"How charming is divine philosophy!

Not harsh, and crabbed, as dull fools suppose,

But musical as is Apollo's lute,

And a perpetual feast of nectared sweets,

Where no crude surfeit reigns."



[Retyped and reprinted by Rick Friedrich in May 1999.


Permission requested for commercial use.]






Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by


In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for

the Southern District of the State of New York.





THE following Treatise presents the sum of a course of Lectures, which, for six or eight years past, I have been in the habit of delivering to successive classes, on the subject of Intellectual Philosophy. One thing I may say in relation to this subject, without boasting. No class have yet passed through this course, without becoming deeply interested in the science of Mental Philosophy; and, in their judgment, receiving great benefit from the truths developed, as well as from the method of development which was adopted. Hence the desire has been very generally expressed by those who have attended the course of instruction, as well as by others who have become acquainted with the general features of the system taught, to have it presented to the public in a form adapted to popular reading. In conformity to such suggestions, as well as to the permanent convictions of my own mind, the following Treatise has been prepared. In preparing it, it has been my aim to reject light from no source whatever from which it could be obtained, and at the same time to maintain the real prerogative of manly independence of thought. The individuals to whom I feel most indebted as a philosopher, are Coleridge, Cousin, and Kant--three luminaries of the first order in the sphere of philosophy. How far proper discriminations have been made in the study of their works, the reader will be able to judge. With these remarks, I would simply add, that





SINCE the publication of the first edition of this work, the author has had the benefit resulting from successive years in teaching the same, and of a careful reading of other works upon the same subject. In this manner, he has been enabled to perceive defects that needed correction in the work, as first presented. The work is now given to the public, as the result of his mature reflections upon this fundamental science. Some of the most important chapters have been so entirely rewritten and remodeled, as to render the present, in some important respects, a new work on Intellectual philosophy. I may notice, among others, the chapter on Sense, the examination of the true as distinguished from false systems of Philosophy, in the Miscellaneous Topics, and the development of the evidence of the being and perfection of God, in the last chapter. The author has always been fully persuaded of the correctness of his views in respect to external perception, but has felt a growing dissatisfaction with his manner of presenting the subject, in the chapter referred to. In the present edition, this subject, so fundamental to a right system of mental science, is so presented as to meet his ideas in most, if not all respects. One of the great wants of the age is a fundamental examination of false systems of Philosophy, as developed in Materialism, and in the various forms of Idealism, as distinguished from the true system. This he has attempted, and, as it appears to him, accomplished, in the chapter on Miscellaneous Topics [Ed. note: See Mahan's later massive work on: <a herf:"http://members.truepath.com/Alethea_In_Heart/index-9.html">History of Philosophy. </A>]. The improvements made, in presenting the topic last named, will be appreciated, we think, by all who carefully read the chapter in which they appear. It has been the aim of the author to give the public a work, on this great science, which should meet the fundamental philosophic wants of the age. As such an attempt, he commends his production to the careful study of all who would understand this science.

I close with a suggestion to teachers who may introduce this work to their pupils as a text-book. No system of questions is here proposed. Each topic has a heading, however, which gives the subject-matter therein developed. My own method of teaching has always been, to read to the class this heading, and then require the student to state, in his own words, the subject-matter contained in the topic referred to. Two benefits result to the pupil by this mode of teaching: 1. He is made to understand the subject much better than he can by any system of questions. 2. He acquires the important habit of first forming distinct conceptions of a subject before speaking, and then of clothing his thoughts in appropriate language. Much higher and more perfect forms of mental discipline are acquired by this mode of teaching, than by any other which we have ever tried.

CLEVELAND, OHIO, August 1854.





Classification of the Sciences~Object of Mental Philosophy~What is to be expected from such Investigations~Mental Philosophy, as a Science, possible~The Method in conformity to which Psychological Researches should be conducted~The above the only correct Psychological Method~Utility of this Science~State of Mind requisite to a successful prosecution of this Science. 1-12



Mental Faculties indicated by the phenomena above classified~Object of Mental Philosophy~ Meaning of the words Mental Faculties. 23



Principle of Classification~Contingent and necessary Phenomena of Thought defined.


Idea of Body contingent~Idea of Space necessary~Other characteristics of these two Ideas~Idea of Body relative~Idea of Space absolute~Idea of Body implies that of Limitation~Idea of Space implies the absence of Limitation~Idea of Body, a sensible representation~Idea of Space a pure rational conception.


Idea of Succession contingent~The idea of Time necessary~Other Characteristics of these Ideas


Remarks of Locke~Characteristics of these Ideas~Idea of Finite contingent and relative; that of the Infinite necessary and absolute.


Idea of Mental Phenomena contingent and relative~Idea of Personal Identity necessary~ Necessary ideas distinguished as conditional and unconditional.


Idea of substance explained~Idea of Phenomena contingent and relative~that of Substance necessary~Our Ideas of Substance not obscure, but clear and distinct.


The idea of Events contingent and relative; that of Cause necessary~Theory of Dr. Brown and others~Observations on Mr. Dugald Stewart.


Conclusion of the present Analysis. 17-37




Logical order~Chronological order.


These Faculties why called Primary~Also called Intuitive Faculties~Relation of Primitive Intuitive Faculties to each other~Importance of the Truths above elucidated~Classification of Intellectual Phenomena given by Kant. 38-46



Consciousness Defined~Self-Consciousness conditioned on Reason, but not a function of Reason~Natural, or spontaneous, and philosophical, or reflective Conscousness~Process of classification and Generalization in Reflection, illustrated~Functions of Consciousness~Necessity of relying implicitly upon the testimony of Consciousness~Consciousness, a distinct function or faculty of the Intellect~Theory of Dr. Brown--Meaning of the term Consciousness as employed by Sir William Hamilton. 47-59



To be distinguished from Sensation~Spontaneous and voluntary determination of Sense~Mental process in Perception~Objects of Perception~Common and Philosophic Doubts in respect to the comparative validity of the affirmations of Sense and Consciousness~The Province of Philosophy~Comparative validity of the affirmations of Sense and Consiousness~True theory of external Perception~Theory Verified~The above Theory verified as a truth of Science~Qualities of Matter: Primary qualities, Secundo-primary qualities, and Secondary qualities~What these qualities are in general~Representative and Presentative Knowledge~True theory of Perception stated and verified~False theory of external perception: The Scholastic Theory; The Cosmothetic Theory, and the Idealistic Theories~Reasons for the Idealistic Theories~Objections to these Theories~Hypothises, that all our knowledge of Matter is derived through Sensation exclusively, the main source of error in Philosophy~Explanation given by Kant and the Transcendental School generally of the fact of Sense-perception~Is color a primary or secondary quality of Matter?~Validity of our knowledge of the Non-Ego or Matter--Conclusion of the present Exposition. 60-107




Notions Particular and General.


Contingent Elements~Necessary Elements: Substance and Cause the fundamental elements of notions~Evolution of these Laws not Arbitrary~Time and Space.~I. Time and Space~Errors of Kant: 1. In respect to the relation of Phenomena and Noumena to Time and Space~2. Relation of the Ideas of Time and Space to Penomena~II. Identity and Diversity, Resemblance and Difference~III. The idea of a Whole , as including its Parts, or Parts in reference to the Whole. ~Kant's Anatomy of Pure Reason.~IV. The Category of Quantity~The Category of Quantity distinct from that previously considered~V. Of Quality~VI. Of Relation~VII. Of Modality~VIII. The Idea of Law~Conceptions as distinguished from Notions~A Fact often attending Perception~Mistake of Mr. Stewart~Notions and Conceptions characterized as complete or incomplete, true or false~Mistake of Coleridge in respect to the Undersanding.108-125



Abstraction~Abstract Notions, what, and how formed?~General Notions, how formed.


Forms of Classification~Classification, in what sense arbitrary~Genera and Species.


Rules in respect to Generalization~The Term General sometimes used in a limited sense.


Theory of the Realists~Theory of the Nominalists~Theory of the Conceptualists.


Distinction between the Understanding and Judgment verified~Observations of Kant~Relations of the Understanding and Judgment. 126-188



Term defined~Term Association, why preferred~The Associating Principle not without Law~Law of Association stated and defined~Existence of Law, when established~The present Hypotheses, when established as the Law of Association~A priori Argument~All the Phenomena referred to the commonly received Laws, can be explained on this Hypothesis~Phenomena exist which can be accounted for on this, and no other Hypothesis~Facts connected with particular Diseases~This Hypothesis established and illustrated, by reflecting upon the facts of Association~Argument summarily stated~ Explanatory Remarks~Reasons why different objects excite similar Feelings in our Minds~Application of the Principles above illustrated~Ground of the Mistake of Philosophers in respect to the Laws of Association~Action of the associating Principle in different Individuals~Influence of Habit~Standards of Taste and Fashion~Vicissitudes in respect to such Standards~Peculiarities of Genius associated with Judgment, or correct Taste~Influence of Writers and Speakers of splendid Genius, but incorrect Taste~Danger of vicious Associations~Unrighteous Prejudices, how justified~Giving Individuals a bad Name, spreading false Reports, &c.~Influence of the associating Principle in perpetuating existing mental Characteristics. 139-161



Terms defined~States of Mind entering into and connected with these Processes~The above statement verified~Principle on which Objects are remembered with Ease and Distinctness~Deep and distinct Impressions, on what conditioned~Diversity of Powers of Memory, as developed in different Individuals~Philosophic Memory~Local Memory~Artificial Memory.


A ready and retentive Memory~The vast diverse Power of Memory possessed by different Individuals~Improvement of Memory~Memory of the Aged~Duration of Memory. 161-172



Definitions of distinguished Philosophers~Objections to the above Definitions~Another definition proposed~Imagination and Fancy distinguished~Another Definition of the term Fancy.


Preliminary Remarks~Elucidation.


1. Elements of Diverse Scenes blended into one Whole~2. Blending the Diverse~3. Blending Opposites~4. Blending things in their Nature alike~5. Combining Numbers into Unity, and dissolving and separating Unity into Number~6. Adding to, or abstracting some Quality from, an Object~7. Blending with external objects the Feelings which they excite in us~8. Abstracting certain Characteristics of Objects, and blending them into Harmony with some leading Idea~9. Throwing the fleeting Thoughts, Sentiments, and Feelings, of our past Existence, into one beautiful Conception.


Remarks of Coleridge.


Sphere of the Imagination not confined to Poetry~Law of Taste relative to the Action of the Imagination.


Idea defined~Ideal defined~Ideals, Particular and General~Ideals not confined to Ideas of the Beautiful, the Grand, and the Sublime~Ideals not fixed and changeless, like Ideas~Ideals the Foundation of Mental Progress~Ideals in the Divine and Human Intelligence.


Taste defined~Productions of the Imagination when not regulated by correct Judgment or good Taste.





False Idea in respect to the Influence of Familiarity with the popular Fictitious Writings of the Day~Imagination and Fancy~How improved. 173-213



Reason difined~Coleridge's Characteristics of Reason as distinguished from the Understanding.

Secondary Ideas of Reason~Idea of Right and Wrong.

This Idea exists in all Minds in which Reason is developed~Idea of Right and Wrong necessary~Ideas dependent on that of Right and Wrong, &c.~Chronological Antecedent to the Idea of Right and Wrong, &c.

Idea of Fitness.

This Idea synonymous with Right and Wrong, &c.

Idea of the Useful, or the Good.

The Summum Bonum.

Relations of the Ideas of Right and Wrong and of the Useful to each other.

This purely a Psychological Question~Nature of Virtue~Happiness a Phenomenon of the Sensibility~Relation of Willing to Happiness~Conclusion necessarily resulting from the Facts above stated~Argument Expanded~Additional Considerations~Argument stated in view of another Example~Result of the Discussion thus far~Other important Considerations~The above Argument of universal Application~Obligation not affirmed in view of the subjective Tendencies~Obligation not affirmed in view of the subjective Tendencies of Right or Wrong Willing~Another General Consideration~Mutable Actions.

Ideas of Liberty and Necessity.

Ideas defined~These Ideas Universal and Necessary~Idea of Liberty realized only in the Action of the Will~Chronological Antecedents of these Ideas.

Ideas of the Beautiful and Sublime.

Opinions of Philosophers~Considerations indicating the existence in the Mind of Ideas of Reason, designated by the terms Beautiful and Sublime~Objection to the Universality of these Ideas~Chronological Antecedent of these Ideas~Illustration from Cousin~Explanatory Remarks.

Idea of Harmony~Reflections.

Mind constituted according to fundamental Ideas~Poety defined.

Idea of Truth.

Idea defined~Chronological Antecedent of this Idea.

Idea of Law.

Citations from Coleridge~Coleridge's Definition of Law~Law, Subjective and Objective~Conclusion from the above~Chronological Antecedent to the Idea~Apparent Mistake in respect to Law~Theory and Law distinguished~Nature of Proof~Fundamental and superficial Thinkers.

The Philosophic Idea.

Chronological Antecedent of this Idea.

First Truths, or Necessary Principles of Reason, as distinguished from Contingent Principles.

Contingent and Necessary Principles defined and distinguised~First Truths defined~Kind of Proof of which Necessary Ideas or Principles admit~Statement illustrated by a Reference to the Idea of God~Idea and Principle of Reason distinguished~Axioms, Postulates, and Definitions.

Idea of Science, Pure and Mixied.

Idea of Science deifined~Pure Sciences~Mixed Sciences.

Function of Reason denominated Conscience.

Conscience defined~General Remarks~Objection~Term Conscience as used in the Scriptures.

General Remarks pertaining to Reason.

Relation of Reason to other Intellectural Faculties~Through Reason Man is a Religious Being~Reason common to all Men~Error of Coleridge~Paralogism of Cousin~Transcedentalism~Reason, in what sense Impersonal~Reason, in what sense identical in all Men. 214-269



Intellectual Faculties enumerated~Influence of the above Distinctions~Errors of Kant~Classification of Mental Faculties.

Remarks upon the relations of Intuitions to one another.

Intuitions cannot be opposed to each other~Different Intuition Faculties cannot contradict each other~The logical Consequents of no one Intuition can be in opposition to any primary Intuition, nor to the logical Consequents of the same~Error of Kant and Coleridge.

