or His works, independently of Divine Revelation. As there are mysteries in the visible world which transcend our comprehension, we are not prepared to pronounce, with any degree of certainty, what is possible or impossible, in relation to the existence and operations of spirit. Men of science know many things to be true, which children consider as impossibilities; and the capacities of such men are less in comparison with higher intelligences, than children's minds are to theirs. If matter and spirit cannot be combined in a single being, it is a thing only known to God; and, therefore, we have no right to assume the opinion of its being an absurdity, unless it is said so to be by Him who knoweth all things. To think of deciding on a point of this nature by our feeble reason, is surely more than wild. It is like an attempt to span the heavens, or to comprehend the ocean in the hollow of our hand! The specious reasoning of the philosophic Priestley, on this subject, is of no more value than the opinion of the weakest man on earth. If we had nothing to guide us in this case, but the mere light of nature, his arguments might de-. serve some attention. With all the plausibility of such arguments, that philosophy is denied by many, on the ground of abstract reasoning. But no one can prove the impossibility of a thing which is made absolutely certain That this is the case in relation to the immateriality of the soul, will be made, we hope, to appear.

2. The theory of man's materiality, is discarded by men whose science is not inferior to that of Dr. Joseph Priestley. Many distinguished philosophers, ancient and modern, have vindicated, on the ground of reason, the separate existence and immortality of the soul. When the Doctor thought that he had established the position, that matter may be so modified as to perform all the operations of mind, he draws the conclusion, that the addition of an im

material spirit would be an unnecessary appendage; that sound philosophy forbids the assigning of more causes than are necessary to produce an effect. But his grand position, that matter may be so modified as to perform the operations of mind, is denied; and he has no right to take a thing for granted, that requires proof. Unless the premises are established, the conclusions arising from them have no weight. The entire materiality of man, would be a proof of his complete mortality, and evince the impossibility of his having any consciousness after death. But if the soul is immaterial and distinct from the body, then he may, in that part of his nature, exist in a separate state. Believers in the immortality of the soul, universally consider it as a thing wholly distinct from matter.

In fact, if mental operations are nothing but the result of material organization, it will go far in proving that no spirits exist in the universe. On that principle, God Himself must be a material Being; and that would establish at once the Atheistical doctrine, that God is every thing, and every thing is God. This ground, therefore, must be taken in the argument, that matter, in whatever way it may be modified, cannot perform the operations of an intelligent being. No; reason is a power too vast and sublime, to have no other essence but corporality! Mere earth, however curiously modified it might be, could never soar above its own nature and origin; but the soul of man thirsts after immortality. Some of the learned heathen have reasoned admirably on the point in question; and have defended, with consummate ability, the immortality of the human mind. This was the case of the learned and penetrating Plato. When the celebrated Cato was just about to commit the detestable act of suicide, the historic page says, that he held Plato's philosophy in the one hand, and the fatal sword in the other. Looking at the

sword, he says, "This will put an end to my life;" but viewing the book, he cries, "That assures me that I shall never die!" He then pronounced, with emphasis, “It must be so, Plato, thou reasonest well; else, why this pleasing hope, this fond desire, this longing after immortality?" Many scholars, more acute, more deeply versed in science, than Dr. Priestley, have opposed the theory of the soul's materiality; and have defended the opposite hypothesis, with arguments more numerous and powerful than he has adduced in favor of his philosophy. From these considerations we may conclude, that the thing is not only possible, but highly probable, on the mere ground of reason. Even on philosophical principles, we may entertain more elevated views of man, than that of being only a material and mortal creature. If that were really true, we might, with great propriety, hesitate concerning his existing any more after death. The doctrine of materialism is such a near approximation to Atheism, that it cannot be viewed without the deepest horror. The Anti-Trinitarians say, indeed, that there will be a resurrection; but another sect may soon arise in that school, informing the world, that the passages which support that doctrine are all interpolations and corrupt readings, and form no part of the original Scriptures. In doing so, they will not be more heretical in respect to them, than they themselves are now in relation

to us.

3. The general opinion of mankind has always been in opposition to the materiality and consequent mortality of man. Selecting that part of men who have enjoyed the Scriptures, the principle in question has not been believed by one of a hundred. There was a small sect among the Jews, who said, "There is no resurrection, neither angels nor spirits ;" and in the Christian church, there have, in various ages, been a few of such an infidel turn of thinking.

It must be allowed, we grant, that truth is not always on the side of the multitude; but a point which few have ever believed, should be thoroughly examined before it is adopted as an article of our creed. There is a strong bias in the minds of some people, to adopt any theory that is new, when exhibited by a popular character; and many others are highly tenacious of doctrines which have antiquity in their favor. These extremes are equally dangerous; and to run into either of them, is an indication of a weak and injudicious mind.

But with regard to the overwhelming number who have always been in the belief of the soul's immortality, it is proper to remark, that they have not been the rabble, the unthinking, the uninformed, nor the vicious. If such people have believed the doctrine, it has been through the influence of the enlightened and virtuous. Yes; those who have given weight and currency to this belief, in general, have been men who have made religion their serious object; men, whose character, candor, learning, natural abilities, patient investigation, and apparent piety, have entitled them to respect; and, therefore, their opinions claim our deference. Not to admit this fact as being an argument in favor of the point in question, is an evidence of a mind wedded to its own notions.

The heathen world, in general, have always had some crude ideas of this doctrine. But being destitute of the Scriptures, they have never had any knowledge of the resurrection; yet they have had some expectations of future rewards and punishments; and that is a manifestation of their belief in the immateriality and incorruptibility of the soul. If the principle is as contrary to Scripture and reason, as Dr. Priestley pretends, how came it to prevail over all the earth, and in all ages?"

The immortality of the soul, and the being of God,

M M

were, undoubtedly, revealed to man at the creation; and some faint impressions of these things have remained on their minds, through all the past generations. When such impressions are once made, they are not very easily removed.

Dr. Priestley considers it as an argument in his favor,. that the ancients, in speaking of the soul as being distinct from the body, have, notwithstanding, always spoken of it as being, in some sense, a material substance. This, undoubtedly, arose from their intimate acquaintance with matter, and the necessary obscurity of their ideas, in relation to the nature, or essence of a spirit. In condescention to our senses, God speaks of Himself in the Scriptures, as if He were a material Being. He is said to have hands, eyes, ears, and such properties about Him, as would, in some measure, convey the idea of corporality. But to suppose that He is not a pure and immaterial Essence, would argue the highest degree of mental imbecility.

When Dr. Priestly speaks of spirit, he resolves it into mere matter, and when he treats on matter, it all appears to be resolved into that which is merely ideal. In one word, his whole system seems to be scepticism. It must be allowed, that our knowledge of the real essence, either of matter or spirit, is very obscure; but from their separate properties, we may infer their existence, and widely different natures.

I am willing to admit, however, that all the evidence that has been mentioned in favor of the separate existence of the soul, and its immortality, is wholly insufficient to settle the question. But there is certainly as much of that kind of evidence to which Dr. Priestly resorts, against him, as there is in his favor; and many able reasoners would say, much more. He has, indeed, resorted to the Scriptures, for the defence and illustration of his principles. But it

1