"What is truth?" This is a question which has been asked by many. It is a question supposed to be of difficult solution. Mr. Taylder in his tract against materialism, says, "It is a question which all the philosophers of the Grecian and Roman schools could not answer." He seems to think the question was unanswerable until the introduction of the gospel; since which time he considers that the veil is taken away, and that "we now enjoy the full blaze of truth." He further confidently asserts, that "with the materials afforded us in that sacred book, (meaning the New Testament,) we are enabled satisfactorily to answer the question, What is truth?"

What does this author mean by the foregoing assertions? Does he mean, that no truth was understood by the Grecian and Roman schools? That no truth was discerned by the nations, during the first four thousand years after the creation? Or, does he mean, that the gospel truths were not understood until they were revealed? He certainly must mean the latter and not the former. Both the Romans and Grecians could, without the least difficulty, answer the question. "What is truth?" Nothing is more simple than an answer to this question. It is a truth, that something exists in space, and this truth was just as well perceived by all nations before the book called the New Testament existed as afterwards. It is a truth that, "the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." This was not learned from that sacred book—the Bible. We admit that the question, what is gospel truth, could not be answered by any one to whom the gospel had never been revealed. Dr. Good, in his "Book of Nature," says, "general truth may be defined, the connexion and agreement, or repugnancy and disagreement, of our ideas." This definition we consider erroneous; for it makes general truth depend on the existence of ideas. Now truth is independent of all ideas. It is a necessary truth that, space is boundless, and that duration is endless, abstract from all connexion and agreement of our ideas, or even of our existence, or the existence of any other being. If neither the universe nor its Creator existed, these eternal unchangeable, and necessary truths would exist, unperceived and unknown. Truth is the relation which things bear to each other. Knowledge is the perception of truth. Truth may exist without knowledge, but knowledge cannot exist without truth.

The New Testament unfolds, not all the truths which exist, but some few truths of infinite importance. The vast majority of truths of less importance were discovered independently of that book.

"The followers of Joseph Smith," says this author, "hold the doctrine of the materiality of all existence in common with the ancient academics." This, sir, we admit. Our belief, however, in this doctrine, is founded, not on any modern supernatural revelation, unfolding this doctrine, as this author insinuates, but on reason and common sense. The doctrine of immaterialism, in our estimation, is false, and in the highest degree absurd, and unworthy the belief of any true Christian philosopher.

The author of the treatise against materialism has stated his first proposition as follows:—

"The Philosophy of the Mormons is IRRATIONAL."

What the author means by this proposition is, that it is "irrational" to believe all substance material. To substantiate this proposition he sets out in quest of proof. An immaterial substance is the thing wanted. No other proof will answer. If he can prove the existence of an immaterial substance his point is gained,—his proposition established, and the irrationality of the material theory will be demonstrated.

As we are about to launch forth into the wide field of existence in search of an "immaterial substance," it may be well to have the term correctly defined, so as to be able to distinguish such a substance from matter. It is of the utmost importance that every reasoner should clearly define the terms he employs. Two contending parties may use the same word in altogether different meanings; and each draw correct conclusions from the meaning which he attaches to the same word; hence arise endless disputes. As we have no confidence in the immaterial theory, we shall let the immaterialist define his own terms. We shall give,

Taylder's Definition.—"What is meant by an immaterial substance is merely this, that something exists which is not matter and is evidently distinct from matter, which is not dependent on matter for its existence, and which possesses properties and qualities entirely different from those possessed by matter." (Taylder's Tract against Materialism. Page 14.)

This definition of an "immaterial substance" is ambiguous. It needs another definition to inform us what he means. Does he mean that ALL of "the properties and qualities" of an immaterial substance are "entirely different from those possessed by matter;" and that it possesses NO properties in common with matter? Or does he mean that while it "possesses SOME properties and qualities entirely different" from matter it inherits OTHERS in common with matter? If the latter be his meaning, we see no reason for calling any substance "immaterial." Iron possesses SOME properties and qualities "entirely different" from all other kinds of matter, and other properties it inherits in common with every other kind. Shall we therefore say that iron is not matter? Among the various kind of matter, each has its distinct properties, and its common properties; and notwithstanding each possesses "entirely different" properties and qualities from all other kinds, yet each is called matter because it possesses some properties in common with all other kinds. Hence the term matter should be given to all substances which possess any properties in common, however wide they may differ in other respects. A substance to be immaterial must possess NO properties or qualities in common with matter. All its qualities must be entirely distinct and different. It is to be regretted that our opponent has not defined an immaterial substance more clearly. As he is ambiguous in his definition, we shall presume that he entertains the same views as the modern advocates of immaterialism generally entertain.

That celebrated writer, Isaac Taylor, says,—"a disembodied spirit, or we should rather say, an unembodied spirit, or sheer mind, is NOWHERE. Place is a relation belonging to extension; and extension is a property of matter; but that which is wholly abstracted from matter, and in speaking of which we deny that it has any property in common therewith, can in itself be subjected to none of its conditions; and we might as well say of a pure spirit that it is hard, heavy, or red, or that it is a cubic foot in dimensions, as say that it is here or there. It is only in a popular and improper sense that any such affirmation is made concerning the Infinite Spirit, or that we speak of God as everywhere present." * * * "Using the term as we use them of ourselves, God is not here or there." * * * "When we talk of an absolute immateriality," continues this author, "and wish to withdraw mind altogether from matter, we must no longer allow ourselves to imagine that it is, or can be, in any place, or that it has any kind of relationship to the visible and extended universe." (Taylor's "Physical Theory of Another Life." Chapter II.) Dr. Good says, "The metaphysical immaterialists of modern times freely admit that the mind has NO PLACE of existence, that it does exist NOWHERE; while at the same time they are compelled to allow that the immaterial Creator or universal spirit exists EVERYWHERE, substantially as well as virtually." (Good's "Book of Nature," Series III., Lecture I.)

Dr. Abercrombie, in speaking upon matter and mind, says, that "in as far as our utmost conception of them extends, we have no grounds for believing that they have anything in common." (Abercrombie on the "Intellectual Powers." Part I. Sec. I.)

With these definitions, we shall follow our opponent in his researches after an "immaterial substance." After taking a minute survey of man, he believes he has found in his composition, and in connexion with his bodily organization, something immaterial. He says, "the spirit is the purely immaterial part, which is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body."

"The body is that material part, 'formed out of the dust of the ground,' and is the medium through which the mind is manifested." (Taylder's Tract against Materialism. Page 8.)