Secondary Faculties.

Understanding~The Judgment~The Associating Principle~Imagination. 270-282



General characteristics of all Objects of Knowledge, and of our Knowledge of the same~Distict Apprehension conditioned on Attention~Spontaneous Development of the Intelligence~Characteristics of this Spontaneity~Characteristics Illustrated.

Additional Remarks and Illustrations.

Categories of Spontaneous and Reflective Reason~Relation of Observaion and Reflection to this original Spontaneity~Confidence reposed in the first Truths of Reason, how awakened~Use of the Common Demonstrations of the Divine Existence~Conclusions arrived at by a process of Reasoning, when false~Reasons of the Diversity and Difference of the Opinions of Men~Sources of Error. 283-292



The two Scools in Philosophy~Principles of Lock~Theory of Kant~Principles of Locke tested with reference to Necessary Ideas~Principles of Lock fail in respect to Understanding-conceptions~Error of Kant~Position of Kant true in respect to Understanding -conceptions and Affirmations of the Judgment.

True Explanation.

Intuitions~Notions~The Judgment~Associating Principle and the Imagination~Scientific Movement.

Manner in which the General, Abstract, and Universal, are eliminated from the Concrete and Particular.

General Notions~Abstract Notions~Universal and Necessary Ideas~Error of Cousin. 293-304



Investigation and Reasoning distinguished~Substances, how known~Induction of Phenomena, for what purposes made~Induction pertaining to particular Substances~Induction for purposes of Classification into Genera and Species~Finding a General Fact, or Order of Sequence~The Probable and Improbable~Order of Sequence~The Discovery of Universal Law.


Chararcteristics of the Statements made by a Witness~Circumstances which go to establish the Credibility of a Witness~Corroborating Circumstances aside from the Character of the Witness~Concurrent Testimony. 305-315



The Syllogism the universal from of Reasoning~The above Principle verified~Forms in which the Major Premise appears~Principles which lie at the Basis of all Conclusions from a Process of Reasoning~Remarks upon these Principles~Remarks on Aristotle's Dictum.

Different kinds of Reasoning.

Distictions Elucidated~Distictions between Demonstrative and Probable Reasoning~Common Impression in respect to the Extent of Demonstrative Reasoning~Method fo Proof~Real Proof found in no other Method~Sources of Fallacies in Reasoning.

Conception of Logic.

All Things occur according to Rules~Logic defined~Relations of Logic to the other Sciences. 316-330



The Bearing of the Philosophy of Locke upon Science, properly so called.

Kant's distinction between Analytical and Synthetical Judgments.~Analytical and Synthetical Judgments defined and distinguised~Consequences which Kant deduced from the Judgments as defined by himself~Errors of Kant in the Application of the above Principles.

True and False Systems of Philosophy.

Criterion or Tests by which we can distinguish the True from all False Systems~Theory of Realism: This Theory verified~Materialism: Conditions on which the Matieral Hypothesis can be sustained: Objections to Materialism~Systems of Idealism~Ideal Dualism: What are Realities according to this System~Remarks on this System~Subjective Idealism: System stated: Remarks upon this System~Pantheism or the System of Absolute Identity: Elements and characteristics of the system: Remarks upon this System~Pure Idealism: System stated: General Remarks upon the Systems~General Remarks upon Idealism.

Modern Transcendentalism

Eclecticism of Cousin.~System stated~Remarks upon this System~Common Sense defined~Common Sense a Standard of Truth~Philosophic Principles, why rejected by the Mass of Mankind~Dictates of Common Sense, how known and distinguised~Characteristics of Men distinguished for Common Sense. 331-404



Brute Instincts classified~Manifestations of Instinctive Intelligence~Principle on which the Argument is based~Points of Resemblance between the Man and the Brute~Hypotheses on which these common Facts may be explained~Points of Dissimilarity between Man and the Brute~Facts appled~General Remarks. 405-422



Principle on which the Argument is based~The Soul, how revealed to itself~Principles applied~Common Objections. 423-426



Preliminary Considerations~Principles on which the present Argument Rests~Direct Argument~Future Retributions. 427-436



Preliminary Considerations.~God, the Unconditioned and Absolute Cause of all that exists Conditionally.~Possible Hypothesis on this subject~None but the Theistic Hypothesis can be true~The Theistic Hypothesis established as a truth of Science~Attributes necessarily implied in the idea of the Unconditioned~Attributes of the Unconditioned necessarily supposed in the facts of the Universe~Facts of Creation bearing upon our present inquiries~The Theistic Hypothesis intuitively certain from these Facts~Truth of this Hyposthesis more partcularly developed~Does Creation indicate the character of God as Infinite and Perfect~God, the Infinite and~This a First Truth of Reason~Reasons why these Elements have not yet been designated~Foundation of the Conviction that God is both Infinite and Perfect~Nature of the Arguments above adduced~Relation of the Idea of God above elucidated to all other Ideas of Him.~The idea of a System of Theology.~Postualte, Axioms, &c. in Theology~Kind of Proof pertaining to each particular Attribute~This science to be evolved in the light of the Works of God, Material and Mental, and of the Teachings of Inspiration~Theology, Natural and Revealed~Difference between Mystery and Absurdity in Theology~Absurdity defined~Mystery defined~Mystery and Absurdity defined in another form~Fundamental Characteristics of Real Revelation from God~Revealed Theology defined~Defects of Method in the common Systems of Theology~Use of the common Treaties on Natural Theology~Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437-476





Classification of the Sciences.

ALL substances may be classified under two general divisions, Matter and Mind. This arrangement presents a twofold division of the sciences, to wit, Material and Mental.

Object of Mental Philosophy.

Mental Philosophy is the science of Mind, and of the human Mind in particular. Its object is a correct classification of the phenomena, for the purpose of a full and distinct development of the Powers, Susceptibilities, and Laws of the human Mind. This department of inquiry being completed, Mental Philosophy, as a science, then ascends to an investigation of the wide field of Moral Obligation, for the purpose of developing the extent, limits, and grounds of human responsibility.

What is to be expected from such Investigations.

The field before us is of almost boundless extent. We are not, therefore, to expect that any one treatise will present all that may be known of the human Mind. All that I hope to accomplish, is to introduce the inquirer to the science, and give to his inquiries in respect to it, a right direction. His own investigations will then lead him to exhaustless treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Mental Philosophy, as a Science, Possible.

Every substance in existence is known, and can be known by us, through and only through its respective phenomena. This, with us, is the changeless condition of knowledge in respect to all realities which lie around us in the universe. Every power or substance in existence is knowable to us, so far only as we can know its phenomena. The question, then, whether Mental Philosophy is possible to us, depends wholly upon this, whether the Mind, in the action of its varied powers and susceptibilities, is so revealed to itself, that it can know its own operations or phenomena? To this question, but one answer can be given. We are so constituted, that we have a knowledge of whatever passes in the interior of our minds. This power, or law of our Mental Faculties, explain the fact in whatever manner we please, is denominated Consciousness, which is a faithful witness of whatever passes within us. On the authority of Consciousness, all men do and must rely. Here Skepticism itself assumes the garb of positive faith: for in the language of Descartes, "let a man doubt everything else, he cannot doubt that he doubts;" and "he cannot doubt that he doubts" for this reason, that he cannot but rely, in some form or other, upon the testimony of his own Consciousness.

Not only are all things which pass within us given as phenomena of Consciousness, but we have also the power of retaining these phenomena under the eye of the mind, until we have fully resolved them into their original elements, and marked their characteristics. This power or exercise of the mind is denominated reflection, and is conditioned on the Will.

Mental Philosophy then becomes possible for the same reasons, and on the same conditions that physical science, or Natural Philosophy is possible. Facts equally undeniable, and equally distinct and palpable, are given as the foundation of both sciences. All that is required in either instance, is, that our researches be conducted upon right principles--that we introduce into our investigations nothing but actual facts,--that these facts be correctly arranged and classified,--and that none but legitimate conclusions be drawn from them.

The Method in conformity to which Psychological Researches should be conducted.

Having shown that Mental Philosophy, as a science, is possible, we will now contemplate the question in respect to the Method which should be adopted in conducting our investigations. Every philosopher commences his inquiries in conformity to a certain ideal of which he has conceived, and which he has assumed as involving the most perfect method in conformity to which such investigations can be conducted. A remark of Cousin on this point demands special attention. "As is the method of a philosopher, so will be his system; and the adoption of a method, decides the destiny of a philosophy." It becomes us, therefore, at the threshold of our inquiries, to stop, and with great care, determine the Method in conformity to which we are to investigate the powers, susceptibilities, and laws of the mysterious substance before us. The following Principles I would propose as involving and announcing the true Method to be adopted:

1. We should present to our own minds, with great distinctness, the question, what are the facts which lie at the basis of all our conclusions in respect to this science; facts upon which all legitimate conclusions do and must rest? They are, as all must admit, the facts which lie under the eye of Consciousness. But what are these facts? In other words, what are the sole and exclusive objects of Consciousness? Not, surely, as Cousin observes, the "external world, or its Creator--not the substance, nature, essence, or Faculties of the soul itself." They are the soul in its manifestations--in the exercise of its various Faculties. Upon these all our conclusions in regard to the nature of these Faculties, as well as upon the nature of the soul itself, and of all other objects are based. As the soul basis of physical science, we have the phenomena of perception. As the basis of Psychology, we have the phenomena of Consciousness, and these only. As we know the mind only through its phenomena, or manifestations, so all legitimate conclusions in respect to it must be revealed and affirmed by these manifestations. Hence I remark.

2. That in pursuing our investigations according to the true Psychological Method, we shall commence with no questions in respect to the nature or essence of mind, whether it is material or immaterial, or in respect to its various powers, or functions, in respect to the origin of mental phenomena. All such questions are to be adjourned until we have observed, characterized, and classified the phenomena, or operations which now, in our present state of mental development, lie under the eye of Consciousness. The question, in regard to the origin of mental phenomena, involves, as its foundation and starting point, a knowledge of such phenomena as they now exist. Otherwise we are inquiring after the origin of that of the nature of which we are profoundly ignorant. So also, if, before we have attained this knowledge, we study and attempt the resolution of questions pertaining to the nature or essence of the mind, or in respect to its Faculties, we violate the fundamental law of all correct philosophizing, to wit: that substances are known and are to be studied only through their phenomena. The true Psychological Method does not neglect any legitimate questions in respect to ontology, or the origin of mental phenomena. It simply adjourns these, till another preliminary department of inquiry has been completed.

In pursuing our inquiries in respect to mental phenomena and in respect to the characteristics of particular phenomena, two rules of fundamental importance present themselves,--to wit: Suppose or assume, as real, nothing which does not exist--and omit, or disregard, nothing which does exist.

3. The phenomena which lie under the eye of Consciousness clearly indicate a diversity of mental powers, or functions. In conformity to the true Psychological Method, a fundamental aim of the Mental Philosopher will be, to adopt those principles of classification by which these different powers or functions shall be distinctly revealed to the Mind. Two self-evident principles will guide him in determining the different powers or functions of the Mind. Phenomena in their fundamental characteristics alike, are to be attributed to one and the same Faculty. Phenomena, in their fundamental characteristics unlike, suppose a diversity of powers or functions. Hence the vast importance of classification with exclusive reference to fundamental characteristics.

4. Amid the endlessly diversified phenomena of Consciousness, there are, in the depths of the Mind, particular phenomena, which reveal the Laws which govern the action of the different mental powers. One of the principal aims of the Mental Philosopher, in conformity to a correct Psychological Method, will be, to fix upon, and develop those facts, or phenomena, by which the Laws of thought, feeling, and action, are revealed. No department of inquiry in the wide field of Mental science is of greater importance than this.

5. Having by careful reflection, and in conformity to correct principles, ascertained, classified, and arranged the phenomena of the Mind, as they now lie under the eye of Consciousness, a correct Psychological Method would then lead us to move the important questions pertaining to the origin of these phenomena, to Ontology, and to the nature, extent, limits, and grounds of Moral Obligation. This completes the circle of investigations in the wide domain of Mental Science. Much will be done for Philosophy, if this circle is completed according to the method above developed.

The Above the only correct Psychological Method.

A moment's reflection will convince us, that this is the philosophical, and I may add, the only philosophical Method. The powers of nature, external and internal, are known to us only in their manifestations, or through their respective phenomena. These manifestations must, of course, be known, or we must remain in total ignorance of the powers themselves.

This is the universal Method, the Method which lies at the basis of all real science pertaining to Matter or Mind. In pursuing our investigations in strict conformity to the principles of this Method, we shall be conducted to no conjectural conclusions, but to certain knowledge; provided we have marked with correctness existing phenomena, and have proceeded logically from facts thus given, to our conclusions. It puts us, to say the least, upon the right road to knowledge. If we "fall out by the way," the fault will be our own, and not that of the Method adopted.

If we arrive at correct conclusions, we shall, also, in the light of the Method pursued, understand and be able to assign the reasons for those conclusions, a most important attainment in the progress of mental development. If, on the other hand, we adopt any false conclusions, our Method itself presents the best means for their correction. No individual will long remain in the embrace of any important error, who has adopted a correct method of investigation, and who rigidly adheres to the principles of that method.

Utility of this Science.

But little need be said to impress the inquirer with a conviction of the importance of our investigations.

Mental Philosophy is the science of self-reflection. It teaches us to know ourselves, in our relations to God, and to the universe around us.

The importance of this science may likewise be seen, in the light of its relations to all other departments of human investigation. "Whatever be the object of inquiry," says Cousin, "God or the world, beings the most near or remote, you neither know or can know them, but upon one condition, namely, that you have the faculty of knowledge in general; and you neither possess nor can attain a knowledge of them except in proportion to your general faculty of knowledge. Whatever you attain a knowledge of, the highest or the lowest thing, your knowledge in the last result rests, both in respect to its extent and its legitimacy, upon the reach and validity of that faculty, by whatever name you call it, Spirit, Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Understanding." One of the first and great inquires of man, then, is the nature, extent and validity of this faculty. This is Intellectual Philosophy. This is Psychology, a science, which indeed is not the whole of Philosophy, but "must be allowed to be its foundation and starting point."

