[130] "Tout est toujours dans l'ordre relativement a la Nature, ou tous les etres ne font que suivre les loix qui leur sont imposees. Il est entre _dans son plans_ que de certaines terres produiroient des fruits delicieux, tandis que d'autres ne fourniroient que des epines, des vegetaux dangereux. _Elle a volu_ que quelques societes produise des sages," &c.--Vol. I. 265, also 267.

[131] "Systeme de la Nature," II. 102.

[132] M. CROUSSE, "Des Principes," Paris, 1846, pp. 81, 93: "Pour qui sait voir, le Monde sent, se ment, parle, et pense."

[133] "The Purpose of Existence," pp. 85, 89. London, 1850.

[134] "Letters on the Laws of Man's Nature and Development." By H. G.

ATKINSON and HARRIET MARTINEAU. London, 1852.

[135] MR. MORELL, "History of Philosophy," II. 71.

[136] SIR WM. HAMILTON'S Edition of DR. REID'S "Works," p. 129.

[137] MR. MORELL, "History of Philosophy," II. 127. M. MARET, "Essai sur le Pantheisme," pp. 129, 133, 143, 192, 276. Ibid., "Theodicee," pp. 5, 123, 192, 199.

[138] SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON'S edition of REID'S "Works," p. 281. Sir William does not seem to admit that there is a contradiction such as I have noted.

[139] 1. "The _ego_ or _moi_ affirms _itself_." 2. "The _ego_ or _moi_ affirms a _non-ego_ or _non-moi_." 3. "The _ego_ or _moi_ affirms itself to be determined by the _non-ego_ or _non-moi_."

[140] M. MARET, "Essai," pp. 129, 142, 146, 175, 192, 225, 276. Ibid., "Theodicee," pp. 193, 366, 378, 386, 394. MR. MORELL, "History," II.

127, 138.

[141] PROFESSOR NICOLAS, "Quelques Considerations sur le Pantheisme,"

pp. 20-31.

[142] MR. MORELL, "History of Philosophy," II. 129.

[143] M. CROUSSE, "Des Principes." M. MARET, "Essal," pp. 69, 86, 150; "Theodicee" pp. 311, 314. VALROGER, "Etudes Critiques," pp. 97, 101, 115, 151, 412.

[144] M. MARET, "Essai sur Pantheisme," p. 107. "Le Christianisme saura vaincre dans son age mur l'ennemi qu'il a terra.s.se en naissant."

CHAPTER IV.

THEORIES OF MATERIALISM.

The doctrine of Materialism stands equally related to the "mechanical"

form of Atheism, and to the "hylozoic" form of Pantheism. It is subsumed in both, and is the fundamental postulate on which they respectively depend.

It has no natural affinity with the more "ideal" or "spiritual" form of Pantheism. We must not conclude, however, that it has no historical connection with it. For it is instructive to mark, in tracing the history of philosophic speculation, that its course resembles not so much the uniform current of a stream, as the alternate flowing and ebbing of the tide; or, if we may change the figure, that its movement may be likened to the oscillation of a pendulum, which no sooner reaches its highest elevation on the one side, than it acquires a tendency to rush to the opposite extreme on the other. There can be little doubt that the recent revival of speculative "Idealism" was the result, at least in part, of a strong reaction against the "sensational"

philosophy, which had degenerated in the school of Priestley at home, and in that of Condillac abroad, into a system of gross and revolting Materialism. For the same reason, we may now, I think, antic.i.p.ate a speedy reaction the other way,--a reaction against the extravagances of "idealistic" and "transcendental" speculation, and a tendency towards a more practical and matter-of-fact philosophy. This tendency, if guided by the true spirit of the Baconian method, may give a powerful impulse to Inductive Science in all its departments; but, if biased by partial and one-sided views, may issue either in the temporary ascendancy of the Positive School, or the partial revival of some other form of Materialism.