That the mind or spirit, "is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body," we most assuredly believe; but that it is "immaterial" we deny; and it remains for Mr. Taylder to prove its immateriality. His first proof is founded on his own assertion, that "mind is simple, not compounded." If this assertion be admitted as true, it affords not the least evidence for the immateriality of mind. Every material atom is simple, not compounded. Is it, therefore, not matter? Must each simple, uncompounded elementary atom be immaterial?

Mr. Taylder next says, "Mind is not perceivable to corporeal organs, matter is so perceivable." This assertion is altogether unfounded. "Corporeal organs" can perceive neither matter nor mind. The mind alone can perceive: corporeal organs are only the instruments of perception. Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, expressly says, that "our organs of sense prepare and convey on objects, in order to their being perceived, in like matter as foreign matter does, without affording any shadow of appearance, that they themselves perceive." (Butler's Analogy. Part I. Chap. I.) The mind clearly perceives its own existence as well as the existence of other matter. Perception, then, is a quality peculiar to that kind of matter called mind. Mr. Taylder further remarks, that "All the qualities of matter are not comparable with the more excellent qualities of mind, such as power and intelligence." We willing to admit that power and intelligence, and some other qualities of mind, are far superior to the qualities of other matter; but we do not admit that the superiority of some of the qualities of a substance prove its immateriality. The superiority of some qualities has nothing to do with the immateriality of the substance. OXYGEN possesses some qualities, not only distinct from, but superior to, those qualities possessed by BARIUM, STRONTIUM, SILICIUM, GLUCINIUM, ZIRCONIUM, and many other metals and material substances; yet no one from this will draw the conclusion, that oxygen is immaterial. Oxygen is material though it possesses some distinct and superior qualities to other matter; so mind or spirit is material, though it differs in the superiority of some of its qualities from other matter.

It is strange, indeed, to see the inconsistencies of this learned author: he remarks, "Mind thinks, matter cannot think. It is the existence of this thinking principle which clearly proves the immateriality of the mind or spirit." This method of reasoning may be termed (petitio principii), begging the question. First, he assumes that "matter cannot think;" and, second, draws the conclusion that a thinking substance is immaterial. This conclusion is a legitimate one if the premises are granted; but the premises are assumed, therefore the conclusion is false. Prove that mind is not matter before you assume that "matter cannot think." It would seem from the assertions of this author, that the quality of "thinking" is to be the touchstone—the infallible test—the grand distinguishing characteristic between material and immaterial substances. It matters not, in his estimation, how many qualities different substances inherit in common, if one can be found that thinks, it must be immaterial. There is no one substance out of the fifty or more substances discovered by chemists, but what possesses some qualities "entirely different" from any of the rest; therefore, each substance, when compared with others, has equal claims with that of mind to be placed in the immaterial list. In proving that mind is immaterial, it is not enough to prove that it has some properties entirely distinct from other substances; but it must be proved to have no properties in common with matter. Nothing short of this will agree with the modern notions of immateriality. It must be shown that mind or spirit has no relation to duration or space—no locality—that it must exist "NOWHERE"—that it has no extension—that it exists not "Now" and "Then," neither "Here" nor "There"—that it cannot be moved from place to place—that it has no form or figure—no boundaries or limits of extension. These, according to the definitions of modern immaterialists, are the negative conditions or qualities absolutely necessary to the existence of all immaterial substance. While the opposite of these, or the positive qualities or conditions are absolutely necessary to the existence of all material substance.

"How do you distinguish," inquires Mr. Taylder, "between any two given substances, such as, that a block of stone is not a log of wood?" He answers, "Because they possess different qualities." And then declares, "So also you distinguish between mind and matter." But the "different qualities" by which "a block of stone" is distinguished from "a log of wood," do not prove either the stone or the wood to be immaterial; neither do the different qualities by which the substance called mind is distinguished from other substances, prove either the mind or the other substances to be immaterial. So far as the different qualities are evidences, the mind has as good a claim to materiality as the stone or wood.

"The properties of body," continues our learned opponent, "are size, weight, solidity, resistance, &c.; those of the mind are joy, hope, fear, &c.; but weight is not joy, resistance is not hope, size is not fear; therefore, as a block of stone is not a log of wood, so mind is not matter." That a stone possesses many different qualities from wood, and that mind possesses many different qualities from other substances, we by no means deny; but that these different qualities prove stone, or wood, or mind, or any other substance to be immaterial, we do deny. We care not how many different properties mind possesses over and above other substances; that is altogether foreign from the question. But is it destitute of any or of all the properties which other substances possess? is the question. Is it destitute of "size, weight, solidity, resistance, &c?" If not, then the mind possesses all the essential characteristics of matter, though its peculiar and distinct properties should be multiplied to infinity.

This author calls "weight" one of the properties of matter. What is weight? It is nothing more nor less than force. Matter approaches to, or presses on, other matter with weight, or force, or power. Now matter either exerts this force of itself, or else it is impelled either directly or indirectly by other substances, possessing intelligence, power, and other properties of mind. If matter exerts this power of itself, then it exhibits one of the properties of mind; but if the seat of this power is in that substance called mind, then it is mind that exhibits the power called weight, and not other substances. Mr. Taylder informs us that "it is mind, and mind alone, which is the seat of power." (Taylder against Materialism. Page 12.) If this be true, (and we feel no disposition to deny it), then weight is not the property of unintelligent matter, but a property of mind. And the same reasoning will apply to all other powers or forces which are generally ascribed to unintelligent matter. They are only the powers or forces of mind, or else other substances exhibit powers or forces which are common to mind: in the latter case, mind could not be immaterial: in the former case, unintelligent matter (if such exist) is deprived of every force usually ascribed to it. It can have neither gravitation, attraction, repulsion, chemical affinity, nor any other conceivable force. Though deprived of all energy or force, unintelligent matter would still be possessed of those inert qualities (if, indeed, they may be called qualities) essential to its existence. These qualities, or rather conditions necessary to its existence, are duration, extension or place, solidity, figure, &c. An immaterial substance must have none of those conditions or qualities.