By developing the laws of human belief, and by habituating the mind to contemplate and investigate CAUSES through their respective phenomena, this science also furnishes a light, to guide our investigations in every other science, and presents the strongest possible motives to lead us onward.

Nor is its connection with morality and religion less important and influential. Indeed, here lies its chief importance. The development of the laws of evidence, will place a clear light, the ground of our assent to the Divine authority of Christianity, so far as external evidence is concerned. A development of the powers and susceptibilities of the mind itself, will lead us to a correct understanding of the bearing of the internal evidence of Christianity. A development of the grounds of moral obligation will lead us to perceive distinctly, and to feel deeply, our obligation to obey the moral precepts of Christianity. Every truth, every principle and precept of Christianity, supposes some one or more faculties or susceptibilities of the mind, to which they are addressed. A distinct knowledge of these faculties and susceptibilities, places those truths and principles in the clearest possible light before the mind.

One other consideration will show clearly the important bearing which our present inquiries have upon religion. The study of Mind, according to the Method above announced, implies, as its foundation and starting point, careful investigation of mental phenomena. Among these phenomena ideas occupy a very important place, and among the most fundamental and important of all our ideas are the conceptions of the infinite and perfect, that is, of God, of eternity, of immortality, of moral obligation, and of future retributions. In developing the characteristics, origin and grounds of these ideas, we are determining our convictions in regard to many of the most important and fundamental truths of religion. We are moulding and forming convictions which will, and must determine the meaning, which we shall attach to the most important portions of the sacred volume itself.

If we should appeal to facts, we should find the fullest verification of all that is said above. All the forms of corrupt Christianity which have appeared for the last eighteen centuries, all the false religions which have ever cursed the earth, all the forms of infidelity and skepticism, which the seathings of human depravity have, in any age, thrown upon the surface of society, have had their foundation in systems of false Philosophy. No maxim is more fully verified, by universal observation than this. As is a man's Philosophy so is his Theology. The changeless laws of our being render us, in all departments of research and action, philosophic beings. In religion, we can no more be exempt from the influence of Philosophy, than in all other departments of investigation. Suppose we professedly, as some have done, repudiate all Philosophy, and approach the Sacred Volume, to be taught of God, irrespective of any philosophic speculations. What is this but the enunciation of a peculiar system of Philosophy--a system which, after all, will determine, in many essential respects, the meaning which we shall attach to the most important responses of the Sacred Oracles. God hath joined Philosophy and Religion together. We do violence to the nature which He has given us, when we attempt to put them asunder. False Philosophy is the mother of false religions. A correct Philosophy is the handmaid of true Religion.

In short, in every condition and relation in life, next to the wisdom, which, by direct inspiration, "cometh from above," is a correct and comprehensive knowledge of Mental Philosophy, important to man. To the citizen, this science is useful by giving him the reasons of the duties devolved upon him in all the relations of life. To the theologian, it will be of great use, by enabling him not only to understand correctly the truths and principles of Christianity, but also to present them in such a manner that he will "commend himself to every man's conscience in the sight of God." How true also is the sentiment advanced by the great philosopher of England, to wit, that no man is qualified to fill the sphere of and enlightened statesman, who has not thought much and profoundly upon the infinite, the just, the right, the true, and the good.

State of Mind requisite to a successful prosecution of this Science.

It remains to speak upon one topic more, the spirit requisite to a successful prosecution of this science.

The first requisite that I mention is this, a deep conviction of the importance of the science. We pursue nothing with energy which, to our minds, does not possess an importance demanding the exertion of our entire powers. If I could impress the inquirer with a due conviction of the importance of our present investigations, and could excite in him a purpose of corresponding inflexibility to master the science, I should not have any unpleasant apprehensions in respect to the result.

I mention, in connection with the above, another requisite, to wit, a love of the science for its own sake; that is, for itself, as well as an account of its relative value. That which strongly appeals, not only to our convictions of what is valuable, but to the sensibilities of our nature, we readily pursue with the most energy and untiring perseverance. But two things are requisite to excite in any mind this love for the science under consideration--a proper conviction of the importance of the science, and familiarity with its great truths and principles. We are naturally such philosophic beings, that almost nothing else delights us so much as philosophic truths and principles, when we once become acquainted with them.

Another essential requisite is the habit or spirit of self-reflection. All legitimate conclusions pertaining to this science rest upon the facts which lie under the eye of Consciousness. To know these facts, that eye must be fixed with long and intense gaze upon them, till their fundamental characteristics are distinctly revealed. Without the spirit of self-reflection the inquirer will make but poor progress in Mental Philosophy. With it, he will "go from strength to strength."

The inquirer who would make progress in this science, must also be deeply imbued with a teachable spirit. This is the true and only philosophic spirit. Under its influence the mind "cries after knowledge, and lifts up its voice for understanding." "It seeks for her as silver, and searches for her as for hid treasures." "Wisdom enters into the heart, and knowledge is pleasant to the soul." The love of truth, for her own sake, takes full possession of the mind. To "sit under her banners," and "dwell in the light of her countenance," all opinions, all systems and prepossessions, contrary to her teachings, are readily sacrificed. Facts are weighed with the utmost care for the exclusive purpose of knowing their characteristics; and all conclusions, however contrary to all performed theories, are readily admitted, which sustains to such facts the relation of logical antecedents or consequents. In this state of mind, the student will not fail to "understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, and every good path."

I mention as another indisputable requisite, untiring industry and perseverance. "There is no royal road to knowledge" of any kind; much less to a knowledge of ourselves. Before we attain that high eminence from which the goodly mountains, waving forest, verdant hills, luxuriant valleys, and majestic rivers of this "land of promise," this "land flowing with milk and honey," shall lie out with distinctness beneath the enraptured vision; we shall find many a tiresome wilderness to pass, many a rugged steep to climb, and sometimes, perhaps, almost "through the palpable obscure," will we be compelled to "find out our uncouth way." But when that eminence has been attained, no one feels that he has "labored in vain, and spent his strength for nought." Every individual, who is not fully prepared for the toil of hard and tireless thinking, had better abandon this study before he commences it. Otherwise, in addition to all the wretchedness of ignorance, he will be subject to the more depressing influence of conscious unworthiness of the possession of the treasure of knowledge.

I will allude to but one requisite more--a deeply serious state of mind. In no other state are we prepared for deep communion with the mysteries, and for profound contemplations of the sublime and majestic creations of truth. To walk among her "clud-capped towers, gorgeous palaces and solemn temples," and to worship at her shrine, there is no place for triflers here. A trifler neither knows himself nor respects himself. He is, therefore wholly unprepared to inquire for, or appreciate when found, the most momentous of all the revelations of truth, those respecting the nature, character and relations of himself.

The individual who commences, and continues to prosecute, his inquiries pertaining to this science, in the spirit above described, will find in the end a full reward of his labors. The object of the author is not to think for the inquirer, but to enable him to think for himself.



"All the facts," says Cousin, "which fall under the Consciousness of man, and consequently under the reflection of the philosopher, resolve themselves into three fundamental facts, which contain all others. These facts which, beyond doubt, are never in reality, solitary, and separate from each other, but which are essentially not the less distinct, and which a careful analysis ought to distinguish without dividing, in the complex phenomena of intellectual life; these three facts are expressed in the words TO FEEL, TO THINK, TO ACT." Is this a full and correct classification of the phenomena of the human mind? Are these distinctions real? Are all mental phenomena included in these fundamental facts? These questions I answer in the affirmative for the following reasons:

1. No mental phenomena can be conceived of, which do not fall under one or the other of these facts. What mental operation can we conceive of, which is not a thought, feeling, or choice, purpose, or determination?

2. These classes of phenomena differ from one another, not in degree but in kind. How entirely distinct, for example, is thought, in every degree and modification, from feeling, on the one hand, and mental determination, on the other. Feelings, also, of every kind and modification, stand at an equal remove from thoughts and mental acts or determinations. So of the class last mentioned. Choice in every degree or form makes, in its fundamental characteristics, no approach whatever to thoughts or feelings.

3. All men recognize the states of mind designated by the above expressions, as actually existing in human Consciousness, and as clearly distinguishable from each other. When I affirm to the peasant, or to the philosopher, at one time, that I think so and so; at another that I have particular feelings; and at another still, that I have resolved, or determined upon a particular course of conduct; both alike readily apprehend my meaning, and understand me as referring to states of mind perfectly distinct.

4. In all known languages there are terms employed to designate these three classes of phenomena; terms, each of which is applied to one class exclusively, and never to either of the others. Thus, the term thought is never applied to any mental phenomena but those designated by the words to think. We never use it to designated feelings, or mental determinations of any kind. The terms sensation or emotion are never applied to any but phenomena of feeling. In a similar manner we never apply the terms purpose, willing, determining, &c., to the phenomena of feeling, but exclusively to those designated by the words to act. The existence of such terms undeniably evince, that the different classes of phenomena, under consideration, are recognized by universal Consciousness, not only as existing, but as entirely distinct from one another.

5. As a final reason I would adduce an argument presented in the work, recently published, on the Will. "The clearness and particularity with which the universal Intelligence has marked the distinction under consideration, is strikingly indicated by the fact, that there are qualifying terms in common use, which are applied to each to these classes of phenomena. There are terms, however, which are never applied but to one class. Thus we speak of clear thoughts, but never of clear feelings or determinations. We speak of irrepressible feelings and desires, but never of irrepressible thoughts or resolutions. We also speak of inflexible determinations, but never of inflexible feelings or conceptions. With what perfect distinctness, then, must the universal Consciousness have marked thoughts, feelings, and determinations, as phenomena entirely distinct from one another--phenomena differing not in degree but in kind."

Mental Faculties indicated by the phenomena above classified.

The three fold classification of mental phenomena, above established and elucidated, clearly indicate a tri-unity of mental faculties and susceptibilities equally distinct from one another. These faculties and susceptibilities we designate by the terms Intellect or Intelligence, Sensibility or Sensitivity, and Will. To the Intellect we refer all the phenomena of thought, of every kind, degree, and modification. To the Sensibility we refer all feelings, such as sensations, emotions, desires, and affections. To the Will we refer all mental determinations, such as volitions, choices, purposes, &c.

Object of Mental Philosophy.

The object of Mental Philosophy is a full development of the phenomena, characteristics, laws and mutual relationships and dependencies of these different faculties.

Meaning of the words Mental Faculties.

When I speak of a diversity of Mental Faculties, I would by no means be understood as teaching the strange dogma, that the mind is made up of parts which may be separated from one another. Mind is not composed of a diversity of substances. It is one substance, incapable of division. Yet this simple substance, remaining, as it does, always one and identical, is capable of a diversity of functions, or operations, entirely distinct from one another. This diversity of capabilities of this one substance, we designate by the words Mental Faculties. As the functions of thought, feeling, and willing, are entirely distinct form each other, so we speak of the powers of thought, feeling, and willing, to wit, the Intelligence, Sensibility, and Will, as distinct faculties of the Mind.

The remarks made above respecting the Mind itself, will, at once, appear equally applicable to each of the Mental Faculties which have been enumerated. As we speak of the Intelligence, for example, as a Faculty of the Mind entirely distinct form those of the Sensibility and Will, without supposing that the Mind is not strictly one substance, so we may speak of the different Powers, or Faculties of the Intelligence itself, without implying that that Faculty, whether applied to the whole Mind, or to any of the departments of the Mind, implies a diversity of functions of the same power, or substance, and not a diversity of substances, or parts.



WE are now prepared to enter directly upon the great inquiry to be pursued in the Treatise,-~the Phenomena, Faculties, and Laws of the human Intelligence. As all that we know, or can know, of this, as well as of every other department of the Mind, is revealed to us through the phenomena which lie under the eye of Consciousness, the first inquiries which now present themselves are, What are the phenomena of thought thus revealed? What are their fundamental characteristics? In conformity to what principles shall they be classified and arranged?

Principle of Classification.

There is one principle, in conformity to which all intellectual phenomena may be properly classified, and in the light of which, the fundamental characteristics of such phenomena may be very distinctly presented. I refer to the modes in which all objects of thought are conceived of by the Intelligence. Of these modes, there are two entirely distinct and separate, the one from the other. Every object of thought is conceived of as existing either contingently or of necessity, that is, that object is conceived of as existing, with the possibility of conceiving of its non-existence, or it is conceived of as existing, with the impossibility of conceiving of its non-existence. If we have any conceptions of an object at all, we must conceive of it as falling under one or the other of these relations. The principle of classification, therefore, is fundamental, and of universal application.

Contingent and necessary Phenomena of Thought defined.

Every thought, conception, cognition, or idea, then, by whatever we may choose to designate it, all the phenomena of the Intelligence, may be classed, as contingent, or necessary. A conception is contingent, when its object may be conceived of as existing with the possibility of conceiving of its non-existence.

An idea is necessary when its object is conceived of as existing with the impossibility of conceiving of its non-existence.

All the phenomena of the Intelligence must, as shown above, fall under one or the other of these relations. It remains now, to illustrate the principle of classification here adopted, by a reference to an adequate number of particular phenomena, as the basis of important distinctions pertaining to the different functions or powers of the Intelligence. In the notice which we shall take of particular phenomena, other important characteristics, aside from those under consideration, will be developed, while these will be kept prominently in mind, as the grounds of classification.


Two prominent ideas, those of body and space, will first claim our attention. They are to be analyzed as they now lie in the Intelligence, in its present state of development. That these ideas exist in all minds, which have attained to any considerable degree of development, none can doubt, and none will deny. The question to be resolved is, what are their fundamental characteristics?

Idea of Body contingent. That of Space necessary.

We will begin with the idea of body. Take any one body we please, the book, for an example, which lies before us. While we conceive of this body, as existing, we can also with perfect readiness, conceive its non-existence, and that the time may come, when it will cease to exist. The power which brought it into being, may also annihilate it. The same holds true of all bodies, of every kind. All objects around us, the world itself, and the entire universe we contemplate as existing with the possibility of, at the same time, conceiving of their non-existence. They do exist. They may cease to be. They may be annihilated. There is no difficulty of conceiving of these propositions as true. Nor is there any perceived contradiction between them. The idea of body then is contingent. We always conceive of the object of that idea as existing, with the possibility of, at the same time, conceiving of its non-existence.

