injurious expressions used by our good friend, though they were much surprised, that a gentleman of his discriminating talents should confound persons together of very different principles, The language used to

wards the Arians is, to say the least of it, harsh and unwarranted, and I am sure that it is not countenanced by a great number of Unitarians, who not agreeing with them in the opinion of the pre-existence of Christ, are still far, very far, from confounding together all classes of the Arians, or supposing that any one of that denomination is to be confounded or associated nearly with the Trinitarian.

For my own part, I cannot consent to be thus separated from my Arian brethren, with many of whom I may probably be more united in religious sentiment than with our good friend Mr. Belsham. He agrees with me in the belief of the unity, and the disbelief of the pre-existence: but we differ in our opinions of the office and character of our Saviour. Many Arians agree with us both in the unity, and with me in this view of our Saviour's office and character. Consequently there are three points, in two of which I unite with Mr. Belsham, and in two with Arians. It is to me a greater satisfaction to find out points of union than of difference, and the Christian religion is intended to comprehend within its pale a large body, whom the didactic systems of too many Christians would

exclude from it.

A correspondent, who signs himself J. terms my supposition, that in imitation of Mr. Belsham other Unitarians may wish still farther to contract the pale of Unitarianism, absurd-and the enumeration of particulars invidious and uncharitable. With respect to the absurdity, I leave that to others to judge-the charge of envy and uncharitableness is of a more serious nature, and I protest I do not see on what it is founded. The particulars I enumerated are opinions, held by several persons, for whom I entertain very great respect. They are readers of your Repository, and will see only, that I scized the opportunity of expressing that publicly, which they have frequently heard from me in private; namely, that too much stress is laid on certain opinions, on which there is great room for mutual difference and mutual concessions. Whatever Mr. J. may think, these points have not unfrequently been chatted over without the least breach of friendship, or the least idea of envy or uncharitableness being in

the mind of any of the party then engaged in social intercourse. After the imputation of such qualities to me, surely he ought not to think himself entitled to question me: for of what consequence is the opinion of a person, who professes to be a Christian, and yet is invidious and uncharitable? I remain, &c.

W. FREND.

Mr. Asplund's Second Reply to Pastor on the Term Unitarian. Hackney Road, Oct. 23, 1815. DASTOR begins to breathe an an

Pry spirit. The question be

tween him and me might surely be discussed without any impeachment of understanding or insinuation of disingenuousness or invidious appeal to honour' on either side. I cannot help suspecting that Pastor would not have signed his proper name to some expressions of his last (pp. 556–558).

My quotation (p. 479–483) was long,' but Pastor's answer to the paper which contained it may possibly convince some readers that it was not irrelevant.' It appeared to me that it might be of some little use in the controversy now carrying on in the Monthly Repository concerning the term Unitarian; and although much of it relates to the term Socinian,' I could not consider that part as foreign from the present discussion, because I knew that such writers as Pastor who objected to the term Unitarian would continue that of Sucinian.' This writer, indeed, at the outset disclaims the use of this term, but before he concludes declares himself pretty nearly reconciled to it; on what grounds, shall be presently seen.

to

What is it Pastor complains of? That a term is taken by those to whom it does not belong? No, but that “Socinians" use a term which belongs to them, but which belongs also others. Strange complaint! it might be set up on both sides, and thus a term acknowledged to have an important meaning, be put under proscription.

But by taking to ourselves the term Unitarian we intimate that it is exclusively ours: Far from it; in the 'long' quotation which I gave from a publication which Pastor quoted from memory, I for one take pains to shew that the appellation has a Catholic and not a partial or exclusive

« VorigeDoorgaan »