It is amusing to trace this author's process of reasoning. He first assumes premises entirely false, argues from the same, shows the deductions to be absurd and triumphantly exclaims, "Mind then is not matter." We will quote the following specimen: "If the mind," says this author, "be material and the brain nothing but a large gland, secreting the various affections of thought, hope, joy, memory, &c, then all these affections or qualities are material, and must be also little particles of matter, of different forms and dimensions, and perhaps of various colours, Then we might, with the utmost propriety, without the shadow of an absurdity, logically say, 'the twentieth part of our belief, the half of a hope, the top of memory, the corner of a fear, the north side of a doubt,' &c. Mind then is not matter." (Taylder against Materialism. Page 15.) It will be perceived that this logical author, in the foregoing quotation, confounds affections or qualities with mind; that is, he supposes "thought, hope, joy, memory," &c. all to be material as well as the mind; he then introduces a material brain that secretes the material affections; but what becomes of the material mind he does not tell us; probably the material mind is stowed away in some extremity of the body—in the foot or big toe, so as not to interfere with its material affections, which are secreted in the material brain at the other extremity. After imagining up such an unheard of being, no wonder that he should discover some absurdities in its composition. No wonder that in such a creature of his own invention, there should be, not only "the corner of a fear," and "the north side of a doubt," but a cubical imagination with horns to it. No wonder that such frightful absurdities should cause as great a man as Taylder to exclaim with the upper part of a five-cornered assurance, that "Mind then is not matter." It would be a logical conclusion from his logical absurdities, founded on his material affections of a material mind.

But who does not know that "thought, hope, joy, memory," and all other affections or qualities are not substances of any kind, but merely different operations or states of the mind? A material mind, possessing the power to think, to feel, to reason, to remember, is not the brain, nor secretions of the brain, nor any other part of the fleshy tabernacle; but it is the being that inhabits it, that preserves its own identity, whether in the body or out of it, and remains unchangeable in its substance whatever changes may happen to the body. This material spirit or mind existed before it entered the body, exists in the body, will exist after it leaves the body, and will be reunited again with the body in the resurrection.

As another specimen of monstrous absurdities logically deduced from absurd premises, we quote the following:—"Materialism" he remarks, "is not only relatively but absolutely absurd. If mind be matter, or matter mind, then we may have the square or cube of joy or grief, of pain or pleasure. We may divide a great joy into a number of little joys, or we may accumulate a great joy by heaping together the solid parts of several little joys. We shall then have the color and shape of a thought. It will be either white, grey, brown, crimson, purple, or it may be a mixture of two or more colors. Then we shall have a dark grey hope, a bright yellow sorrow, a round brown tall pain, and an octagonal green belief; an inch of thought, a mile of joy." We do most cordially agree with Mr. Taylder that these results would be "not only relatively but absolutely absurd;" and only equalled by the absurdity of the premises from which they were deduced. He has assumed that the several STATES or CONDITIONS of the mind, such as joy, grief, pain, pleasure, thought, &c., are material as well as the mind. With the same propriety he might have assumed that MOTION is material as well as the matter moved. Joy is no more a substance than motion, both are merely the states or conditions of substance. As great absurdities could be deduced from assuming that motion is material, as there can be from Mr. Taylder's assumption that joy is material. As an illustration, let us take this author's own words, with the exception of substituting iron for mind, motion for the affections of the mind; it will then read thus:—"If" iron "be matter, or matter" iron, "then we may have the square or cube of" a solid motion. "We may divide a great" solid motion "into a number of little" solid motions, "or we may accumulate a great" solid motion "by heaping together the solid parts of several little" solid motions. "We shall then have a color and shape of a" motion. "It will be either white, grey, brown, crimson, purple, or it may be a mixture of two or more colors. Then we shall have a dark grey" motion "a round, brown, tall" motion; "an inch" or "a mile of" solid motion, &c. It is strange that Mr. Taylder did not close his train of reasoning, by saying, "Mind, therefore, is not matter;" and then we could have completed the parallel by saying, iron, therefore, is not matter. If such reasoning proves mind immaterial, similar reasoning will prove any other substance immaterial.

"Mr. Orson Pratt," observes our author, "calls matter into existence, of which the world knows but little. He has not only 'intelligent matter,' but 'all-wise,' and 'all-powerful' matter. This matter is capable of division into parts; for all matter has length, breadth, and thickness. Then we shall have the half of an intelligent atom of matter, the eighth of an all-wise atom, the thousandth part of an all-powerful atom &c. Such are the absurdities which 'the Latter-day Saint' embraces." Here the author seems to have recovered partially from the wild absurd notions of applying the term material to the affections, and is willing to apply it to substance where it belongs. But he speaks of the division of atoms which does not accord with the general notions of modern philosophy. The immortal Newton says, "It seems probable that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, masses, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles." This does not favor the divisibility of atoms. Newton further observes, "That nature may be lasting, the changes of corporeal things are to be placed only in the various separations, and new associations, and motions of these permanent particles; compound bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid particles, but where those particles are laid together, and touch only in a few points." These are the views entertained by philosophers generally at the present day, with the exception of here and there an isolated individual who advocates the theory of the infinite divisibility of matter. Perhaps our author may be of that class; for he speaks of the division of atoms. It is admitted that substance is capable of division and subdivision until arriving at its ultimate atoms, after which all further separation ceases. This division of the same kind of substance does not alter or change the nature or properties of the respective parts; if they possessed attraction when united, they also possess it when separated or else attraction is the result of union and ceases with it. So in relation to intelligent substance, without regard to its materiality or immateriality; if it is intelligent as a whole, it is intelligent in its respective parts after division, or else the intelligent power is the result of the union of unintelligent parts, and ceases when the union ceases. Therefore if the intelligent substance, called mind, is intelligent, as a whole, it is intelligent in all its parts; and there would be no more absurdity in speaking of the half, the eighth, or the thousandth part of an intelligent substance, than there would be in speaking of the half, the eighth, or the thousandth part of an attracting substance. And yet Mr. Taylder exclaims, "Such are the absurdities which the 'Latter-day Saint' embraces."

Perhaps our author's immaterial mind or spirit will not suffer him to believe that the whole spirit of man is made up or consists of parts. If the spirit of man is a substance, as Mr. Taylder admits, though he denies its materiality, then it must be either a simple uncompounded being or atom, or a united collection of such beings or atoms.

Bishop Butler supposes the spirit of man to be a single, simple, indivisible being. He remarks, that "since consciousness is a single and individual power, it should seem that the subject in which it resides must be so too," "that is the conscious being." He further says, "That we have no way of determining by experience what is the certain bulk of the living being each man calls himself; and yet, (continues he), till it be determined that it is larger in bulk than the solid elementary particles of matter, which there is no ground to think any natural power can dissolve, there is no sort of reason to think death to be the dissolution of it, of the living being, even though it should not be absolutely indiscerptible." (Butler's Analogy. Part I, Chap. I.) Our author seems to be a little more positive than Butler, and asserts apparently without any doubt, that "mind is simple not compounded." (Taylder against Materialism. Page 14.) Here, then, according to both Butler and Taylder, we have a simple, uncompounded, indivisible, little atom of conscious substance, or, in other words, an intelligent atom. The terms atoms and being are synonymous when applied to a simple indivisible substance so small that Butler intimates that its "bulk" has not been determined to exceed "the solid elementary particles of matter."