Idea of Space necessary.

We now turn to a consideration of the idea of space. We can, as shown above, readily conceive of the annihilation of all bodies, of the universe itself. But when we have conceived of this, can we conceive that space, in which the universe exists, may be annihilated? We cannot. We conceive of space as a reality, as really existing. Can we conceive of it as not being? We cannot. No intelligent being can form such a conception. Of this everyone is perfectly conscious. When we have conceived of the annihilation of this, and of all other bodies, of the entire universe itself, let any one attempt to conceive of the annihilation of space, in which we necessarly conceive of all these objects as existing, and he will find the formation of such a conception, an absolute impossibility. The idea of space then is necessary. We conceive of the object of that idea as existing, with the impossibility of conceiving of its non-existence.

Other characteristics of these two Ideas.

It now remains to mark other characteristics of these important ideas. The following may be presented as the most fundamental.

Idea of Body relative.

When we conceive of a body as existing, we necessarily conceive, as the condition of its existence, of the existence of something else, to wit, space in which body does and must exist. If body is, space must be, as the condition of its existence. The idea of body, therefore, is relative, that is, the existence of the object of that idea necessarily supposes, as the condition of its existence, the existence of something else.

Idea of Space absolute.

When, on the other hand, we conceive of space, we conceive, as the condition of its existence, of no other reality. Space must be, whether anything else exists or not. The idea of space then is unconditioned, or absolute. The reality of the object of that idea, supposes, as the condition of its existence of nothing else.

Idea of Body implies that of Limitation.

We always, also, conceive of body as limited. Under this condition, we not only conceive of all particular bodies, but of the universe itself. The idea of body then always implies that of limitation. In other words body is finite.

Idea of Space implies the absence of Limitation.

Space, on the other hand, we always necessarily conceive of as without limits. Its idea implies the absence of all limitation. In other words, space is infinite.

Idea of Body, a sensible representation.

Once more, when we form a conception of some body, we can readily conceive of something else, by which the former can be represented. The human countenance, for example, can be represented on canvass. The idea of body then, is a sensible representation.

Idea of Space as pure rational conception.

When, on the other hand, we have formed the idea of space we find, and can conceive of, no existence with which the former can be compared. It bears no resemblace whatever to any other object which we know, or of which we can form any conception. The idea of space has no more resemblance to any other thought, or mental phenomena whatever. The idea of space is a pure rational conception.

The following then may be stated, as the most important characteristics of these two ideas.

1. The idea of body is contingent. That of space is necessary.

2. The idea of body is relative. That of space is unconditioned and absolute.

3. The idea of body implies that of limitation. Or, body is finite. The idea of space implies the absence of all limitation. In other words, space is infinite.

4. The idea of body is is a sensible representation. That of space is a pure rational conception.


These ideas are in all intelligent minds. No individual, whose Intelligence has been developed at all, will fail to understand you, when you speak of one event, as having happened; of another, as having succeeded it, and of the fact that that succession took place in some definite period of time. We will now mark the characteristic of these ideas.

Idea of Succession contingent.

You can conceive of some one event as having happened, and of another as having succeeded it. In other words, you have the idea of succession. Can you not conceive, that neither of these events occurred? Every individual can readily form such a conception. The same holds true of all events, of all succession of every kind, and in all time. The idea of succession, like that of body, is contingent.

The Idea of Time necessary.

But when we have conceived of the total cessation of succession, we find it absolutely impossible to conceive that there is no time, or duration, in which succession may take place. We can no more conceive of the annihilation of time, than we can of that of space. The idea of time, then, like that of space, is necessary.

Other Characteristics of these Ideas.

When we conceive of succession, we necessarily affirm, as the condtion of its existence, the reality of something else, that is, of time, in which succession takes place. The idea of succession, like that of body, is relative.

On the other hand, when we affirm the reality of time, we suppose, as the condtion of its existence, the existence of nothing else. Time is, and must be, whether anything else exists of not. The idea of time, then, is unconditioned and absolute.

Once more; whenever we can conceive of succession, we necessaritly conceive of time before, and after it. The idea of succession, therefore, implies of that limitation, or succession is limited, finite.

The idea of time, however, implies the absence of all limitation. Duration never began; nor will it ever cease to be. In other words, time is infinite. The following are the most important and fundamental characteristics of these two ideas.

1. The idea of succession is contingent. That of time is necessary.

2. The idea of succession is conditioned, or relative. That of time is unconditioned and absolute.

3. The idea of succession always implies that of limitation. Or succession is finite. The idea of time, on the other hand, implies that of the absence of all limitation. In other words, duration is infinite.


Body and space, succession and duration, are given to us, as we have seen, with the following characteristics: Body and succession are limitable; time and space are illimitable. In other words, the former are finite, the latter are infinite. "Now the ideas of the finite and the infinite," as remarked by Cousin, "may be detached form the ideas of body and succession, time and space, provided we keep in mind the subjects from which they are abstracted."

These ideas then are in the mind. They are also distinct, the one from the other. Consequently the one cannot be derived from the other. The multiplication of the finite cannot give the infinite. Nor by dividing the infinite do we find the finite. Being correlative terms, the one necessarily supposes and suggests the other. The one cannot possibly exist in the mind without the other. Yet as above remarked, the one is perfectly distinct from the other.

Nor is one of these ideas less distinct than the other. When I speak of the inifinite, every one as readily and distinctly apprehends my meaning, as when I speak of the finite. The following propostions, for example~body is limitable; space is illimitable~are equally intelligible to all minds, the one as the other.

There are other forms in which these ideas appear in the Mind, in all of which they sustain, to each other, the same relations, and possess the same characteristics. When the Mind conceives of power, wisdom or goodness, as imperfect, or limitable, or finite, it necesssarily conceives of something which is and always was.

If an idividual still affirms that he has, in reality, no idea of the infinite, we have only to ask him, whether he understands the import of the words he employs, when he makes such an affirmation? whether he is not conscious of speaking of something, which, in thought, he himself clearly distinguishes from all that is limitable, or limited? These questions, he will readily answer in the affirmative. In this answer he clearly contradicts the affirmation under consideration. For, if he really, as he affirms, has no idea of the infinite, he would not know the meaning of the terms he uses, nor could he in thought clearly distinguish the infinite, from all that is limitable, or finite.

If also we have no real or positive idea of the infinite, we can have none of time and space, for they are positive ideas, and their objects are given in the Intelligence, as positively or absolutely infinite.

Remarks of Locke.

Four remarks of Locke, pertaining to the idea of the Infinite, demand a passing notice.

His first remark is, that it is an "endlessly growing idea." On the other hand, the idea of the Infinite is always fixed. Being a simple idea, it must, when once generated in the mind, remain there, at all times, one and identical. It may become more and more vivid. In the respect under consideration, howerver, this idea undergoes no modification whatever. Whoever found, since the ideas of infinite space and duration were developed in his Mind, that these have undergone the least modification, as far as growth is concerned?

Again: Locke maintains that the idea of the Infinite is obscure. Still it exists, and as a phenomenon of Consciousness, falls, most legitimately, under the cognizance of the philosopher. But in what sense is this idea obscure? To those faculties of the Intelligence which pertain to the finite, it must for ever remain obscure. To that faculty, however, which apprehends truths necessary and absolute, it is as plain as any other idea whatever.

According to Locke, also, the idea of the infinite is merely a negative idea. "We have," he says, "no positive idea of Infinity." This is directly contradicted by the testimony of universal Consciousness. Who is not conscious that his ideas of God, of space, and time, all of which are given in the Intelligence as infinite, are just as positive as any of our conceptions whatever. We might also, with the same propriety, maintain that our conceptions of the finite are negative, as that our ideas of the infinite are. Being correlative ideas, if one is assumed as positive, the other will be relatively negative of course. In themselves, however, both are alike positive and equally so.

Once more: "Number," says Locke, "affords the clearest idea of the infinite." This is to reduce the infinite to the finite; for number, however large, is always limited~that is, finite. The multiplication of the finite may call into exercise the faculty which apprehends the infinite, and thus render our ideas of the latter more distinct and vivid (as all acts of attention do) than it otherwise would be. In no other sense, however, can such repetitions give us the Infinite.

Characteristics of these Ideas.

Having establised the fact, that the idea of the infinite, as well as the finite, is in the mind, it now remains to mark their respective characteristics.

Idea of the Finite contingent and relative; that of the Infinite necessary and absolute.

Whatever substance we conceive of as finite, we cannot but regard as existing contingently. We cannot regard it as in its own nature, a necessary existence. Hence, for all that we conceive of as finite, we natrually and necessarily inquire after a cause. We do not ask the question, had it a cause? but what caused it? An idea of the finite, therefore, is contingent, and consequently relative.

On the other hand, whatever we regard as infinite we necessarily apprehend as uncaused~that is, as existing by necessity. When we trace back any chain of causes and effects, for the purpose of finding a first cause, at each successive link we always inquire for its antecedent, till we arrive at the Infinite. Here we pause; here our inquiries cease; here we recognize ourselves at once, as in the presence of an existence which is not contingent, but necessary and absolute. The idea of the Infinite, therefore, is necessary and absolute.


Every individual believes, that he is now the same being that he was yesterday, and will be to-morrow. Numberless and ever varying phenomena are constantly passing under the eye of Consciousness. Many are recalled of which we were formerly conscious; yet they are all referred to the same individaul subject. Every phenomena of thought, feeling, and willing, of which we are now conscious, which we recall as having, in some former period, been conscious of, or which we expect to put forth in some future time, is given in the Intelligence in this exclusive form~I think, I feel, I will; I did think, I did feel, I did will, so and so. The same holds equally true of all similar phenomena which we contemplate, as about to occur in future time. Whatever the phenomena may be, the same identical I is given as its subject. This is what is meant by personal identity. It is the unity of our being, of the I or self, as opposed to the pluarlity and ever changing phenomena of Consciousness. Having shown that the idea of mental phenomena and of personal identity are in the Mind, we will consider their characteristics.

Idea of Mental Phenomena contingent and relative.

You have a Consciousness of some thought, feeling, or act of Will. You remember similar phenomena of which you were formerly conscious. You conceive of them as now being, or as having been actual realities. Can you not conceive of them as not being, or as never having taken place? You can. Can you conceive of such phenomena as existing or having existed, without refering them to some subject? In other words, can you conceive of some thought, feeling, or volition as now existing, or as having existed in former times, without referring it to some subject, some being which thinks, feels, or wills? You cannot. All the phenomena of Consciousness are contingent and relative.

Idea of Personal Identity necessary.

How is it with the idea of personal identity? You are now conscious of some thought, or feeling, or act of Will. You recall others, of a similar nature, of which you have been formerly conscious. This you refer to one and the same subject, the I of Consciousness, as it is sometimes called. This reference you and all mankind alike must make. This reference mankind universally make in all the transactions of life. Under its influence we hold ourselves and others bound to fulfill contracts made years ago. Under its influence, the virtuous are commended and rewarded, and the vicious blamed and punished for actions long since performed. Under its influence we anticipate the retributions of eternal justice in a future state for the deeds done in the body. Is it possible to avoid making this reference? It is not. You cannot possibly conceive of a thought, for example, without referring it to some subject which thinks. You cannot be conscious of any mental phenomenon, or recall any others of which you were not formerly conscious, without referring them to one and the same subject, yourself. The idea of personal identity, then, is necessary.

Necessary ideas distinguished as conditional and unconditional.

Here an important distiction between necessary ideas demands special attention. When we contemplate the ideas of space and duration, for example, we find that the objects of these ideas must exist, whether anything else exists or not. Those ideas, therefore, are not only necessary, but unconditioned and absolute. On the other hand, the ideas of personal identity, and of subjstance and cause, which we shall hearafter consider, are not, in this sense necessary. They are only conditionally necessary. Phenomena being given, substance must be. An event being given, the supposition of a cause is necessary. Phenomena and events not being given, we do not affirm the existence of substances or causes. The penomena of Consciousness not being given, we do not affirm the reality or identity of the self, the subject of thses phenomena. Such ideas are conditionally necessary, and not like those of space and time, not only necessary, but unconditioned and absolute.


Idea of substance explained.

If the observations which have been made upon the idea of personal identity, have been distinctly understood, the characteristics of the idea of substance will be readily apprehended. All the phenomena of Consciousness and Memory are, as we have seen, by a necessary law of our being, referred to one and the same subject. The phenomena are accidents, perpetually changing. The subject, however, remains the same. Now, in the language of Cousin, "Being, one and identical, opposed to variable accidents, to transitory pheneomena, is substance." But thus far we have only pesonal substance. The same principle, however, applies equally to all external substances. Through the medium of our senses, such objects are given to us as being possessed of a great variety of qualities, and as existing in a great variety of states. The qualities and states, which are perpetually varying, we necessarily refer to one and the same subject a subject which remains one and identical, amid the endlessly diversified phenomena which it exhibits. This is substance.

Idea of phenomena contingent and relative~that of Substance necessary.

Now as it is with our ideas of phenomena of Consciousness and personal identity, so it is with our ideas of external phenomena and external substance. The former is contingent and relative; the latter is necessary. When any phenomena appears, we can readily conceive that it had not appeared. Its appearance also we can admit, only on the supposition of something else, to wit, substance, to which this appearance is necessarily referred. Our ideas of phenomena, therefore, are contingent and relative.

On the other hand, the idea of substance, relatively to phenomena, is necessary. Phenomena being given, substance must be. It is impossible for us to conceive of the former without the latter.

Our ideas of Substance not obscure, but clear and distinct.

According to Locke, "we have no clear idea of substance in general." This idea also, he represents, as "of little use in philosophy." In reply, it may be said, that our idea of substance is just as clear and important, as those of time and space, and personal identity. Of this every one is conscious. The same function of the Intelligence which aprehends one of these ideas, apprehends them all. Take away the power to apprehend one, and the power to apprehend every other of these ideas is annihilated. Philosophy itself also becomes an impossibility. How could we reason philosophically about ourselves, in the absence of the idea of personal identity. Equally impossible would it be, to reason about objects external to us, in the absence of the idea of substance. This as kindred ideas, instead of being "of little use in philosophy," are, in reality, the foundation of all our explanations of phenomena, external and internal.

