know, by the most complete of all evidence, namely, consciousness of their energies; and it is also clear, that such powers, as we experience in ourselves, cannot exist but in a subject possessed of will and understanding. The main question, therefore, is, whether the powers of consciousness, understanding, and will, can result from the particular organization of a system of matter? If they can, we have no reason to attribute them in man to any other source. If these powers appear necessarily to require an immaterial principle for their support, it will probably be granted that an immaterial principle is the source of every power, and every motion in the universe; and the doctrine of mind, in the strictest sense of the word, will be sufficiently established.

Now it has been repeatedly shown by some of the ablest philosophers and metaphysicians, that the complex nature, the divisibility and the inertness of matter, are totally inconsistent with perception, thought, consciousness, spontaneous motion, and all the other active and simple powers, which evidently distinguish our mental part; that all the possible arrangements, combinations, and modifications of figure and motion, can generate nothing but figure and motion, and that it is just as credible that the union of a taste and colour shall produce a sound, as that any thing so totally remote from all resemblance to the properties of body, as intelligence plainly is, should result from the mechanical opera➡ tions of any corporeal system, however curiously contrived, disposed, or organized.

Arguments of this kind, if unfolded and pursued to their full extent, would afford very satisfac

tory proofs of an incorporeal percipient. But we forbear wandering further into such discussions, because they would not only bewilder us in an endless labyrinth of minute and abstruse investigation, but because, after all, it might be said, that although perception and reflection cannot, perhaps, be the natural result of mere matter and motion, yet God certainly may, if he thinks fit, supernaturally annex them to a system of organized matter, such as the medullary substance of the brain probably is.*

Now it would undoubtedly be presumptuous in man to declare what is, or is not, possible for his Creator to do, and to prescribe bounds to his almighty power; but thus much we may be allowed to say, that omnipotence itself cannot work a contradiction; and to our weak apprehensions, it has very much the appearance of a contradiction, to ingraft self-motion, activity, intelligence, volition, consciousness, simplicity, and indivisibility, on a dead clod of earth; on a substance, which, if we may credit our senses, or the sentiments of the most eminent philosophers, is a solid, extended, compound, divisible mass, incapable of changing its own state, and of making resistance to motion. For let matter be never so much refined and subtilized, still it must retain its essential characteristic properties, and it is

Whoever wishes to see the theory of materialism completely demolished, would do well to read a valuable paper of Dr. Fer riars, inserted in "Memoirs of Lit. and Phil. Society of Manchester," vol. 4th, in which he proves by evidence apparently complete and indisputable, that every part of the brain has been injured without affecting the act of thought. This paper is too long for transcription, and it would be injured by an abridg

ment.

not very credible that it should possess two different sorts of properties, equally essential, and diametrically opposite to each other. Of such an union as this, we have no instance in nature, nor is there any analogy that can lead us to expect it, or think it possible. Nothing less, one should think, could induce any one to adopt so harsh a conclusion, than the clearest and most decisive evidence, that there cannot possibly be any such thing as an immaterial substance. But so far is this from being capable of proof, that the actual existence of such substances is a truth which rests on the highest authority, and is supported by arguments which have never yet been overthrown.

The very nature, then, of the human soul itself, as far as we are capable of comprehending it, gives us the strongest ground to believe that it is immortal. It is true the nature, or mere existence both of matter and mind, depends wholly upon the will of God, but we cannot suppose him to be willing to-day, the reverse of what he willed yesterday, because we know that all his volitions are directed by unerring wisdom.

We have likewise the evidence of experience, that nothing is ever suffered to perish but particular systems, which perish only as systems by a decomposition of their parts. The body itself is only reduced to a different state of existence. It loses life and motion, and its organized mechanism is broken in pieces, but its component, elementary materials still remain; but a being which, like the soul, has no parts, can suffer no decomposition, and therefore if it perish, it must perish by annihilation. But of annihi

lation there has not been hitherto a single instance, nor can we look for a single instance, without supposing the volitions of God to partake of that unsteadiness, which is characteristic of man. Corporeal systems, when they have served their purpose, are, indeed, reduced into their component parts; but the matter of which they were composed, so far from being lost, becomes the matter of other systems in endless succession. Analogy, therefore, leads us to conclude that when the human body is dissolved, the immaterial principle, by which it was animated, continues to think and act, either in a state of separation from the body, or in some material vehicle to which it is intimately united, and which goes off with it, at death.* When we consider the different states through which that living and thinking individual which each man calls himself, goes, from the mo→ ment that it first animates an embryo in the womb, to the dissolution of the man of fourscore; and when we reflect likewise on the wisdom and immutability of God, together with the various dissolutions of corporeal systems, in which we know that a single atom of matter has never been lost-the presumption

From what is known of the nature and energies of the human soul, some writers have been induced to believe, that, without some kind of body, by which to act as by an instrument, all the powers of the soul would continue dormant. Such was the opinion of Mr. Wollaston, and Dr. Hartley. It was likewise the opinion of Cudworth and Locke, who held that the Supreme Being alone is the only mind separated fronı matter, and it is an opinion which even Dr. Clarke, one of the ablest advocates for immaterialism, would not venture positively to deny. Without expressing ourselves decidedly upon the subject, we may be permitted to remark, that our not seeing it go off at death, is no ar gument against its existence, since many things known to be corporeal, are to us invisible, particularly the air, which is so extremely forcible; and the magnetic and electrical effluvia.

is certainly strong, that the soul shall survive the dissolution of the body.

But when we take into consideration the moral attributes of God, his justice and goodness, together with the unequal distribution of happiness in the present world, this presumption from analogy amounts to a complete moral proof, that there shall be a future state of rewards and punishments. And if we estimate the duration of these, by the benevolence and justice of Him by whom they are to be conferred and awarded, we cannot imagine them shorter than eternity.

2dly. In proceeding to a brief consideration of the arguments which are suggested by the perfections of the Supreme Being, and the powers and circumstances of man, we presume none of our readers will expect from us a formal proof of the existence of the Deity. The uninformed part of them may, however, rest satisfied that there is no one truth in the whole compass of morals, which is capable of a stricter demonstration. But the substance or essence of this self-existent, all-powerful, infinitely wise, and perfectly good Being, is, to man, wholly incomprehensible. That it is not matter may be demonstrated by the same process of argumentation, by which it can be proved to exist; but what it is we know not, and it would be impious presumption to inquire. It is sufficient for all the purposes of religion, and our present argument, to know that God is somehow or other present, to every part of his works, and that existence, and every possible perfection, is essential to Him. A scientific view of the works of creation clearly evince the goodness, holiness, and justice of