If the spirit of one man is a little atom of intelligent substance having "bulk," the spirit of every other man is a similar atom; hence in the human bodies now living on the earth, there must exist nearly one thousand million of intelligent atoms, each conscious of its own existence, and capable of originating motion independently of the others. Mr. Taylder says this intelligent atom or spirit "is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body." This being admitted, then there must be many thousand million of intelligent atoms which once inhabited bodies but now exist independently of them. This is the legitimate result of the theory which assumes that the spirit of a man is a little conscious being—a substance, simple, uncompounded and indivisible, capable of existing either in or out of a body. Where, then, Mr. Taylder, is the absurdity in believing as the "Saints" do, in the existence of immense numbers of intelligent atoms? It agrees most perfectly with the results of your own theory—the only difference is in the name. You call these little indivisible substances immaterial, we call them material. You apply to them the same powers that we do. You believe them to be conscious, intelligent, and thinking atoms as well as we. The name of a substance does not alter its nature; as for instance some call one of the constituent elements of the atmosphere "azote," others call it "nitrogen," but all admit that it possesses the same nature and properties. If this indivisible conscious being, or atom of substance, possesses "bulk," as Bishop Butler intimates, then in this respect it is like the atoms of all other substances, and therefore it must be matter.

If some atoms can possess various degrees of intelligence, wisdom, and power, whether in the body or out of it, then there is no absurdity in the theory that there are other atoms which are "all-wise" and "all-powerful." Mr. Taylder admits that there must be a God, and that he is an all-wise and all-powerful being or substance,—that substance must be either a simple uncompounded indivisible being or atom, or a collection of such beings or atoms. If it be an indivisible being or atom, it would prove the existence of one all-wise and all-powerful being or atom: if it be a collection of such beings or atoms, then the theory of all-wise and all-powerful atoms of substance is established. All theistical writers admit the existence of such a substance. It is not the existence of the substance that is questioned, but it is its nature. One class calls it immaterial, another material. Mr. Taylder has undertaken to prove that it is immaterial, but as yet he has not furnished us with even the most distant shadow of an evidence, unless, indeed, his own assertions are evidence. Indeed, he has nowhere attempted to prove that the spiritual substance of either man or the Deity possesses no properties in common with other substance admitted to be matter.

As another specimen of Taylder's logic we quote the following:—

"There is another conclusion equally absurd, if the existence of an immaterial substance be denied, and thinking be ascribed to matter, and that is, the mind must always think in the same way, in the same direction." As a proof of this assumption our author refers to the writings of Priestly, as follows:—"If man," says Dr. Priestly, "be a material being, and the power of thinking the result of a certain organization of the brain, does it not follow, that all his functions must be regulated by the laws of mechanism, and that, of consequence, all his actions proceed from an irresistible necessity?" "The doctrine of necessity," continues Priestly, "is the immediate result of the doctrine of the materiality of man; for mechanism is the undoubted consequence of materialism."

We are willing to admit that "an irresistible necessity" would be the inevitable consequence of assuming that "the power of thinking is the RESULT of a CERTAIN ORGANIZATION of the BRAIN." But this is a most absurd assumption; for if "the power of thinking be the result of a certain organization of the brain," then, when that organization ceases, the power of thinking would cease also, and there could be no separate existence for the mind or spirit.

But we believe that the power of thinking is not the RESULT of a brain organization, but the original property of that substance called spirit or mind, which can exist independently of a brain organization, and entirely separate and apart from the body.

Priestly asserts that "mechanism is the undoubted consequence of materialism." But this is a baseless assertion. Mechanism implies the incapability of acting only according to the laws of Mechanism, as it is acted upon: hence, "an irresistible necessity characterizes all of its movements." But not so with an intelligent thinking substance: it can originate its own motions, and act according to its own will, independently of the laws of mechanism: hence a perfect freedom characterizes all of its movements. Before Priestly or any other man can logically assert that "mechanism is the undoubted consequence of materialism," he must first prove that matter cannot think, and will, and move, or, in other words, he must prove that mind is not matter.

Our author endeavours to overthrow materialism because of the absurdities which Darwin advocated. He quotes the words of that author as follows:—"Ideas are material things: they are contractions, motions, or configurations of the fibres of the organs of sense." "Here," exclaims Mr. Taylder, "is the real perfection of materialism! It destroys man's accountability to God!" There is then no such thing as praise or blame, fear or hope, reward or punishment, and, consequently, no religion. "How," inquires our author, "can the Mormons reconcile this conclusion with their religious fabric, built on revelations and visions?" "If their God be a material being, he must necessarily act mechanically." We reply that we do not wish to reconcile our religious fabric with Darwin's absurdities. Darwin has assumed that "ideas, contractions, motions, or configurations," are all material.

What man, disencumbered of a strait waistcoat, could ever believe in such ridiculous nonsense! It is only equalled by Taylder's material joys and sorrows, of which we have already had occasion to speak. The substance of the Deity, nor no other intelligent substance, is dependent on the "contractions, motions, or configurations" of organical fibres for its actions, but it is a self-moving substance, not subject to the law of necessity or mechanism like unintelligent matter.

"The last consideration," says this immaterialist author, "which it is necessary to advance for the real existence of mind, is consciousness." (Taylder's Tract against Materialism. Page 18.)

"The real existence of mind" is not doubted by us. Mr. Taylder has strayed entirely from the question. The question is not whether mind has a real existence, but whether it is immaterial.

"It is generally considered," remarks this author, "that in a few years our bodies are entirely changed. How, then, on the material scheme, can a Mormon tell that he is the same person now that he was twenty years since, or shall be ten years hence?" We reply that it is only the substance of the material body that is constantly changing, while the material spirit which inhabits the body, remains unchangeable. Personal identity consists, not in the identity of a changeable body, but in the identity of an unchangeable substance called spirit, which feels, thinks, reasons, and remembers. The Athenian galley, which was sent every year to Delos for a thousand years, had been repaired so often that every part of its materials had been changed more than once, therefore it did not remain the same identical substance during that period of time; but if a certain unchangeable diamond had been carried within this galley for one thousand years, it would be the same identical substance still, though the galley that carried it had been changed ever so often; so likewise let the material body meet with an entire change every few years, the unchangeable material spirit which it carries within will remain the same identical substance still.

Indeed, if Bishop Butler's intimation be correct, that the spirit of man is a small indivisible being or atom, whose bulk has not been determined to exceed the size of small elementary particles of matter, then it would be impossible for such a small conscious indivisible atom to change its substance in the least degree, and therefore it must preserve its entire identity under all possible circumstances.