We often hear individuals, in expatiating upon the great ignorance of man, affirming, that all we "know of realities in and around us, is their phenomena. Of the substances themselves, we know nothing." In reply to such rhapsodies, it may be said, that our knowledge of every substance of every kind, is just as clear, distinct, and extensive, as our knowledge of its phenomena. In phenomena, substances stand revealed, the substance being as its phenomena. In the phenomena of thought, for example, we know ourselves, as thinking beings, or substances, our powers being as the thoughts which they generate. Our knowledge of the powers of thought, is just as distinct as that of thought itself. The same holds true, in respect to all substances, material, and mental.


The universe within and around us, presents the constant spectacle of endlessly diversified and ever changing phenomena. Some of these are constantly conjoined, in the relation of "immediate and invariable antecedence and consequence." The connection between others is only occasional. In reference to events of the former class, the mind judges, that the relaton between them is not only that of antecedence and consequence, but of cause and effect. In reference to every event, however, whether its antecedent is perceived or not, we judge that it had a cause. This judgment is universal, extending to all events, actual and conceivable. It is absolutely impossible for us to conceive of an event without a cause. Let any one make the effort to form such a conception, and he will find that he has attempted an impossibility.

Here it should be noticed, that we do not affirm that every effect has a cause. That would be mere tautology. It would be equivalent to the affirmation, that whatever is produced by a cause, is produced by a cause. All this might be true, and the proposition, every event has a cause, be false, notwithstanding.

The idea of Events contingent and relative; that of Cause necessary.

The relation between the idea of an event, and that of a cause, may be readily pointed out. Whenever the mind witnesses, or is conscious of, the occurrence of an event, it apprehends that event as contingent and relative. It might or might not have happened. There is no impossibility in making these different suppositions. The occurrence of an event also necessarily supposes something else, to wit, a cause. On the other hand, no evernt uncaused can possibly be conceived to have taken place. The idea of an event, then, is contingent and relative. The idea of cause is necessary, conditionally so, as shown above.

Theory of Dr. Brown and others.

The speculations of certain philosophers respecting the subject under consideration, here demand our attention. The relation of cause and effect, according to Dr. Brown and others, is nothing more than that of "immediate and invariable antecedence and consequence." A cause, says Dr. B. is nothing else than "an immediate and invariable antecedent." According to this philosopher, in no instance whatever is there any reason, in the nature of any particular cause, why it should produce one event rather than another. Succession, mere antecedence and consequence immediate and invariable, without any reason in the nature of the antecedent and consequent why this order of succession should arise, rather than another, is all that exists in any instance. In regard to this theory, it is enough to say that no man does or can believe it. Let any man, for example, behold a piece of wood and a metallic substance put together into a heated furnace. The wood is immediately consumed, and the metal changed from a solid to a fluid state. Can he avoid the conviction, that there is, in the nature of these two substances a reason, why, that when acted upon by the same cause, one is comsumed, and the other changed from a solid to a fluid state? When the Almighty said, "Let there be light, and there was light," who dares believe that there was not, in the nature of that fiat, a reason, why, as its consequent, light rather than any other substance, should appear? When two pounds weight are place on one side of a balance, and five on the other, who does not believe, that aside from the particular sequence which follows here, there is, in the circumstances supposed, a reason why one particular sequence should follow, rather than any other? In the succession of day and night, also, we have an order of sequence immediate and invariable. Is this equivalent to the declaration, that day cause night, or night causes the day? It would be so, if the theory under consideration was true. For all the conditions of that theory are here fulfilled. We have an order of sequence immediate and invariable.

As further illustration, let us, for a moment, consider the theory of "pre-established harmony" between the action of the Soul and Body, proclaimed by Leibnitz. According to this author, Matter and Mind do, and can exert no influence upon each other, whatever. I will, for example, a motion of my arm, or of any other part of the body, and the motion follows. Still my volitions have no influence in causing or controlling that motion. So in all other instances. God, forseeing the states of our minds, has so constituted our bodies, that the action of the latter shall always be in perfect harmony with that of the former, though wholly uninflenced by it. In this theory, the relation of cause and effect, as announced by the theory of Dr. Brown, is perfectly fulfilled. Between the states of our minds, and the corresponding action of our bodies, we have an order of sequence immediate and invariable. But who does not regard the Liebnitzian theory as announcing a relation totally distinct and opposite to what is universally believed to exist between our minds and bodies? When we say, that the motion of the body is in immediate and perfect harmony with that of the mind, we say one thing. When we say, that the action of the mind causes that of the body, we introduce, in the judgment of all men, an entirely different idea. Sequence immediate and invariable is all that we perceive to exist between any antecedent and consequent; but it is, by no means, all that we believe, yea know to exist.

Observations on Mr. Dugald Stewart.

The following remarks of Mr. Steward also demand a passing observation:

"It seems now to be pretty generally agreed among philosophers, that there is no instance in which we are able to perceive a necessary connection between two successive events, or to comprehend in what manner the one preceeds from the other, as its cause. From experience, indeed, we learn, that there are many events, which are constantly conjoined, so that one invariably follows the other: but it is possible, for anything we know to the contrary, that this connection, though a constant one, as far as our observation has reached, may not be a necessary connection; nay, it is possible, that there may be no necessary connections among any of the phenomena we see; and if there are any such connections existing, we may rest assured that we shall never be able to discover them."


"When it is said, that every change in nature indicates the operation of a cause, the word cause expresses something which is supposed to be necessarily connected with the change, and without which it could not have happened. This may be called the metaphysical meaning of the word; and such causes may be called metaphysical or efficient causes. In natural philosophy, however, when we speak of one thing being the cause of another, all that we mean is, that the two are constantly conjoined, so that when we see the one, we may expect the other. These conjunctions we learn from experience alone; and, without an acquaintence with them, we could not accommodate out conduct to the established course of nature."

These remarks certainly cannot hold in regard to the primary qualities of matter, as, for example, solidity considered as the antecedent, and resistacne as the consequent. Is it possible to conceive of the existence of an object which is extended and solid, which is at the same time destitute of the power of resistance?

Here I would drop the suggestion, whether it is possible to conceive of any substance as existing, which is destitute of power; and whether our ideas of substance and of power are not, in fact, identical? For my own part, I find it impossible to conceive of substances which are not actual causes or real powers.


The idea of Power, is that of causation in its quiescent state, or as the permanent attribute of a subject irrespective of its action, at any particular moment. When particular effects are attributed to particular causes, while the nature of the substances containing such causes remain unchanged, the mind considers the power to repeat such effects under the same circumstances, as the permanent attributes of those substances. This is the idea of power, as it exists in all minds. All substances, in their active state, are Causes~in their quiescent state, are Powers. Powers are of two kinds, active and passive. The latter are commonly called susceptibilities. As the existence of powers and causes is indicated by their respective phenomena, so the nature of such powers and causes is indicated by the characteristics of their respective phenomena.

The idea of Power, sustaining, as it does, the same relation to phenomena, that of cause and substance do, is, of course, like those ideas, universal and necessary.

Conclusion of the present Analysis.

Here our analysis of intellectual phenomena will close, for the present. It might have been extended to almost any length. Enough has been said, however, to indicate the principle of classification adopted, and to show its universal applicability, as well as to lay the foundation for the important distictions, &c., in respect to the intellectual powers, an elucidation of which will be commenced in the next Chapter.




IN applying the results of the preceding analysis, one of the first questions which arises, respects the relations of intellectual phenomena, contingent and necessary to each other. With regard to this question, I would remark, that there are two, and only two important relations wich such phenomena sustain to each other~the relation of logical and chronological antecedence and consequence. The latter relates to the order of acquisition, or to the question, Which, in the order of time, is first developed, in the Intelligence. The former relates to their order in a logical point of view, that is, to the question, Which sustains to the other, in the process of ratiocination, the relation of logical antecedent.

Logical order.

In regard to the order last mentioned, I would remark that one idea is the logical antecedent of another, when the latter necessarily supposes the former, that is, when the reality of the object of the latter can be admitted, only on the admission, of that of the object of the former. The ideas of events and cause being given in the Intelligence, for example, we find that we can admit the reality of an event on one supposition only, to wit, that of a cause which produced the event. We say, therefore, that the idea of cause is the logical antecedent of that of events.

Now, if we contemplate ideas in this view, it wll be perceived at once, that necessary ideas are, in all instances, the logical antecedents of contingent ones. What was shown above to be true of the ideas of events and cause, is self evidently true of the ideas of body and space, succession and time, the finite and the infinite, and phenomena external and internal, and substance and personal identity. Every contingent idea is relative, necessarily supposing, as its logical antecedent, some necessary idea.

Chronological order.

Contingent ideas, on the other hand, are the chronological antecedents of necessary ideas, that is, in the order of actual development in the intelligence, the former precedes the latter. Two conciderations will render this proposition demonstrably evident.

1. Necessary ideas are given in the Intelligence, only as the logical antecedents of contingent ones. Space, for example, is known to us, only as that in which bodies or substances exist. In no other light can we possibly know or conceive of it. Now that which is and can be known to us, only as the place of some other thing, cannot have been known to us prior to that thing; otherwise, the former might be known and conceived of, irrespective of the latter. The same holds true of the ideas of succession and time, phenomena and substance, events and causes. The latter class of ideas can be conceived of, only as the logical antecedents of the former. The former therefore must have orginated in the Intelligence, prior to the latter.

2. While necessary ideas can be defined, only as the logical antecedents of contingent ones, the latter can be defined without any reference to the former~a fact which could not be true, if the latter were not the chronological antecedents of the former. Cause, for example, can be defined, only as that which produces events. An event, as any one can perceive by consulting his dictionary, can be, and is defined without any reference to the idea of cause. Contingent ideas therefore are the chronological antecedents of necessary ones.


The preceding analysis has fully prepared us to proceed legitimately and safely to another very important inquiry~the Primary Intellectual Faculties pre-supposed in that analysis. As stated in the Introduction, the being and characteristics of every power or substance in existence, are indicated to us by its respective phenomena. The perception of such phenomena, being itself a phenomenon of the mind which perceives, supposes, in the mind, corresponding powers of perception. When the Intelligence apprehends a fact, or truth of any kind, such act implies, in the Intelligence, corresponding powers of apprehension. Now truths perceived by the Intelligence are, as we have seen, of two kinds, contingent and necessary. The perception of such truths indicates a corresponding distiction of intellectual functions, or powers. The faculty or faculties which perceive, and affirm the reality of contingent phenomena, are clearly distinguishable from that which affirms the reality of truths necessary and universal.

But contingent phenomena perceived by the Intelligence are distinguishable, with equal clearness, as objective and subjective, that is, part pertain to the Mind itself, and part to external material substances. These facts most obviously demand a two-fold division of the Intellectual faculties which pertain to contingent phenomena, as objective and subjective. The analysis completed in the last Chapter, presents to our contemplation three distinct faculties of the Intelligence:

1. That which perceives the phenomena of the mind itself, the faculty which gives us subjective phenomena. This function of the Intelligence is denominated Consciousness.

2. That faculty which perceives the phenomena of external material substances, or which gives us objective phenomena. This function of the Intelligence is denominated Sense.

3. That faculty which apprehends truths necessary and universal. This intellectual function, or faculty, is denominated Reason.

These Faculties why called Primary.

Consciousness, Sense, and Reason, are called the primary faculties of the Intelligence, for two considerations:

1. Because, that with them, all our knowledge commences.

2. All our complex cognitions are composed of elements given by these faculties. All the phenomena of the Intelligence are either simple or complex. All simple ideas are found to be the direct intuitions of one or of the other of the faculties. All complex ideas are found, on a careful analysis to be composed of elements previously given by these faculties. The truth of this last remark will be fully confirmed in the precess of our subsequent investigations.

Also called Intuitive Faculties.

The faculties above named are also sometimes denominated Intuitive Faculites. The reason is, that each alike, pertains to its objects, by direct intuition. Consciousness, for example, by direct intuition, and not through any medium, apprehends the phenomena of the mind. The same is true of the faculty of Sense in respect to the phenomena of external material substances. The action of Reason is conditioned on the prior action of Sense and Consciousness. It is not through any medium, but by direct intuition, however, that Reason affirms truths universal, necessary, and absoluto. Like the former, therefore, it may, with equal propriety, be denominated a faculty of intuition. These faculties, as we shall see hereafter, give us the elements of all our knowledge.


We are now prepared also for another very important inquiry — the appropriate spheres of the primary faculties relatively to each other. This inquiry can now be met in very few words. Sense, and Consciousness, give us phenomena external and internal. Reason gives us the logical antecedents of phenomena thus perceived and affirmed. This is its appropriate and exclusive sphere relatively to the other faculties. It cannot enter the domain of either Sense or Consciousness, and judge of the validity of its affirmations. The same holds true of each of these last-mentioned faculties, relatively to the domain of the other, and that of Reason too. Each faculty has its own exclusive sphere in which it is wholly independent of either or both of the others, and independent in this sense, that the validity of its affirmations cannot be tested at the bar of either of the others. Its response, when questioned, in respect to what it has affirmed is, " What I have written, I have written." When Sense, for example, has made an affirmation pertaining to the phenomena of an external material substance, all that Consciousness can do, pertaining to the subject, is, to give that affirmation as it is, together with its characteristics.

Of the validity, of the affirmation, it can say nothing. Reason can give the logical antecedent of that affirmation, and that is all. With its validity it has no more to do, than Consciousness has. The same will hereafter be shown to be true of Reason, in respect to every other function of the Intelligence.