Some such tendency might have been expected to arise as soon as Idealism should have reached its culminating point. For, on a comprehensive view of the whole history of speculative thought, we find that there are just _four_ great systems of Metaphysics, which are perpetually recurring, as it were, in cycles. The first is the system of Dualism,--not the Dualism of Christian Theology, which speaks of G.o.d and nature, the Creator and the creature,--but the Dualism of ancient Paganism, which held Matter and Spirit to be equally uncreated and eternal: the second is Materialism, which resolves all into Matter and its laws: the third is Idealism, which resolves all into Mind and its modifications: and the fourth is Pantheism, which identifies Existence with Thought, and resolves all into the Absolute.[145] In the present age, Idealism is in the ascendant, and has risen to the height of Pantheism; but, by a natural reaction, many are beginning to desiderate a more substantial and practical philosophy, while the rapid progress of physical science is directing their thoughts more and more to the wonders of the material world. In these circ.u.mstances, there may be a tendency to relapse into the Materialism of the last century, which attempted to explain the whole theory of the universe by the laws of _matter_ and _motion_; or at least to embrace some modification of the Positive Philosophy, which excludes all _causes_, whether efficient or final, from the field of human knowledge, and confines our inquiries to the mere phenomena and laws of material nature.

There are not wanting various significant indications of the existence of this tendency at the present day. It is sufficiently indicated, in some quarters, by the mere omission of all reference to Mind or Spirit as distinct from Matter; and, in others, by elaborate attempts to explain all the phenomena of life and thought by means of physical agencies and organic laws. The writings of Comte, Crousse, Cabanis, and Broussais,[146] afford ample evidence of its growing prevalence in France; and although it has been said by a recent historian of Philosophy that in England there has been no formal avowal, or at least no recognized school, of Materialism, since the publication of Dr.

Thomas Brown's reply to Darwin's Zoonomia, yet there is too much reason to believe that it was all along cherished by not a few private thinkers, who had imbibed the spirit of Hobbes and Priestley; and now it is beginning to speak out, in terms too unambiguous to be misunderstood, in such works as "The Purpose of Existence" and the "Letters" of Atkinson and Martineau. But apart from the opinions of individual inquirers, it must be remembered that there is a tendency in certain studies, when exclusively pursued, to generate a frame of mind which will tempt men either to adopt the theory of Materialism, or at least to attach undue importance to physical agencies and organic laws. This tendency may be observed in the study of Physiology, especially when it is combined with that of Phrenology and Animal Magnetism; not that there is any necessary or strictly logical connection between these studies and Materialism, for some of their ablest expounders, including Cabanis, Gall, and Spurzheim, have explicitly disavowed that theory; but simply that, in prosecuting such inquiries, the mind is insensibly led to bestow an undue, if not exclusive, attention on the phenomena and laws of our material organization, so as to become comparatively unmindful of what is mental, moral, and spiritual in the const.i.tution of man. For these reasons, and considering, especially, the close connection of Materialism both with the mechanical Atheism of the past, and the hylozoic Pantheism of the present age, we deem it necessary to subject its claims to a rigorous scrutiny, in connection with the subject of our present inquiry.

What, then, is the doctrine of Materialism? What are the forms in which it has appeared, and what the ground on which it rests? How does it stand related to the question concerning the nature and existence of G.o.d, or the const.i.tution and destiny of Man? A brief answer to these questions will be sufficient to show that this theory cannot be safely disregarded in any attempt to construct a comprehensive and conclusive argument on the first principles of Natural Theology.

SECTION I.

DISTINCT FORMS OF MATERIALISM.

The doctrine of Materialism has a.s.sumed several distinct phases or forms in the hands of its different advocates; and these must be carefully discriminated from each other, if we would either estimate aright their respective merits, or do justice to the parties by whom they have been severally maintained.

The grossest and most revolting form of Materialism is that which _identifies mind with matter_, and _thought with motion_. It denies that there is any real or radical difference between physical and moral phenomena, and affirms that life and thought are so entirely dependent on material organization, that the dissolution of the body must necessarily be the destruction of conscious existence, and that death can only be an eternal sleep. This is the doctrine of Materialism which was taught in a former age, by the author of the "Systeme de la Nature,"

and which has recently been revived by M. Comte in France, and by Atkinson and Martineau in England. A few extracts will sufficiently ill.u.s.trate its character and tendency. "Men have evidently abused the distinction," says Baron D'Holbach, "which is so often made between _man physical_ and _man moral_: man moral is nothing else than that physical being considered in a certain point of view, that is, with reference to some modes of action which belong to his peculiar organization."--"The universe--that vast a.s.semblage of everything that exists--exhibits nowhere anything else than _matter and motion_."--"If we are asked, what is man? we reply, that he is a material being, organized or framed so as to feel, to think, and to be affected in certain ways peculiar to himself, according to his organization."[147] More recently, M. Comte has affirmed that "the subject of all our researches is _one_," and that "all natural phenomena are the necessary results either of the laws of extension or of the laws of motion;" while M. Crousse is quite clear that "intelligence is a property or effect of matter," and that "body and spirit together const.i.tute matter." In our own country, Atkinson and Martineau have not shrunk from the avowal of the same doctrine, or the adoption of the most revolting consequences that can be deduced from it.