Our author next inquires, "How can spiritual matter occupy the same space with the matter of which the body consists?" We answer that it cannot occupy the same identical space with other matter, for this is in all cases an absolute impossibility. It can only occupy its own space in union with the matter of which the body consists. Every particle of the body occupies a distinct space of its own, and no two particles of the body can exist in the same space at the same time, neither can any atom of spirit occupy the same space at the same time with any other atom or substance. All substances are porous. It can be proved that the component particles of all known substances are not in absolute contact, for all bodies composed of these particles can be compressed, and their dimensions reduced without diminishing their mass. All organized substances are porous in a high degree, that is their "volume consists partly of material particles and partly of interstitial spaces, which spaces are either absolutely void and empty, or filled by some substance of a different species from the body in question." (Lardner's Scientific Lectures. Vol. II. Lecture 1.) The material body being porous, there is room for the material spirit to exist in close connexion with its component parts, and this too without infringing upon the impenetrability of substances. If the material spirit be as small as Bishop Butler intimates, it will not occupy much room in the body. Many millions of millions of such spirits, if "not larger in bulk than the elementary particles of bodies," could occupy much less room that a cubic inch of space.

We have now examined all of Mr. Taylder's arguments (if, indeed, they may be called arguments) which have been adduced in support of his first proposition, which it will be recollected, was stated in these words—"The philosophy of the Mormons is IRRATIONAL?" or, in other words, it is irrational to believe in the materiality of all substance. How far he has supported this proposition our readers can judge for themselves. He has not brought forth the least shadow of evidence to prove that such a thing as an immaterial substance exists. He has, indeed, argued, that such a thing as mind or spirit has a real existence—that it thinks, and feels, and is conscious. In all these things he agrees with us, without the least variation. He argues that the substance called mind, possesses many different and superior qualities to all other substance; his views in this respect do not differ in the least from ours. He has clearly exhibited the absurdities of Priestly, Darwin, and various other writers, who have made mind the result of the motions of the brain or of its organization. We agree with him most perfectly in the rejection of such absurdities, but in no place has he brought forward argument, reason, or evidence to prove that the substance called mind possesses no properties in common with other substances; therefore he has utterly failed in establishing his proposition. As no immaterialist can, from experiment, reason, or any other process whatsoever, glean the least shadow of evidence in favour of the immateriality of any substance, therefore we shall now on our part show—

I.—THAT IMMATERIALISM IS IRRATIONAL, OPPOSED TO TRUE PHILOSOPHY.

II.—THAT AN IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT EXIST.

I.—Immaterialism is absurd, and opposed to true Philosophy.

1. The immaterialist assumes that God consists of an immaterial substance, indivisible in its nature, "whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere." The indivisibility of a substance implies impenetrability; that is, two substances cannot exist in the same space at the same time; hence, if an indivisible substance exist everywhere, as it cannot be penetrated, it will absolutely exclude the existence of all other substances. Such a substance would be a boundless, infinite solid, without pores, incapable of condensation, or expansion, or motion, for there would be no empty space left to move to. Observation teaches us that this is not the case; therefore an infinitely extended, indivisible, immaterial substance is absurd in the highest degree, and opposed to all true philosophy.

2. The immaterialist teaches that the godhead consists of three persons of one substance, and that each of these persons can be everywhere present. Now in order to be everywhere present, each of these persons must be infinitely extended, or else each must be susceptible of occupying two or more places at the same time. If a substance be infinitely extended it ceases to be a person; for to all persons there are limits of extension called figure; but that which is not limited can have no figure, and therefore cannot be a person. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that a person should be included in a finite extent. Now that which is limited within one finite extent, cannot be included within some other extent at the same time; therefore it is utterly impossible for a person to be in two or more places at the same time, hence immaterialism is totally absurd and unphilosophical.

3. The immaterialist teaches that the substance of the Deity is not only omnipresent and indivisible, but that all other substances are contained in his substance and perform all their motions in it without any mutual action or resistance. The profound and illustrious Newton, in the Scholium at the end of the "Principia," has fallen into this error; he says, "God is one and the same God always and everywhere. He is omnipresent, not by means of his virtue alone, but also by his substance, for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him all things are contained, and move, but without mutual passions God is not acted upon by motions of the bodies; and they suffer no resistance from the omnipresence of God." Here we have an omnipresent substance, which is said by immaterialists to be so compact as to be indivisible, with worlds moving in it without suffering any resistance: this is the climax of absurdity. All masses of substance with which we are acquainted, are susceptible of division, yet even in these, bodies cannot move without being resisted; how much more impossible it would be for worlds to exist and move in an indivisible substance without resistance, yet this is the absurdity of the immaterial hypothesis. There is nothing too ridiculous or too unphilosophical to be incorporated in an immaterial substance when its existence has been once assumed.

The reflecting mind turns away from such fooleries with the utmost disgust, and feels to pity those men who have degraded the great and all-wise Creator and Governor of the universe by applying to him such impossible, unheard of, and contradictory qualities. The heathen, in their wildest imaginations never fancied up a god that could begin to compare with the absurd qualities ascribed to the immaterialists' god.

II.—AN IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT EXIST.

1. We shall first endeavour to show what is absolutely essential to the existence of all substance. It will be generally admitted that space is essential to existence. Space, being boundless, all substances must exist in space. Space is not the property of substance, but the place of its existence. Infinite space has no qualities or properties of any description excepting divisibility. Some eminent philosophers have supposed extension to be a property of space, but such a supposition is absurd. Extension is space itself, and not a property of space. As well might we say that azote is a property of nitrogen, whereas they are only two different names given to the same substance, as to say that extension is a property of space. Infinite space is divisible, but otherwise it cannot possibly be described, for it has no other properties or qualities by which to describe it. It has no boundaries—no figure—no other conceivable properties of any description. It has a variety of names such as space, extension, volume, magnitude, distance, &c., all of which are synonymous terms.

2. Duration is also essential to the existence of substance. There can be no such thing as existence without duration. Duration, like infinite space, is divisible, but otherwise it has no properties or qualities of any description. Like space we can call it by different names, as duration, time, period, &c; but to give it any other kind of description would be absolutely impossible. Infinite space can only be distinguished from duration by certain imaginary qualities, which can be assigned to finite portions of it, but which cannot be assigned to duration. We can conceive of cubical, prismatical and spherical portions of space, but we cannot conceive of portions of duration under any kind of shape. Both space and duration are entirely powerless, being immovable, yet both are susceptible of division to infinity. To assist us in our future remarks we shall give the following definitions:—

Definition 1.—SPACE is magnitude, susceptible of division.