If the truth of the conclusions above stated be admitted, they will be found to be of fundamental importance in philosophy. They will put an end at once to the wild speculations of many philosophers of the Super-sensual school, both in thins country and, in Europe. hero lies, for example, the great error of' Kant, the father of modern Transcendentalism. He first gives us a most profound, and correct analysis of intellectual phenomena, together with a statement equally correct, of the faculties pre-supposed by those phenomena. He then arraigns all the other faculties at the bar of Reason, there to test the validity of their affirmations. It is no matter of surprise at all, that the result of the trial should be thus announced by the philosopher himself who instituted it, a trial, the entire results of which, as we shall hereafter see, and a moment's reflection must convince us, must and can rest upon nothing else than groundless assumptions, and not at all upon the real affirmations of the Intelligence. "We have therefore intended to say," says Kant, in giving the results of his philosophy, "that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phenomenon — that the things which we invisage [form conceptions and judgments of] are not that in themselves for which we take them; neither are their relationships in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we do away with our subject, or even only the subjective quality of the senses in general, every quality, all relationships of objects in space and time, nay, even space and time themselves would , and cannot exist as phenomena in themselves, but only in us. It remains utterly unknown to us what may be the nature of the objects in themselves, separate from all the receptivity of our sensibility. We know noting our manner of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us and which need not belong to every being, although to every man. With this we have only to do." The above extract contains the following strange paralogisms, contradictions and absurdities:

1. That our Intelligence takes, that is, affirms things not to be, what the same Intelligence takes, that is, affirms them to be. Kant first employs the Intelligence to find out what things are. He then employs the same Intelligence to demonstrate, that. these very things are not what the Intelligence had previously affirmed them to be. As if a merchant should profess, that by his yard-stick, he had demonstrated, that he had a thousand yards of cloth, and then, that, by the same yard-stick, lie had as fully demonstrated the fact, that he had no real cloth at all, and that neither the yard-stick nor the cloth were, in themselves, what the yard-stick had shown them to be.

2. That, while our Intelligence represents nothing whatever as it is in itself, this same Intelligence does correctly represent "our manner of perceiving objects" — a most palpable contradiction, surely. For if our Intelligence does not represent timings as they are, it surely will not represent our "our manner of perceiving" as it is.

3. Kant affirms, that all that we have to do with objects, is '' according to our manner of perceiving them,'' that is, as they are given, in our Intelligence, lie then teaches us, that these objects are not as our Intelligence affirms them to be. This, certainly, is doing with objects far otherwise than "according to our manner of perceiving them."

Now all these absurdities and contradictions which Kant gives as the results of' his philosophy, and which constitute its distinguishing peculiarities, would have been prevented, together with the tide of skepticism, which, through that philosophy, has desolated so large a portion of Europe, had that great philosopher, after demonstrating the reality of Reason, as a faculty of the Intelligence, raised, and correctly answered, the inquiry pertaining to the true sphere of that faculty relatively to other functions of the Intelligence. Philosophers of the Super-sensual school have run wild with Reason, just as those of the Sensual school did with Sensation and Reflection.

The possession of Reason is the great distinguishing characteristic of humanity, that characteristic which separates man at an infinite remove from the lower orders of creation around him, and places. him among the great Intelligences of the universe. The full demonstration of Reason, as a function of. the Intelligence, has placed the philosopher whom Coleridge not unappropriately denominates the "venerable sage of Koningsburg," among the brightest intellectual luminaries of earth. When the appropriate sphere of this divine faculty in man, relatively to the action of the other functions of the Intelligence shall be fully settled, then philosophy, instead of being the sport of wild and blind assumptions, will stand unmoved upon the rock of eternal truth. This subject will be resumed. again in a subsequent part of our investigations.



It was stated above, that Kant has given a most profound and correct analysis of intellectual phenomena, together with a development equally correct of the intellectual faculties presupposed by those phenomena. I will close this chapter by giving a concise statement of the results of his analysis.

Intellectual phenomena, according to this philosopher, are divided into two classes—those derived from experience, and those not derived from experience— the empirical and rational.

The operations of our own minds, for example, together with the qualities of external material substances, are given us by the direct intuitions of Sense and Consciousness. Such intuitions, therefore, are exclusively empirical, being derived solely from experience.

On the other hand, space is an object neither of Sense nor Consciousness. Its reality we know, and know absolutely; but not as an object of experience. The same is true of the ideas of Time, the Infinite, Substance, Cause and Effect, &c.

Rational intuitions are by Kant denominated "intuitions a priori." Events, for example, are objects of experience; as such we know them. But the proposition, every event has a cause, we know a priori, and not by experience.

Intuitions a priori, have these characteristics, and by these they are distinguished from empirical intuitions, viz. : universality and necessity. Though we might know by experience, that such and such events have a particular cause, we cannot know from experience, that every event has a cause; much less, that every event must have a cause. Experience, if it could give us what is, could not give us the fact that what is, must be.

The above classification, it will readily be perceived, is, in reality, identical with that elucidated in the preceding Chapter, and leads to precisely the same division of the Intellectual faculties, a division which Kant, in fact, presents, as the. result of his investigations. The " a priori" phenomena of Kant are those there given as necessary, while his empirical intuitions are the contingent phenomena of Sense and Consciousness.




OF this function of the Intelligence various definitions have bccn given by different philosophers. The following is the definition given by Dr. Webster. "The knowledge of sensations and mental operations, or of what passes in our own mind; the act of the mind which makes known an internal object." Cousin represents it as that function of the Inte1igence which "gives us information of everything which takes place in the interior of our minds." "Perhaps the most correct description of the mind in Consciousness, i. e., of the conscious states of the mind," says the translator of Cousin's Psychology, "is the being aware of the phenomena of the mind—of that which is present to the mind and if self-consciousness be distinguished, not in genera, but as. a special determination of Consciousness, it is the being aware of ourselves, as of the me, in opposition to the not me, or as the permanent subject, distinct from the phenomena of the mind, and from all outward causes of them." In simple Consciousness, according to this author, we have a knowledge, in conformity to the statement of Cousin, of whatever passes in the interior of our own minds, that is, of all our mental exercises. In self-consciousness, which is only a special form or determination of the former, we know ourselves in those phenomena, and thus distinguish ourselves from all external causes of them. This, certainly, is a very distinct and correct exposition of the subject.

The definition of Professor Tappan, given in his work on the Will, though somewhat lengthy, demands special attention, on account of the distinctness and correctness with which the subject is there presented.

"Consciousness," he says, "is the necessary knowledge which 'the mind has of its own operations. In knowing, it knows that it knows. In experiencing emotions and passions, it knows it experiences them. In willing, or exercising acts of causality, it knows that it wills or exercises such acts. This is common, universal, and spontaneous Consciousness.

"This definition may appear to some an identical proposition — the mind knows its knowledges, the mind knows its emotions, the mind knows its acts of causality, may seem to be implied, if not affirmed, when we say, the mind knows, feels, and wills. Therefore, we would say further:

"By Consciousness more nicely and accurately defined, we mean the power and act of self-recognition: not, if you please, the mind knowing its knowledges, emotions, and volitions; but the mind knowing itself in these."

In the above definitions the subject is presented with such distinctness, and correctness, that I shall attempt no particular definition of my own. In the exercise of Consciousness, we are not only aware of some mental state, or exercise, but we know ourselves, in that state, as the subjects of it. In every exercise of thought, feeling, and willing, we not only know what these states arc, but know ourselves in them, as exercising them, and as the subjects of them. hence all mental phenomena, as given in Consciousness, are expressed in propositions like the following : — I think, I feel, I will ; — the mental phenomena being given, together with the self, the I, as the subject of them.

A remark, which I deem of special importance to make here, is this: In Consciousness, we not only know mental phenomena as they are, but what is in reality implied in such knowledge; we know also the fundamental and distinguishing characteristics of such phenomena. If we could merely know, by Consciousness, mental-phenomena, and not also their distinguishing characteristics, we could never classify and arrange such phenomena as the basis of important conclusions in the science of Mind. Whatever intelligent affirmations we can make respecting ourselves, as beings capable of thinking,, feeling, and willing, we must affirm, on the exclusive authority of the characteristics of such phenomena, characteristics perceived and affirmed by Consciousness.


The exercise of Self- Consciousness, contemplated as a particular form or determination of Simple Consciousness, is conditioned on the prior exercise of the Reason. It is' by Reason, as we have already seen, that we know that phenomenon supposes substance, or a subject, and that each particular phenomenon supposes a particular subject. 'But for Reason, therefore, whatever mental phenomena might be given 'in Consciousness, we could not know, that, for such phenomena, any subject whatever is supposed. Simple Consciousness gives us mental phenomena. Self-Consciousness, a particular form, or determination of the former, connects such phenomena with the subject, the reality of which Reason has affirmed, and connects them in the propositions, IL think, I feel, I will, &c. While, therefore, Self-Consciousness is conditioned on the Reason, the former, as a function of the Intelligence, is clearly distinguishable from the latter. This is further evident from a single consideration. Reason is the organ of a priori, that is, universal and necessary truths. This is its exclusive sphere. All the affirmations of Consciousness, even in the form called Self-Consciousness, bear the characteristic of contingency. A sound philosophy, therefore, will not fail, as philosophers sometimes have done, to distinguish these different functions of the Intelligence from each other.


Consciousness, in its simple spontaneous form, is common to all mankind, in the natural development of their Intelligence. In the language of Cousin, it is, "in all men a natural process." Every individual is accustomed to use the propositions, I think, I feel, I will, &c. All persons are accustomed, also, to speak of themselves, as conscious of particular states, or exercises of mind. This shows, that they not only are conscious of their mental exercises, but also are aware of the function of the Intelligence exercised under such circumstances. All men, also, in the spontaneous developments of Consciousness, clearly distinguish themselves as subjects of mental phenomena, from all external causes, or objects of the same. They may not be able technically to express this distinction with the clearness and definiteness that a philosopher would. They may not be able to understand at first, the meaning of the terms he would employ to express that distinction. Still it is, to them, a no less palpable reality, than to him.

Now Consciousness, which is thus seen to be, "in all men, a natural process, some," in the language of the philosopher above named, "elevate this natural process to the degree of an art, a method, by reflection, which is a sort of second Consciousness — a free re-production of the first; and as Consciousness gives all men an idea of what is passing in them, so reflection gives the philosopher a certain, knowledge of everything which falls under the eye of Consciousness." Reflection, or philosophic Consciousness, is simple or natural Consciousness directed by the Will, in the act of careful attention to the phenomena of our own minds. As natural Consciousness is one of the characteristics which distinguishes man from the brute, so philosophic Consciousness is the characteristic which distinguishes the mental philosopher' from the rest of mankind.

The above remarks may be illustrated by a reference to two common forms of observation in respect to external material substances. The phenomena of such substances all mankind alike notice, and to some degree reason about. It is the natural philosopher, however, who attentively observes these phenomena, for the purpose of marking their fundamental characteristics, as the basis of philosophic classification generalization; &c. The same holds true in respect to the two forms of Consciousness under consideration. Mental phenomena all men are conscious of, and all men, to a greater or less degree, are accustomed to reason about. The philosopher, however, by laborious efforts of self reflection, most critically attends to these phenomena, for the purpose of marking their characteristics, classifying and arranging them according to philosophic principles, and thus determining the powers and laws of mental operations. In simple Consciousness, we have a knowledge of whatever passes in our minds. In reflection, we have the same phenomena classified and generalized, according to fundamental characteristics thus perceived and affirmed.


I will now present a short illustration of this process, for the purpose of elucidating the proper method of questioning Consciousness, although in so doing I shall allude to a mental process of a secondary character, hereafter to be explained. The mind perceives, we will suppose, some object, an external material substance, denominated body. With this perception there arises the conception of the object as existing somewhere,--in space. The proposition, this body exists somewhere, or in space, falls under the eye of Consciousness. It is taken up by reflection, and by the process of abstraction, hereafter to be described, the two elements constituting the proposition are separated from each other. Thus the mind obtains two distinct ideas, that of body and space. These two ideas are now separately considered and marked with their respective characteristics of contingency and necessity. Again, some event is perceived. With this perception arises the conviction that it had a cause. The proposition, this event had a cause, falls under the eye of Consciousness. It also is taken up by reflection, and by the process above described, two new ideas, that of event and causation, marked by their respective characteristics of contingency and necessity, are obtained. These two ideas now being in the mind, by the laws of association, the other two, above referred to, are suggested and ranged with them in two distinct classes, as contingent and necessary ideas. Here we have the process of classification. Now on a further examination of the particular ideas comprehended under either of the above classes, some new characteristic common to them all, may be discovered; as, for example, all contingent ideas may be found also to have the characteristic of relative. This becomes a general fact, and we have it in the process of generalization. The Intelligence now takes up these phenomena, originally given by Consciousness, and then analyzed, arranged, and generalized by reflection, and gives us the powers and susceptibilities of the Mind, as indicated by these phenomena, &c.


Such are the nature and functions of Consciousness, together with the knowledge derived through it.

1. In its original spontaneity, it gives us all the phenomena of the mind.

2. In connection with the Reason, it give us ourselves as the subjects of these phenomena, and as distinguished from all existences around us, perceived or apprehended.

3. In reflection it gives the same phenomena, analyzed, arranged, and generalized.

4. From these data, the Intelligence gives us the nature, faculties, susceptibilities, and laws of mental operation, indicated by these phenomena.


In the Introduction, a proof of the possibility of mental philosophy, as a science, was attempted. On this point I shall add noting more here. I will make a few remarks upon the necessity of relying with implicit confidence upon the testimony of Consciousness, as the basis of all conclusions pertaining to the science of Mind. The great reason, as I suppose, why many individuals are prejudiced against mental philosophy, as a peculiarly difficult, obscure, and uncertain science, is a secret distrust of the validity of the facts which lie at the basis of the science; in other words, in the credibility of the witness through whom the facts are obtained. In respect to physical science, no such distrust is felt. Mankind generally rest with implicit confidence in the validity of Sense, with regard to external, material substances. With equal assurance do they, consequently, rest on any conclusions legitimately drawn from such phenomena respecting the nature and laws of the substances revealed in those phenomena. Now, why should we not repose the same faith in the validity of the testimony of Consciousness, in respect to those phenomena which constitute the basis of an infinitely more important science, the knowledge of Mind, than we do in our senses in respect to external, material phenomena? Of these two sciences, that which is by far of the highest concernment to us, we should not suppose would rest upon the most uncertain basis. If we look also at the real facts of the case, can any one tell us, or even conceive of the reason why we should rest with less assurance in the truth of that of which we are conscious, than in that which is perceived and affirmed by the external senses?