"Instinct, pa.s.sion, thought, are effects of organized substances."--"Mind is the consequence or product of the material man; it is not a thing having a seat or home in the brain, but it is the manifestation or expression of _the brain in action,_ as heat and light are of fire, and fragrance of the flower."[148]

The doctrine of Materialism, as formerly taught by Dr. Priestley and his followers, is in some respects similar to that which we have just noticed, but in other respects differs from it, if not in its essential nature, at least in its collateral adjuncts and its practical applications. It resembles the theory of D'Holbach and Comte, in so far as it affirms the doctrine of _unisubstancisme_, and rejects the idea of a _dualism_ such as is implied in the common doctrine of Matter and Spirit. But it differs from that theory, inasmuch as it is combined, whether consistently or otherwise, with the recognition of a personal G.o.d, a resurrection from the dead, and a future state of reward and punishment. Dr. Priestley seems to have fluctuated for a time between two opposite extremes,--that of _spiritualizing_ Matter, and that of _materializing_ Mind; for, in a very remarkable pa.s.sage, we find him saying, "This scheme of _the immateriality of Matter_, as it may be called, or rather, _the mutual penetration of Matter_, first occurred to my friend Mr. Mitch.e.l.l on reading 'Baxter on the Immateriality of the Soul.'"[149] But at length he settled down in the fixed belief of Materialism, as he had always held the principle of _unisubstancisme_.

He held throughout that "Man does not consist of two principles so essentially different from each other as Matter and Spirit, but the whole man is of _one uniform composition_; and that either the material or the immaterial part of the universal system is superfluous."[150] He attempts, therefore, to show, that sensation, perception, and thought,--the common properties of _mind_,--are not incompatible with extension, attraction, and repulsion, which he conceives to be the only essential properties of _matter;_ that both cla.s.ses of properties may possibly belong to the same subject; and that hence no second substance is necessary to account for and explain any of the phenomena of human nature. In this respect, his theory is precisely the same with that which has been already noticed; but the peculiarity by which it is distinguished from the Atheistic and Antichristian speculations of D'Holbach and Comte is twofold. In the _first_ place, while he ascribes to mere matter the power of sensation, thought, and volition, he admits that these powers, and all others belonging to matter, were communicated to it at the first, and are still continued, by the Divine will, thus recognizing the doctrine both of Creation and Providence; and in the _second_ place, while he denies the natural immortality of the soul, and even the possibility of its conscious existence in a state of separation from the body, he does not deny the immortality of man, but receives it, as well as the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, on the authority of that Divine Revelation which speaks of "the resurrection of the dead," and of "a judgment to come." In these respects, his theory is widely different from that of the "Systeme de la Nature," while the two are substantially the same in so far as they relate simply to the const.i.tution of human nature. He is not an Atheist, but a Theist, and a Theist, too, who, believing in Revelation, admits the immortality of man, and a future state of retribution. But it must be evident that as in these respects he founds entirely on the authority of Scripture, so he may be confronted with the same authority when he denies the spirituality of the soul; and in that case the question would resolve itself into one of Biblical exegesis, and would fall to be decided, not by metaphysical reasoning, but by Scriptural proofs.

Another variety of the theory is presented by Dr. Good in his "Life of Lucretius." It agrees with the doctrine of Priestley in representing the soul as material; but differs from it in holding the possible existence of the soul in a separate state, during the interval between the dissolution and resurrection of the body. It speaks of the body as being composed of gross material particles; and of the soul as consisting of more subtle, refined, and ethereal matter. This modification of the theory may be ill.u.s.trated by the following extract: "Perception, consciousness, cognition, we continue to be told, are qualities which cannot appertain to matter; there must hence be a thinking and an immaterial principle; and man must still be a compound being. Yet, why thus degrade matter, the plastic and prolific creature of the Deity, beyond what we are authorized to do? Why may it not perceive, why not think, why not become conscious? What eternal and necessary impediment prevents? or what self-contradiction and absurdity is hereby implied?