Definition 2.—A POINT is the negative of space, or the zero at which a magnitude begins or terminates; it is not susceptible of division.

Definition 3.—DURATION is not magnitude, but time susceptible of division.

Definition 4.—AN INSTANT is the negative of duration, or the zero at which duration begins or terminates; it is not susceptible of division.

Definition 5.—MATTER is something that occupies space between any two instants, and is susceptible of division and of being removed from one portion of space to another.

Definition 6.—NOTHING is the negative of space, of duration, and of matter; it is the zero of all existence.

3. Modern immaterialists freely admit, as we have already shown, that "a disembodied spirit" is NOWHERE. "We must no longer allow ourselves to imagine," says the immaterialist, "that it is or can be, in any place." (Taylor's Physical Theory of another Life. Chapter II.) But that which does not occupy any place or space, has no magnitude, and is not susceptible of division; therefore it must be an unextended point or nothing—(see definitions 2 and 6,) the negative of both space and matter, that is, the negative of all existence. Immateriality is a representative of nothing: immaterial substance is only another name for no substance; therefore such a substance does not, and cannot exist.

4. Having shown that an immaterial substance can have no existence, because it has no relation to space, we shall next show that it can have no existence, because it has no relation to duration. Isaac Taylor says, "that which is wholly abstracted from matter, and in speaking of which we deny that it has any property in common therewith, can in itself be subjected to none of its CONDITIONS." One of the conditions absolutely essential to the existence of matter is duration or time. (See definition 5.) That which is not subjected to the condition of duration, must be subjected to the condition of an instant, which is the negative of duration; but nothing is also the negative of duration and of substance; (see definition 4 and 6;) therefore that which has no duration is nothing, and cannot be a substance; hence an immaterial substance cannot exist.

There are many truths which may be called FIRST TRUTHS, or self-evident truths, which cannot be demonstrated, because there are no truths of a simpler nature that can be adduced to establish them. Such truths are the foundation of all reasoning. They must be admitted without demonstration, because they are self-evident. That space and duration are essential conditions to the existence of all substance, may be denominated a self-evident truth; if so, it is useless to undertake to prove it. And in this case, the foregoing need not be considered as a demonstration, but merely different forms of expression representing the same self-evident truth.

IMMATERIALISTS ARE ATHEISTS.

There are two classes of Atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language: the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says, "There is no God;" the other says, "God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." (Isaac Taylor's Physical Theory of Another Life Chap. II.) The infidel says, God does not exist anywhere. The Immaterialist says, "He exists Nowhere." (Good's Book of Nature.) The infidel says, There is no such substance as God. The Immaterialist says, There is such a substance as God, but it is "without Parts." (First of the Thirty Nine Articles; also I Art. Methodist Discipline.) The Atheist says, There is no such substance as Spirit. The Immaterialist says, "A Spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room, and fills no space, in the same way and after the same manner as matter, not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand." (Rev. David James on the Trinity, in Unitarianism Confuted. Lec. VII., page 382.) The Atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity: but the Immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same thing as the Atheist's endeavours to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words.

The "thinking principle," says Dr. Thomas Brown, "is essentially one, not extended and divisible, but incapable by its very nature, of any subdivision into integral parts." (Brown's "Philosophy of the Human Mind." Lec. XCVII.) What is this but the rankest kind of infidelity couched in a blind, plausible form. That which is "not extended and not divisible" and "without parts," cannot be anything else than nothing. Take away these qualities and conditions, and no power of language can give us the least idea of existence. The very idea conveyed by the term existence is something extended, divisible, and with parts. Take these away, and you take away existence itself. It cannot be so much as the negative of space, or, what is generally called, an indivisible point, for that has a relation to the surrounding spaces. It cannot be so much as the negative of duration, or, what is generally called, an indivisible instant, for that has a relation to the past and future. Therefore, it must be the negative of all existence, or what is called absolutely NOTHING. Nothing, and nothing only, is a representative of that which has no relation to space or time—that is, unextended, indivisible, and without parts. Therefore, the immaterialist is a religious Atheist; he only differs from the other classes of Atheists, by clothing an indivisible unextended NOTHING with the powers of a god. One class believes in no God; the other class believes that NOTHING is god, and worships it as such. There is no twisting away from this. The most profound philosopher in all the ranks of modern Christianity, cannot extricate the Immaterialists from atheism. He cannot show the least difference between the idea represented by the word nothing, and the idea represented by that which is unextended, indivisible, and without parts, having no relation to space or time. All the philosophers of the universe could not give a better or more correct definition of Nothing. And yet this is the god worshipped by the Church of England—the Methodists—and millions of other atheistical idolaters, according to their own definitions, as recorded in their respective articles of faith. An open Atheist is not so dangerous as the Atheist who couches his atheistical doctrines under the head of "ARTICLES OF RELIGION." The first stands out with open colours and boldly avows his infidelity; the latter, under the sacred garb of religion, draws into his yawning vortex, the unhappy millions who are persuaded to believe in, and worship an unextended indivisible nothing without parts, deified into a god. A pious Atheist is much more serviceable in building up the kingdom of darkness than one who openly, and without any deception, avows his infidelity.

No wonder that this modern god has wrought no miracles and given no revelations since his followers invented their "Articles of Religion." A being without parts must be entirely powerless, and can perform no miracles. Nothing can be communicated from such a being; for, if nothing give nothing, nothing will be received. If, at death, his followers are to be made like him, they will enjoy, with some of the modern Pagans, all the beauties of annihilation. To be made like him! Admirable thought! How transcendently sublime to behold an innumerable multitude of unextended nothings, casting their crowns at the feet of the great, unextended, infinite Nothing, filling all space, and yet "without parts!" There will be no danger of quarrelling for want of room; for the Rev. David James says, "Ten thousand spirits might be brought together into the smallest compass imaginable, and there exist without any inconvenience for want of room. As materiality," continues he, "forms no property of a spirit, the space which is sufficient for one, must be amply sufficient for myriads, yea, for all that exist." (Rev. David James on the Trinity, in Unitarianism Confuted. Lec. VII., page 382.) According to this, all the spirits that exist, "could be brought together into the smallest compass imaginable," or, in other words into no compass at all; for, he says, a spirit occupies "no room, and fills no space." What an admirable description of Nothing! Nothing "occupies no room, and fills no space!" If myriads of Nothings were "brought together into the smallest compass imaginable," they would "there exist without any inconvenience for want of room." Everything which the Immaterialist says, of the existence of Spirit, will apply without any variation, to the existence of Nothing. If he says that his god cannot exist "Here" or "There," the same is true of Nothing. If he affirms that he cannot exist "Now" and "Then," the same can, in all truth, be affirmed of Nothing. If he declares, that he is "unextended," so is Nothing. If he asserts that he is "indivisible" and "without parts," so is Nothing. If he declares that a spirit "occupies no room and fills no space," neither does Nothing. If he says a spirit is "Nowhere," so is Nothing. All that he affirms of the one, can, in like manner, and, with equal truth, be affirmed of the other. Indeed, they are only two words, each of which express precisely the same idea. There is no more absurdity in calling Nothing a substance, and clothing it with Almighty powers, than there is in making a substance out of that which is precisely like nothing, and imagining it to have Almighty powers. Therefore, an immaterial god is a deified Nothing, and all his worshippers are atheistical idolators.