The visionary speculations, and dreamy theories of many of the most distinguished mental philosophers of ancient and modern times, has no doubt contributed (and rightly,

too, if mad speculations are the legitimate results of the principles of the science), to the impression on the minds of many, that the Scotchman's definition of Metaphysics must be the true one, to wit: "Metaphysics is, when he that is listening dinna ken what he that is speaking means, and he that is speaking dinna ken what he means himself." It should be borne in mind, however, that up to the time of Bacon, a remark precisely similar would have been equally applicable to the speculations of natural philosophers; and that while the principles of physical science have, since that period, been settled upon the right foundation, the true method in mental science is of comparatively recent development. I will here drop the suggestion, whether posterity will not regard itself as almost as much indebted to Victor Cousin for the annunciation of the true method in mental Science, as to Bacon for announcing the same in respect to physical? Mental philosophy, just emerging from the darkness of ages, seems now to have gained the high road to truth, with its laws of investigation correctly settled. If we would make sure and rapid progress, two things are indispensable--that we enter upon our investigations with implicit confidence in the validity of the facts of Consciousness, as the basis of the science of mind--and that we adhere with equally assured confidence to all conclusions to which those facts legitimately conduct us.


We are now prepared to answer the question, whether Consciousness is a distinct function, or faculty of the Intelligence? All philosophers, when speaking of it without reference to any pre-formed theory, agree in speaking of it as a function as distinct and real as any other, Sense and Reason, for example. Yet, by some, the fact that it is such a faculty has been denied. Consciousness, says the translator of Cousin's Psychology, "is not to be confounded either with the Sensibility (external nor internal) nor with the Understanding, nor with the Will; neither is it a distinct and special faculty of the Mind; nor is it the principle of any of the faculties; nor is it, on the other hand, the product of them." It would be somewhat difficult, after so many negations, to put anything very positive into a definition of the subject. Yet the learned author has himself given to this something a "local habitation and a name." "Consciousness," he says, "is a witness of our thoughts and volitions." Now as this witness has a special function distinct from every other function of the Intelligence, ought we not to conclude that it is a special function of that Intelligence?

The act of knowing also implies the power of knowledge. A knowledge unlike all other knowledges, implies a special function of knowledge, a function distinct from every other. Is not the knowledge obtained by Consciousness,

thus distinct from all other knowledges? Does it not, therefore, imply a special function distinct from every other function of the Intelligence?

Consciousness also, must be a special function, or it must be a peculiar function of some other faculty, or of the whole together. From Sense and Reason, it is as clearly distinguishable, as either of those is from the other. No one will pretend, that it is a special function of any of the secondary faculties hereafter to be named, nor of all the Intellectual faculties together. What shall we regard it then but a special function of the Intelligence?

One other consideration which I present, is, as it appears to me, quite decisive of the question under consideration. The exercise of Consciousness is dependent on the Will, in the same sense, that that of the other special functions of the Intelligence is. When, for example, an external object makes an impression upon one or more of the organs of Sense through this function, there is an instant and spontaneous apprehension of the cause of that impression. Before that cause is distinctly perceived, however, the perceptive faculty must, by a voluntary act of attention, be directed particularly to the object. The specific control which the Will thus exercises over this faculty, clearly indicates it, as a special function of the Intelligence. now a relation precisely similar, as shown above, in respect to its spontaneous, and reflective determinations, does the Will exercise over Consciousness. We have the same evidence that it is a special function of the Intelligence, that we have that Sense is.


I will close my remarks upon the subject of Consciousness, by a reference to the theory of Dr. Brown in respect to it. Consciousness, according to this philosopher, is simply a general term expressive of all the phenomena or state of the mind. "Sensation," he says, for example, "is not an object of Consciousness differing from itself, but a particular sensation is the consciousness of the moment, as a particular hope, or fear, or grief, or resentment, or simple remembrance, ma be the actual consciousness of the next moment."

A single example will fully demonstrate the incorrectness of this theory. I affirm (what is actually true), to myself, or some other individual, that I am in pain. This affirmation implies three things--an apprehension of pain in general, together with that of the particular feeling referred to--and a reference of that feeling to myself as the subject, this apprehension and reference being exclusively states of the Intelligence. now this knowledge of the feeling under consideration, with its reference to myself as the subject, is an act of Consciousness; and exercise of the Intelligence which accompanies all mental states, and which differs as much from sensation, or any other state of the Sensibility, as thought differs from such states. Sensation then is an object of Consciousness differing from itself. The same holds true in respect to all mental exercises. The state itself is one thing. The knowledge of that state, and reference of it to ourselves is quite another. This last exercise of the Intelligence is Consciousness, an exercise as distinct from the state of which it takes cognizance, as that state is from the object which causes it.


There is an apparent, though not real, discrepancy, if not contradiction, in the analysis of the Intellectual faculties, as given by Sir William Hamilton, and that developed in this Treatise, as far as the function of Consciousness is concerned. This discrepancy, or careful examination, however, will be found to consist, not in the analysis itself, but simply and exclusively in the use of terms, which each philosopher is permitted to employ according to his own definition. For the term Consciousness, as defined and employed in this Treatise, he substitutes that of Self-Consciousness, which, as the following paragraph will show, he uses in strict conformity to the definition above referred to. In the same paragraph also, he defines "External Perception or Perception simply," in perfect accordance with that given of the term Sense, as employed in this Treatise.

"External Perception or Perception simply, is the faculty presentative or intuitive of the Non-Ego or Matter, if there be any intuitive apprehension allowed of the Non-Ego at all. Internal Perception, as Self-Consciousness, is the faculty presentative or intuitive of the phenomena of the Ego or mind."

In a subsequent paragraph, he defines Consciousness itself, as the general faculty of Intuition. As thus defined, it would include Sense, Consciousness, and Reason, as these terms are defined and employed in this Treatise, and would differ from each of these functions of the Intelligence, only as the whole differs form each of its parts. "Consciousness," he says, "is a knowledge solely of what is now here present to the mind. It is therefore only intuitive, and its objects exclusively presentative. Again, Consciousness is a knowledge of all that is now here present to the mind: ever immediate object of cognition is thus an object of Consciousness, and every intuitive cognition itself, simply a special form of Consciousness."

When, therefore, our author affirms that we are immediately conscious of the existence of the "Non-Ego or Matter," that is, of its primary qualities, he means, not that such qualities are the immediate objects of Self-Consciousness, as he has defined the term, that is, of Consciousness as defined in this Treatise, but that they are the immediate, that is, the "presentative or intuitive" objects of the faculty of "External Perception, or Perception simply," that is, of Sense, as this function of the Intelligence is defined in this Treatise. No difference of opinion obtains, therefore, between us and our author, so far as the analysis of the primary faculties themselves of the Intelligence is concerned. The only difference, which does obtain, is in the use of terms, in respect to which even, we would not willingly depart from such authority as Sir William Hamilton, but for the fact, that a single term is needed in a Treatise like this, to express each special function of the Intelligence, that the nomenclature which we have adopted has this special advantage over that adopted by out author, and that, with all, it is equally definite, and is now very generally obtaining in mental philosophy.



SENSE has already been defined, as that Faculty or Function of the Intelligence, by which we apprehend the phenomena, or qualities [primary qualities, as we shall hereafter see] of external material substances.

As thus defined, the exercise of this faculty should be carefully distinguished from those states of the Sensibility denonimated sensations, states which always accompany external perception, but which are, notwitI~standing, none the 1cs~, for that reason, distinct from it. Sensation is that state of' the Sensibility which immediately succeeds an.y impression made by any canse 'upon the i~~yszcczl organization. Sensation is exclusively a state of the Sensibility... Sense is no less exclusively a function of the Intelligence. Of these distinctions 'we should never lose sight, when reasoning upon this departiucnt of mental science.


Sense, liko C~ni~ciousness, is, in it~ pu initivo dovelopni en

a simple spontaniety of the Intelligence. Its action, in 1hi~ state, i~, in no degree, conditioned on that of the Will. l1er-ception, in it.s distinct form, is conditioned on attention, which is nothing but the perceptive faculty directed by the Will, and hence, for the want of a better term, or phrase, called the voluntary determination of the faculty. Attention in• the direction of Consciousness, that is, when directed. to mental phenomena — is called reflection. When in the direction of the faculty of external perception — that is, towards the phenomena of material substances — it is called observation. ~~-'

The necessity of observation, that is, of attention, in the voluntary direction of the perceptive faculty towards phenomena obscurely given in the spontaneous developments of that faculty, may be readily illustrated. A portion of a congregation, for example, who have been listening to a certain speaker, have fallen into a state of slumber. The speaker suddenly stops, and immediately are all aroused. Now, if tl~e audience had not, in some form, heard the voice which broke upon their ears, why were they roused? Ye1~, if inquired of, in respect to what had been spoken to them, they would, for the obvious and exclusive reason, that they had not attended to it, be wholly unable to answer. how often do we hear the remark, I gained no distinct conception of that part of a discourse. My attention happened, at,)Jlo time, to be directed to something else.

The attention may, in some instances, be so fixed upon sonic object in one direction, that the Sensibility and Intelligence both may be almost, if not quite, totally isolated from what would otherwise deeply affect us in another direction. ~ A gentleman, for example, who was employed about the ma.. chiiiery in a factory, had one of his fingers entirely cut ofF, by the sudden and unexpected starting of a portion of that macliincry which carried, with great velocity, a circular saw. So intensely did his attention instantly become occupied with the prevention of the destruction of the whole machinery, that he was not aware of the injury done to his own person, nor was he sensible of the least pain from it, till the accident was pointed out to him by another who stood by. As soon, how ever, as the injury was discovered, the pain from it became intense.

The liass of attention is the spontaneous action of the Sensibility and Intelligence — action which always occurs, when the proper conditions arc fulfilled, and whcii the mind is not isolated from objects in other directions, by its intense action upon some object (as in the case above cited), in some specific direction.


The process of the mind, in the perception of external objects, is ~donbtlcss originally something like this An unpression is made upon the Sensibility, or a sensation is pro-. duced, by the action of some external material object upon the physical organization. In connection with the sensation, there is a direèt and immediate spontaneous apprehension (perception), of the preseuce and quality (primary quality, as we shall hereafter sco), of tho object which caused the sensation. To this quality the attention, by an act of volition, is then directed. Thus the apprehension or perception becomes clear and distinct. Sensation always, as a matter of fact, accompanies Sense-perception. Sensation, also, is the occctsiom of the perception, but not its cause, that cause being always found in the correlation between the nature of the Intelligence, as a faculty, and that of the Non-Ego or Matter, as an object of knowledge.*

* The distinction between a condition, and a eaius of a given event is obvious, and may be readily elucidated. The removal of an obstruction may be the occasion of the descent of a heavy body towards- the earth; but it is, in no proper sense, the cause of such an occurrence, tlie principle of attraction being itself the real cause. So, in the language of Sir William Hamilton, "Sensation proper is the condition sine qua non of a perception proper of the primary qualities." The cause proper of the perception, on the other hand, is found, as said above, in the corre1ation between the nature of the Intelligence, as a faculty and of the Non-Ego or Matter as an object of perception.


The objects of Sense-perceptions, which, as we shall hereafter show, always pertain directly and immediately to fiaid objects, are the qualities (primary or secundo-primary qualities, terms hereafter to be defined) of external material substances, qualities, such, for example, as extension, form, solidity, &c. The secondary qualities, such as those of taste, stncll, sound, &e., are apprehended indirectly and mediately, through, and iu the consciousness of sensations. Such qualities are to us the index, and the only index we have, of the nature of their respective subjects. In the consciousness of thought, feeling, and acts of will, we know ourselves, as thinking, fedflng, and acting beings. So in the consMousness of Sense-perceptions, and sensations, produced in us by external matérial substances, we know such substances as the subjects of the qualities thus perceived and apprehended.


While the mass of mankind appear to exercise more con fidence, theoretically, in the testimony of Sense than in that of Consciousness, the ease seems, in many instances, to be reversed in respect to philosophers. The testimony of Consciousness the latter appear to regard as valid in respect to subjective, while that of Sense is not, in their estimation, equally MO JR respect to objective phenomena. Now the reason of the presence of these phuiosophic doubts, as Coleridge wpuld call them, in the latter instance, and of their absence in the former, arises, as I suppose, from the fact that philosophers have attempted to explain the quo moclo of external perception, and not that of internal. This is the very reason for the doubts under consideration, assigned by Coleridge himself. "As this," he says [to wit, the belief that titcie exist 1/111195 without us], "on the one hand, originates neither in grounds nor arguments, and yet, on the other hand, remains proof against all attempts to move it by grounds or arguments (natura furca c~pellas tanicu 'usque redcb~t); oil the one hand, lllyS ebb] ~ii to ii\i I~I El )IAPE certainty as lb 151 ~ al. once indemonstrable and irresistible; and yet, on the other hand, inasmuch as it refers to something essentially different from ourselves, nay, even in opposition to ourselves, leaves it inconceivable how it could possibly become a part of our immediate Consciousness (in other words, how that which is cx hypothesi continues intrinsic and alien to our being); the philosopher, therefore, compels himself to treat this faith as nothing more than a prejudice, innate indeed and connatural, but still a prejudice." Now why does this philosopher compel himself to treat as a groundless prejudice and an untruth that which himself acknowledges to be an innate, connatural belief, an irresistible affirmation of his own and of the universal Intelligence? Simply because lie cannot explain the quo modo of external perception — cannot see how an object not our~e1vcs, and wholly unlike ourselves, as matter is iitiivers:tlly conceived to be, should ho to us an object of knowledge. If that is a reason why we should compel ourselves to treat as false what we know to be true, it should certainly induce us to treat his theory as equally false. For how can we explain the manner in w'hich that which is intrinsic and a part of ourselves, should be presented to us, by our Intelligence, as wholly extrinsic and foreign, and even opposed to ourselves—how it can present that which is exclusively subjective, as wholly object ice — that which is purely spiritual, as wholly material —that, in short, which is " without form and void," as possessed of a definite form ? Tile 9U0 ~~ioclo of knowledge, according to this last theory, would be found quite as difficult of explanation as in conformity to any other whatever.