Let us examine Nature as she presents herself to us in her most simple and inorganized forms; let us trace her through her gradual and ascending stages of power and perfection. In its simplest form, matter evinces the desire of reciprocal union, or, as it is commonly called, the attraction of gravitation. Increase its ma.s.s, arrange it in other modifications, and it immediately evinces other powers or attractions; and these will be perpetually, and almost infinitely, varied, in proportion as we vary its combinations. If arranged, therefore, in one mode, it discloses the power of magnetism; in another, that of electricity or galvanism; in a third, that of chemical affinities; in a fourth, that of mineral a.s.similations. Pursue its modifications into cla.s.ses of a more complex, or rather, perhaps, of a more gaseous or attenuate nature, and it will evince the power of vegetable or fibrous irritability: ascend through the cla.s.ses of vegetables, and you will at length reach the strong stimulative perfection, the palpable vitality of the _mimosa pudica_, or the _hedysarum gyrans,_ the former of which shrinks from the touch with the most bashful coyness, while the latter perpetually dances beneath the jocund rays of the sun. And when we have thus attained the summit of vegetable powers and vegetable life, it will require, I think, no great stretch of the imagination to conceive that the fibrous irritability of animals, as well as vegetables, is the mere result of a peculiar arrangement of simple and unirritable material atoms."--"Hence, then, animal sensation, and hence, necessarily and consequently, ideas, and a material soul or spirit, rude and confined, indeed, in its first and simplest mode of existence, but, like every other production of Nature, beautifully and progressively advancing from power to power, from faculty to faculty, from excellence to excellence, till at length it terminate in the perfection of the human mind."[151]

According to this theory, the mind is supposed to have a real existence, as a substance distinct from the grosser forms of matter, and capable even of surviving its separation from them. It is supposed to be "a combination of the most volatile auras or gases, diffused over the whole body, though traced in a more concentrate form in some organs than in others;" and it is described as "the very texture of that separate state of existence which the infallible page of Revelation clearly indicates will be ours."

A form of the theory very nearly resembling this has been recently reproduced. It consists in representing the Mind or Spirit of man, not as a mere fleeting phenomenon of the brain, or an evanescent effect of its organization, but as a distinct substantive product, generated, indeed, from matter, and partaking, therefore, of its nature, but so exquisitely subtle and ethereal that it has no resemblance to the grosser materials of the body, and admits only of being compared with the Dynamides--the imponderable elements and forces of Nature. This "spirit" is generated in man by his peculiar organization, and especially by the action of the brain; it is capable of surviving the dissolution of the body, of retaining its individual consciousness after death, of pa.s.sing into new spheres of being, and of rising from lower to higher states, according to a law of eternal progression. Such is the theory of Davis, the "Poughkeepsie Seer;" and such also, with some variations, is that of the author of "The Purpose of Existence."

"Matter and Spirit," says Davis, "have heretofore been supposed to const.i.tute two distinct and independent substances, the latter not having any material origin." ... "Instead of making material and spiritual existence totally disconnected, the object and intention of the foregoing has been to prove, by acknowledged laws and principles of matter, _the production of intelligence,_ the perfection of which is _spirit_;" to show that "the Organizer uses Nature and all things therein as an effect, to produce _spirit_ as an end and designed ultimate." The author of "The Purpose of Existence" adopts a similar view. He tells us, indeed, that "the first simple forms or states of existence are admitted to be _two_, spirit and matter,--the first the moving power, the second the moved substance;" that of the positive essence of either we can arrive at no knowledge; and that "whether spirit be a refined, etherealized portion of matter, or a distinct dynamic principle, we cannot ascertain." And yet, one of the leading objects of his work is to account for "the origin and development of the human mind;" and this he does by ascribing it to "a self-dynamic spirit which is resident in matter," and which he denominates "the spirit of vitality." The spirit exists in vegetables, and is extracted by means of the organs of the animals which feed upon them, and then, "by a delicate work of distillation, it is converted into _spirit_!"--"Nature proclaims one of her great working principles to be, that _spirit is evolved out of matter, and outlives the body in which it is educated_."--"Matter is full of spirit. This spirit is brought out of matter by vegetation. By means of vegetation, it is conveyed into animal frames, in which its purest essence centres in the brain.... This is no idle theory," he adds, "no vain hypothesis, for making matter think. It is a clear proposition, showing how matter is employed by the Supreme Intelligence for evolving, training, and educating spirit."--"We conclude that Progression is the great law of the universe, the purpose for which its present arrangement was ordained; and that the object of this progression is _the evolvement of mind out of matter._"