A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE IS MATERIAL.

That spirit or mind has a relation to space, is evident from the fact of its location in the body. The body itself exists in space, therefore every particle of substance which it contains must exist in space. No point can be assumed in the body but what has a relation to the surrounding space or extension. Therefore spirit must have a relation to extension or it cannot exist in the body. All unextended points have a relation to space, though they are no part of space, and do not occupy space; but an unextended substance to have no relation to space cannot be as much as a point. A point is a located nothing, but an unextended substance is nothing, having no location.

What can be more unphilosophical, contradictory, and absurd, than to assume that something can exist that is "unextended,"—that "occupies no room, fills no space,"—has "no parts?" We ask our readers to pause for a moment, and endeavour to conceive of a substance that has no parts. Grasp it if you can in your imaginations. Think of its existing where there is no space. Conceive, if you can in your imaginations. Think of its existing where there is no space. Conceive, if you can, of a locality outside of the bounds of a boundless space. Do not your judgments, and every power of your minds revolt at the absolute absurdities and palpable contradictions? By this time, perhaps, you are ready to inquire, can it be possible that any man in all the world could believe in such impossibilities? Yes, it is possible. These very absurdities now stand in bold relief, not only in the most approved philosophical works of modern times, but incorporated in the very "Articles of Religion" which millions have received as their rule of faith.

That spirit or mind has a relation to duration is manifest in the act of remembering. Through the memory the mind perceives itself to be the same conscious being now, that it was, an hour, a day, a year ago; it perceives that itself has existed through a certain period of duration. There is as much certainty of its own relations to duration as there is of any such relation in any other substance whatever. If there is no certainty that mind has a relation to duration, there is no certainty that any other substance has such a relation; hence all would be uncertainty, even our own existence. Bishop Berkeley denied the existence of the material world, and the first Article of his religion swept away the immaterial world from space; and the modern immaterialist sweeps it away from all relation to time. So between them all, space and time are pretty well cleaned out; not so much as a nest egg left to replenish the great infinite void.

Mind, like all other matter, is susceptible of being moved from place to place. We see this exemplified in the movements of the mind through the medium of the body which conveys it from place to place on the surface of the earth. But though man was stationary upon the earth's surface, the earth itself with all its inhabitants, is moving with the rapid velocity of nineteen miles every second, which proves to a demonstration that mind is capable of being moved from place to place with a velocity far exceeding that of a cannon ball. But motion involves the ideas of both space and time. Mind cannot be moved without being moved in space; it cannot pass from point to point instantaneously. However rapid the velocity, time is an essential ingredient to all motion. That eminent and profound philosopher, the late Professor Robison of Edinburgh, says, "In motion we observe the successive appearance of the thing moved in different parts of space. Therefore, in our idea of motion are involved the ideas or conceptions of space and time."

"All things are placed in space, in the order of situation. All events happen in time, in the order of succession."

"No motion can be conceived as instantaneous. For, since a moveable, in passing from the beginning to the end of its path, passes through the intermediate points; to suppose the motion along the most minute portion of the path instantaneous, is to suppose the moveable in every intervening point at the same instant. This is inconceivable and absurd." (Robison's Mechanical Philosophy. Vol I. Introduction.) The motion of mind, therefore is another positive proof that it has a relation to both space and duration.

"Extension and resistance," says Dr. Thomas Brown, "are the complex elements of what we term matter; and nothing is matter to our conception, or a body, to use the simpler synonymous term which does not involve these elements." Figure, magnitude, divisibility, are only different modifications of extension. Solidity, liquidity, viscidity, hardness, softness, roughness, smoothness, are different modifications of resistance. All these terms are only extension and resistance, modified in a certain degree, and under other names. Our notion of extension is supposed by Dr. Brown to be acquired from our notion of time as successive, involving length and divisibility. Our notion of resistance he supposes to be obtained through our muscular organs. These organs are first exerted, and then excited by something without, and in their turn excite the mind with a feeling of resistance. The feeling of resistance combined with the feeling of extension gives us the notion of matter. If Dr. Brown's views be correct, no one can acquire a notion of matter, by seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, or simple touch. Either or all of these will only produce certain feelings in the mind without giving us any notion of an external extended resistance. A muscular effort opposed by some substance or foreign body is the only possible way, according to his theory, for the infant mind to obtain a notion of extended solidity or resistance. (Brown's Philosophy of the Human Mind. From the XX to the XXIX Lecture inclusive.)

If solidity and extension then are the essential characteristics of matter; and if the resistance of a muscular effort be the only possible way of learning these characteristics; it may be asked, how did Dr. Brown learn that the rays of light are material? He has frequently in his philosophy called light material. Has light in any way resisted his muscular efforts? Have the muscular organs ever been able to grasp a ray of light? Have the particles of light either singly or collectively ever acted upon our muscular organs in such manner as to give us a notion of extension and resistance? Have they ever affected the mind in any way only to impart to it the feeling of color? Does not Dr. Brown himself repeatedly affirm, that light can only impart the sensation of color; and that extension, magnitude, figure, solidity, can never be known by the sense of seeing? Does he not assert, that "nothing is matter to our conception which does not involve these elements?" Why then does he assume light to be material?

If, then, light can be ranked as a material substance without exhibiting the least resistance to the muscular organs, why not mind or spirit be considered material also? Why believe that light consists of inconceivably small vibratory or emanating particles of matter from the mere affection of mind called color, and yet be unwilling to believe that the mind affected is material? If that which produces a sensation or feeling be regarded a solid extended substance, independently of muscular resistance, where is the impropriety, in regarding that which receives the sensation or feeling, as a solid extended substance also?

Dr. Brown, and all other immaterialists, universally believe that the sensation of smell is produced by small material particles, acting upon our olfactory nerves. But we ask, how is Dr. Brown or any other person to determine those odorous particles to be material? It may be said, that we determine them to be solid and extended by tracing them to the substances from which they emanate. But can it be proved that they constitute any part of the solid extended substance from which they emanate, any more than light is a part of the substance from which it emanates? We know a rose to be solid and extended, not from the sensation of vision or smell, but from the sensation of resistance which it offers to our muscular organs when we attempt to grasp it. But because a rose is solid and extended, that does not prove that light and fragrance, by which we discern its color and smell, are any part of the rose.

If Dr. Brown's theory be true, it is absolutely impossible to prove that the odoriferous particles which affect us with the sensation of fragrance, are a solid extended substance. These particles of odour appear, indeed, to have been connected in some way with bodies from which they emanate; but there is no possible means for the muscular powers to determine them to be parts of those bodies, any more than the colored light or the heat which are also transmitted from them. No one in speaking of a rose would think of classifying heat and light as a portion of its solid substance; yet both heat and light, like the particles of odour, are intimately connected with it, and are constantly being thrown off from it.

"What is there," inquires Dr. Brown, "which we can discover in the mere sensation of fragrance, that is itself significant of solidity, extension, or whatever we may regard as essential to the existence of things without? As a mere change in the form of our being, it may suggest to us the necessity of some cause or antecedent of the change. But it is far from implying the necessity of a corporeal cause;—any more than such a direct corporeal cause is implied in any other modification of our being, intellectual or moral—in our belief, for example, of the most abstract truth, at which we may have arrived by a slow development of proposition after proposition in a process of internal reflective analysis, or in the most refined and sublime of our emotions, when, without thinking of any one of the objects around, we have been meditating on the divinity who formed them—himself the purest of spiritual existences. Our belief of a system of external things, then, does not, as far as we can judge from the nature of the feelings, arise from our sensations of smell, more than from any of our internal pleasures or pains." (Brown's Philosophy of the Human Mind. Lecture XX.)

Odorous particles, then, have never been submitted to Dr. Brown's only test of materiality, and yet he, and all other immaterialists, without any hesitation, pronounce them to be matter. The spirit, like these particles of odour, can exist in connexion with the body or separate from it; and yet it forms no part of the fleshy tabernacle. If like the particles of odour, it really eludes the grasp of the muscular organs, and if neither these odoriferous particles, nor the spirit, can be proved by any muscular effort to have solidity and extension; why, then, should one be called material, and the other immaterial?

If the mind be unextended, how can it receive any sensations from things without? It could not act upon bodily organs, for they are extended. Neither could bodily organs act upon it.

Philosophers have endeavoured to invent numberless hypothesis to account for the action of matter on the mind, which they have assumed to be immaterial. The old Peripatetic doctrine of perception, by species or phantasms, which for so many centuries held so unlimited a sway in the philosophic world, was probably originated to connect material with immaterial substances. When this absurdity slowly died away, other hypothesis, no less erroneous, immediately supplied its place. Des Cartes, seeing no possibility of any reciprocal action between matter and something that was inextended, invented his system of occasional causes, and represented the external world entirely incapable of affecting the mind in any way whatever. He ascribed all the sensations and affections of the mind to the immediate agency of the Deity, virtually rendering external objects entirely useless to the mind. This conjecture has been modified by succeeding philosophers without, however, removing its absurdities. It is useless to revert to all the absurd theories which have from time to time distracted the metaphysical world, and which have been originated for no other purpose than to uphold the still greater absurdity of immaterialism. Philosophers of ancient times imagined the existence of an immaterial substance, unextended in its nature, like nothing. To support this wild and vague imagination, learned metaphysicians have given birth to innumerable conjectures, in order to connect this imaginary substance with the material world.

Dr. Brown, however, being a little more wise than the immaterialists who preceded him, does not attempt to connect the mutual affections, existing between matter and mind, by substituting some conjectural intervening causes. Instead of this, he advocates the direct affection of the mind by the presence of material objects—that the change of state in the one is produced by the change of state in the other, independently of intervening causes. Now this, in our view, is really what happens.

We believe that matter can only act upon mind because mind is an extended material substance. But Dr. Brown supposes there is no absurdity in matter acting upon that which is unextended. He endeavours to substantiate the possibility of the direct mutual affections of mind and matter, by referring to some examples of matter acting upon matter as in gravitation. (Brown's Philosophy of the Human Mind. Lecture XXX.) But we do not conceive these cases to be in the least analogous; for there is no absurdity in supposing one extended substance to act upon another which is also extended. But for extended substances with parts to act upon unextended substances is without a parallel, and inconceivably absurd. Indeed there could be no action at all; an immaterial mind could not act upon an immaterial mind any more than nothing could act upon nothing. To talk about matter affecting that which is inextended and without parts, is to talk about matter affecting nothing.

The very fact of the external organs affecting the mind without any intervening cause, the same as other matter affects other matter, is an argument of the strongest kind in favour of the materiality of mind. A piece of iron is affected in a certain manner by introducing into its presence a loadstone, so the mind is affected in a certain manner by the presence of light upon the retina, or by the presence or odour upon the olfactory nerve. If, then, mind can be directly affected by other substances, the same as matter directly affects matter, why should it be called an immaterial substance?

If resistance to our muscular efforts, as Dr. Brown supposes, be our only test of solidity and extension, and consequently of matter, then mind itself has the greatest claims to materiality. A muscular effort is nothing more than an effort of the mind. Without the mind the muscles are incapable of any effort whatsoever. Two men stretch out their arms, press their hands together, and resist each other with great force. In this example as it is commonly said, the muscular efforts of the one are resisted by the muscular efforts of the other; but as the muscles have no power of themselves, the facts of the case are, that the mind of the one truly resists the mind of the other through the medium of their respective muscles. If that which causes resistance then be material, mind must be material.

If two bodies of iron of equal size were moving with equal velocities towards each other, upon meeting they would destroy each others motion, and the next moment, though in contact, there would be no signs of resistance; not so with the resistance which mind offers to mind through the medium of the muscular organs; the resistance can be continued at the option of the two resisting minds; hence mind exhibits resistance in a greater degree than other substances, and should, therefore, according to Dr. Brown's test, be considered material in preference to all other substances.

No two atoms of spirit or any other matter can occupy two or more places at the same time. We have never known of a circumstance of the spirit of man residing in the body and out of it at the same time. No particles of light, odour, heat, electricity, can occupy two places at once. These substances can only be extensively diffused by being extensive in quantity. The particles of light which enter the right eye are not the same which enter the left eye. Though their qualities may be exactly alike, yet they are separate individual substance, as much so as if they were millions of miles asunder. The same is true of the atoms of spirit and all other substances.