This is a new and very singular phase of Materialism. It is widely different from the doctrine which was taught by the infidel writers of the last century. They had recourse to the theory of Materialism chiefly with the view of excluding a world of spirits, and of undermining the doctrine of a future state: here it is applied to prove the constant development and indestructible existence of minds generated from matter, but destined to survive the dissolution of the body; nay, every particle of matter in the universe is supposed to be advancing, in one magnificent progression, towards the spiritual state. The danger now is, not that Religion may be undermined by Materialism, but that it may be supplanted by a fond and foolish superst.i.tion, in which the facts of Mesmerism and the fictions of Clairvoyance are blended into one ghostly system, fitted to exert a powerful but pernicious influence on over-credulous minds.[152]

On a review of the various forms which the theory of Materialism has a.s.sumed, it must be evident that we should be doing great injustice to their respective advocates, did we place them all on the same level in relation to Theology, or p.r.o.nounce upon them one indiscriminate censure.

In the hands of D'Holbach and Comte, it was a.s.sociated with the avowal of Atheism, and the denial of a future state: in the hands of Priestley, it was a.s.sociated with the recognition of a G.o.d, and the Christian doctrine of a resurrection: in the hands of Dr. Good, it was combined with the principles of Theism, and even with the revealed doctrine of the separate existence of the soul during the interval between death and the resurrection: and in the hands of Davis and the author of the "Purpose of Existence," it is exhibited in connection with a theory of Progression, widely different, indeed, from the doctrine of Scripture, but equally different from the infidel speculations of the last century.

Still, with all these shades of difference, there is _that common to all_ the forms in which it can be presented which shows that they are radically one and the same: _they all deny the existence of any generic difference between Matter and Mind_.

Confining our attention to this common element, and omitting the consideration of minor diversities, we may now inquire into the grounds on which the theory rests, and the most plausible reasons which have been urged in support of it.

To some minds it has been recommended by its _apparent simplicity_. It speaks only of _one_ substance as existing in Nature under various modifications. It represents the universe, so far as created being is concerned, as entirely composed of _matter_, more or less refined; and thus excludes the complication which must necessarily arise from the supposition of two substances, generically different, yet intimately and indissolubly related. The principle, therefore, which prompts us to seek unity in diversity, and to reduce, by some comprehensive generalization, a mult.i.tude of phenomena under one general law, has led some to adopt the theory of _unisubstancisme_ in preference to the opposite doctrine of _dualism_. Not content with the generalization, alike safe and legitimate, which ranks both mind and matter under the generic head of _substance_, they have sought to reduce them to the same category, and to give to matter a monopoly of the universe, at least of created being.

In support of their views, they remind us of the fundamental principle of philosophy as laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, that "we are to admit no more causes of things than are sufficient to explain appearances."[153]

The principle is a sound one; and the only question is, whether matter alone is sufficient to account for mental phenomena? On _this_ question the two parties are at irreconcilable variance; and the controversy cannot be determined, _brevi manu_, by the mere a.s.sumption of the simplicity and uniform composition of everything in Nature; it can be settled only by an appeal to the facts as they are known to exist. It is the aim of science, undoubtedly, to reduce all compound substances to the smallest possible number of const.i.tuent elements, and all complex phenomena to the smallest possible number of general laws. But we feel that, desirable as this simplification may be, we are not warranted in identifying light with heat, or even electricity with magnetism, however closely connected with each other, simply because there are certain observed differences between them, which could not be explained, in the present state of our knowledge, consistently with any such theory of their absolute ident.i.ty: and so, there are such manifest differences between Mental and Material phenomena, that we cannot yield to the temptation of ascribing them to one cause or origin, until it has been satisfactorily proved that the same cause is sufficient to account for appearances so diverse. It should be considered, too, in connection with this pretence of greater simplicity, that even if we could succeed in getting rid of the _dualism_ of Mind and Matter in the const.i.tution of man, we never can get rid of it with reference to the universe at large, otherwise than by denying _the spirituality of G.o.d himself_: for the grand, the indestructible, the eternal _dualism_ would still remain,--the distinction between G.o.d and His works,--between the Creator and the universe which He has called into being,--between the finite, contingent, and transitory, and the infinite, necessary, and eternal.

And this is a distinction that cannot be obliterated, although it may be obscured, by the speculations of Pantheism.

Another reason which has induced some to adopt, or at least to regard with favor, the theory of Materialism, is--the difficulty of conceiving of the union of two substances so incongruous as Mind and Matter are supposed to be,--and still more the difficulty of explaining how they could have any mutual action on each other. Dr. Priestley largely insists on this, as well as on the former reason, as one of the main inducements which led him to abandon the commonly-received doctrine.

"Many doubts occurred to me," he says, "on the subject of _the intimate union of two substances so entirely heterogeneous_ as the soul and body were represented to be." And he was led to conclude, that "man does not consist of two principles so essentially different from one another as matter and spirit, which are always described as having _no one common property_ by means of which they can affect or act upon each other." In the "Systeme de la Nature," the same argument is often urged. It is boldly and repeatedly affirmed that "an immaterial cause cannot produce motion;" and this is applied equally to the soul and to G.o.d. "How can we form an idea of a substance dest.i.tute of extension, and yet acting on our senses, that is, on material organs which are extended? How can a being without extension be capable of motion, and of putting matter into motion?"--"It is as impossible that spirit or thought should produce matter, as that matter should produce spirit or thought."[154]

Now, it is not denied by any,--it is admitted on all hands,--that the union between the soul and the body is a great mystery, and that we are not able, in the present state of our knowledge, to explain either the action of matter on mind, or the action of mind on matter. The mode of the union between them, and the nature of the influence which they mutually exercise, are to us inscrutable: but _the facts_ of our most familiar experience are not the less certain, because they depend on causes to us unknown, or stand connected with mysteries which we cannot solve. Besides, the theory of _unisubstancisme_ itself, were it adopted, would still leave many facts unexplained, and the inmost nature of man would continue to be as inscrutable as before. There is nothing inconceivable, impossible, or self-contradictory in the supposition of a non-material or spiritual substance; nor is there any reason _a priori_ to conclude that such a substance could not be united to a material frame, although the nature of their union, and the mode of their reciprocal action, might be to us inexplicable.

There is still another reason which is urged by some, derived from _the dependence of the mind on the body_, and its liability to be affected, beneficially or injuriously, by mere physical influences. "The faculty of thinking," says Dr. Priestley, "in general ripens and comes to maturity with the body; it is also observed to decay with it,"--"If the brain be affected, as by a blow on the head, by actual pressure within the skull, by sleep, or by inflammation, the mental faculties are universally affected in proportion. Likewise, as the mind is affected in consequence of the affections of the body and brain, so the body is liable to be reciprocally affected by the affections of the mind, as is evident in the visible effects of all-strong pa.s.sions,--hope or fear, love or anger, joy or sorrow, exultation or despair. These are certainly irrefragable arguments that it is properly no other than _one and the same thing_ that is subject to these affections."[155] Mr. Atkinson urges the same reason. "The proof that mind holds the same relation to the body that all other phenomena do to material conditions, may be found," he tells us, "in the whole circ.u.mstances of man's existence, his origin and growth; the faculties following the development of the body in man and other animals; the direction of the faculties being influenced by surrounding circ.u.mstances; the desires, the will, the hopes, the fears, the habits, and the opinions, being effects traceable to causes,--to natural causes,--and becoming the facts of History and Statistics. We observe the influence of climate, of sunshine and damp, of wine and opium and poison, of health and disease." ... "When a gla.s.s of wine turns a wise man into a fool, is it not clear that the result is the consequence of a change in the material conditions?"[156]

Now, these facts are sufficient to show that, in the present life, there is a very close and intimate union between the soul and the body, and that they exert a reciprocal and very powerful influence. This is admitted by the firmest advocates of _Spiritualism_; nay, it is necessarily involved in the doctrine which they maintain, relative to _the union_ of two distinct, but mutually dependent, principles in the present const.i.tution of human nature. But it is far, very far, from affording any ground or warrant for the idea, that Matter may be identified with Mind, or Thought with Motion.

There are certain Theological considerations which, if they have not been pleaded as reasons, may yet have been felt as inducements, to the adoption of the theory of Materialism. Not to speak of the difficulty which has been felt in explaining "the traduction or propagation of human souls," occasionally referred to in this controversy, it is plain that many Deists in the last century, and that not a few Atheists still, have been induced to embrace and avow Materialism, with the view of undermining the doctrine of man's immortality, and of a future state of rewards and punishments. It is equally certain that Dr. Priestley was influenced by his peculiar views as a Socinian; for he tells us himself that the doctrine of Materialism commended itself to his mind as a sure and effectual means of disproving _the preexistence of Christ_. "The consideration," he says with singular candor, "that biases me as a Christian, exclusive of philosophical considerations, against the doctrine of a separate soul, is, that it has been the foundation of what appears to me to be the very grossest corruptions of Christianity, and even of that very Antichristianism that began to work in the apostles'