Let us now suppose that philosophers should undertake to explain the quo mac/a of knowledge by Consciousness. How, for example, can I perceive and attend to an object external to myself, and yet have, at the same time, a consciousness equally d i~1iiieL ci' the itet of peiceptiuli itself? Suppose they ~lioultl attempt to explain such mysterious acts of the Intelligence as these, and at the same time compel themselves to treat as a prejudice all mental affirmations, the mode of origination of which they cannOt explain. Would not their philosophic doubts be quite as strong in respect to the validity of Consciousness, as with regard to that of any other function of tile Intelligence ?


Philosophy, it should b~~borne in mind, has to do with facts as they are, with the nature of the powers revealed in those facts, and with the laws in conformity to which those powers act. With the mode of their action, further than this, it has nothing to do. In the fall of heavy bodies to the earth, for example, we learn that attraction is a property of all mafeiial substances. \Ve then set ourselves to determine the law wliieli controls the action of this property. Here we arc within the legitimate domain of philosophy. But suppose we attempt to explain the mode in which the attractive power acts. "Such knowledge is too wonderful for us. It is high, we cannot attain unto it." Philosophy, well satisfied with her own legitimate and wide domain, resigns such things to the Eternal One, who ci~eated all the powers of tile universe, and consequently understands the mode of their action. All that philosophy can say in regard to the mode of action of any power is, that such is its nature.



We are now prepared to contemplate the comparative validity of the affirmations of these two functions of the Intelligence, Sense and Consciousness. I will suppose that I have a porccptioii of sonic external object, as possessed of the (IWLIitics of extension, form, and color. In Consciousness I recognize the existence of this perception as a phenomenon of iiiy own mind. Which of these affirmations are, in reality, the most valid, and which would a wise and sound philosophy impel me to esteem and treat as such — the affirmation of, Sense, in respect to the qualities of the external object, or of Consciousness, in regard to the existence and character of the affirmation of the former ~faculty, as a phenomenon of the Mind itself?, Neither, surely. Each faculty pertains alike to its object, by direct and immediate intuition. The affirmation of each is alike positive and absolute in respect to its object. The action of one is, in reality, no more a mystery than that of the other. The quo modo of the action of each is alike inexplicable, and no more inexplicable than the mode of action of every other power in existence. It is a. sage remark of Dr. Brown, when speaking of the mode in which causes produce their respective effects, that "cvci'ythtny is mysterious, or nothing is." When philosophy leads us to doubt the real affirmations of any faculty of the Intelligence, then philosophy itself becomes impossible, and the attempt to realize it, the perfection of absurdity.


The way is now prepared for an enunciation of the theory of external perception, taught in this Treatise. Knowledge implies two things, an object to be known, and a subject capable of knowing. Between the nature of the subject and object there must be such a mutual correlation, that, when certaIn conditions are fulfilled, knowledge. arises, as a necessary result of. this correlation. Between matter and mind this correlation exists. The latter knows the former, because the. one is a faculty, and the other an o1~ject of knowledge. Mind percoives the (1u:diLieS (ii matter, becau~o the former has tlio

powei' of perception, and the latter is an olilcct of perception.

Mind also exists in a tn-unity, consisting, as we have seen, of the Intelligence, Sensibility, and Will. To each of these departmeuts of our nature, the external worl~d is correlated.. Certain conditions being fulfilled, particular qualities o~ ma-, tenial substances become to the Intelligence, direct objects of, knowledge. Other conditions being fulfilled, they affect our Sen~ibi1ity, producing in us cortain sensations, either pleasurable, painful, or indiffi~rent. Our Will then acts upon these substances, controlling their movements, and modifying their states, while they, in ~ react upon the~ Will, modifying and limiting its control. In the first instance, knowkdge is direct and immediate. In the second, through a consciousness of sensations, we learn' the correlation 'between those objects and our sensibility. In the last, through a consciousness of. the nisuses of our Will, and an experience of their results, we learn tim correlation between these substances and our voluntary powers. In respect to the mq•nner in which, ~when certain conditions are fulfilled, we know, these objects, the only answer that philosophy gives or demands,.is this: Suchis the correlation between the nature of .the . knowing faculty and that of the objects of knowledge.

It is a sufficient verification of the theory above announced, that it is a statement o the case, as it Pl~CSent9 itself to the universal Intelligence — that it is encumbered with no difficulties which are not involved in every theory of a different kind which has hitherto been presented, and is entirely free from thu~o difficu1tic~ which are J)crfccLly fatal to thuso the~rkM. Every individual believes, that he knows the external world as correlated to the threefold departments of our nature under consideration, and in accordance with the principles above stated. Every theory also must rest, in the last analysis, in respect to the mode of knowledge, upon this one principle, The mind knows, because it is a faculfy of knowledyc. The difficulties which all theories, contradictory to that above announced, involve, are these: either they do not present the facts or conditions- of knowledge, or the manner of knowing, as they are given in the universal Intelligence.


As this Theory, however, is regarded, by the author of this Treatise, not only as true, but also as of fundamental importance in philosophy, a more extended and logical verification of it is deemed requisite, than that above given.


In accomplishing the object which I have in view, I would, in the first place, direct special attention to a consideration of the q~ualities of matter, as given in the universal Intelligence. According to Sir William Hamilton, such qualities may, and according to a strictly scientific arrangement, should be classed as, Primary-proper, Sccundo-primary, and Secondary.

Priniary gi.ialiUes.

The first class, Primary-proper, include all those properties which belong to Matter, as such, and which cannot, in thought even, be separated from it as Matter. The necessary constituents of our idea of Matter, as such, are two, that it occupfes

51);L(~, ;iiul is r,n,fu,nril in. space. J-Tenco, in the language of the author rckrrcd to, "we have thus eight proximate attributes : 1. Extension; 2. Divisibility; 3. Size; 4. Density or Rarity; 5. Figure; 6. Incompressibility absolute; 7. Mobility; 8. Situation." That which occupies space, and is contained in it, must have extension; else it would fulfill neither of these conditions. An extended substance occupying space and, at the same time, contained it, must also, be divisible, on the one hand, and possess size, on the other, Size which refers to the qua~ifüy of space which the substance occupies. When, on the other hand, we refer to the quantity of matter occupying space, we attain to the conception of the quality of Density or Rarity. That also which)as Extension and Size must. have Form or Figure. That toO which occupies space, and is contained in it, must be susceptible of motion from one point of space to another, and must, at each successive moment,, have a given situation in space. Hence we have the idea of the qualities of Mobility and Situation. These then must be reckoned as the qualities Primary-proper of Matter. They ~distinguislt no one kind of material substa~ce from another, but Matter itself from every other substance, and cannot, even in thought., be separated from it, as Matter.

&'cundo-primary qualities.

i'he Sccundo-primary qualities are those which pertain, not to Matter, as such, but which distinguish different classes of material substances from one another, and which pertain, as essential qualities, to such classes. Thus bodies are classed, in reference to their Gravity and Cohesion, also as heavy and Light, as hard and Soft, Solid and Fluid, Viscid and Friable, Tough and Brittle, Rigid and Flexible, Fissile and Infissile, Ductile and Inductile, Elastic and Inelastic, Rough and Smooth, Slippery and Tenacious, Compressible and Incompres~ible, Resilient and Irresilient, Movable aIILl Ininiuvable. I name the qualities, as givcii by the author above referred to. The classification is undeniably correct, and complete.

Secondary qua Ut~es.

The Secondary qualities are, properly speaking, subjective affections in ourselves, and not properties of Matter at all. They pertain to Matter, only as the causes, unperceived in themselves, of these affections or sensations. Such, for example, arc the qualities r~epresented by the terms Sound, 1'11a-vor, Savor, Tactual sensation, &c.

Whatever may be thought of the propriety of the phraseology adopted, no one can doubt the reality of the distinctions above made, or the consequent propriety of the corresponding classification of the qualities of Matter. My own opinion is, that it would be as well to retain, for the sake of cQnvcniencc, the old classification of Primary and Secondary, making a subdivision of the first class, as Primary-proper and Secundo-primary.

What these qualities are in general.

As no form of statement can excel that given by our author of the general characteristics of these three classes of qualities, I will venture to take from his writings the following extract, in which we have a specific statement of such characteristics

"1. The primary are less properly denominated Qualities (Suchnesses), and deserve the name only as we conceive them to distinguish body from not body— corporeal from incoporeal substance. They are thus merely the attributes of body as body-- corporis ut corpus.

"'Flie Secundo-piiinary and Secondary, on the contrary, are in strict propriety denominated Qualities, for they discriminate body from body. They are the attributes of body, as this or that 1~fl(i of 7)0(/// — C017)Or?.~ flt tale corj~us.

" 2. The :Pi~iiiiai'y rise froiii the universal relations of body to itself; the Secundo-priniary from the general relations of this body to that; the Secondary from the special relations of this kind of body to this kind of animated or sentient

organism. . .. .

"3. The Primary determine the possibility of. matter absolutely; the Secundo-primary the possibility of the material universe as actually constituted; the Secondary the possibility of our relations as sentient existences to that universe.

"4. Under the Primary we apprehend modes of the .N~nego; under the Secundo-primary we apprehend modes both of the Ego and of the Non-Ego,iundcr the Secondary we apprehend modes of the Ego, and infer modes of the Non-Ego.

"5. The Primary are apprehended as they are in bodies; the Secondary as they are in us; the Secundo-primary as they are in bodies, and as they are in us.

"6. The term quality in general, and the names of the qualities in particular, are — in the case of the Primary, unuivoeal, one designation unambiguously marking out one quality-- in the case of the Secundo-primary and Secondary equivocal, a single term being ambiguously applied to denote two qualities, distinct though correlative--that, to wit, which is the mode of existence in bodies, and which is a mode of affection in one organism. .

"7. The Primary and also the Secundo-primary qualities are definite in number and exhaustive, for all conceivable re lations of body to itsçlf, or of body to body merely, are few, and all these found actually existent. The Secondary, on the contrary, are in number indefinite; and they actually bold no proportion to the possibic. For we can suppose in animal organislu, any number of unknown capacities of being variously affected, and, in matter, any number of unknown powers of' thus affecting it, and this though we are unable to imagine to ours(1v08 'what t1u~o actually may ho."

As our author subsequently shows, the "Primary arc conceived as necessary and perceived as actual; the Scoundoprimary are perceived and conceived as actual; the Secondary are inferred and conceived as possible." "The, Primary arc perceived as conceived. The Secundo-primary are conceived as perceived. The Secondary are neither perceived as conceived, nor conceived as perceived; for to perception they are occult, and are conceived only as latent causes to account for manifest effects." The Primary are given in Consciousness, as "modes of a not-self;" the Secondary as "modes of self;" and the Secundo-primary as "modes of self and of a not-self at once." — "In, the apppehension of the Primary qualities the mind is primarily and principally active; it feels only as it knows. In that of the Secondary, the mind is primarily and principally passive; it knows only as it feels. In tim

Secundo-primary the iiiind is equally and at omico active and passive; in one respect it fc~ls as it knows, in another, it knows as it feels." hence, as our author n~might have shown, our knowledge of the Primary qualities is given in our minds, as valid for all Intelligents. Our knowledge of the Secundoprimary is given, as, in one form, valid for all Intelligents, and in another, as valid only for ourselves in the present constitution of our sensitive nature. Our knowledge of the Secondary qualities is given, as valid for ourselves exclusively, and that in the sense last named.


Every one is accustomed to distinguish between that kind of knowledge which is direct and immediate, and that which is obtaiucd, mcdiutcljj, that is, through something difl~ring numerically from the object of knowledge. The former kind of knowledge, Sir William hamilton denominates Present alive, amid ~ 1a~(~i', •l~'i ~ kIiOWlO(igO. " An imnicdiato cogiiition," ho says, "inasmuch as the. timing known is itself'

presented to observation, may be called prcscntativc, and inasmuch as the thing presented is, as it were, viewed by the mind

face to face, may be called intuitive. A mediate cognition, ~ inasmuch as the timing known is held up or mirrored to the

mind in a vicarious representation, may be called a representative cognition." No remarks are necessary' to show the reality of the above distinction, or the propriety of the phraseology employed to represent it., '



I now lay down the following propositions pertaining to our knowledge of the qualities of matter, propositions which I will then proceed to verify: 1. Our knowledge of qualities Primary-proper of matter is exclusively Prescntàtive, that is, is not me(1 tale, but direct and immediate or intuitive. 2. Our knowledge of the Secundo-piimary qualities is partly Presentatiuc, and partly Representative. 3. Our knowledge of the Secondary qualities, is wholly and exclusively Representative, such qualities being revealed to us, only as the unknown causes of known sensations, and revealed also, as exclusively through such sensations.

That our knowledge of the Secondary qualities is wholly, and of the Secundo-primary, partly, to say the least, Representative, no one will deny. The only question that can arise, pertains to the matter of fact, whether our knowledge of the Primary qualities, and of the Secundo-primary is, in any form, Presentative, and not like that of the Secondary, wholly and exclusively Representative. That we have a direct and ii"iuediate, that is, Prescutative knowledge of the two classes of qualities ~rst named, to wit, the Primary, and Secuudo-primary, É argue from the following considerations :

1. The fact of such knowledge cannot be shown, a priori, to be, in itself, impossible. If an individual should afliriii, that things equal to the same tbings are not equal to to one another, we should have no occasion to appeal to experience to determine the question, whether such a proposition is, or is not, true. Prior to such an appeal, or d priori, we know absolutely, from the nature of the case, that such a proposition is not, and cannot be true. Can we ibus know, that a presentativo knowledge ï~ the qualities referred to, is in itself, an impossibility? Certainly not, and who will amrm the truth of the contrary proposition? Neither the existence, nor the extent or limits, of the Faculty of Knowledge, can be known, ~ priori. The existence of the power of knowledge is revealed wholly and exclusively, through the fact of knowledge. The extent and limits, of the possible reach that power, can be determined, as exclusively, only by what the mind actually does know, and by what is logically implied in such knowledge. We can know, dpriori, that knowledge cannot extend beyond the compass of realities. But how far such realities are, to the intelligence, real or possible, objects of knowledge, or what realities do, in fact exist as objects of knowledge, cannot be known at all, d priori, but, as said above, wholly and exclusively, by a reference to what the mind does, in fact, know, aiid to what is necessarily implied in such knowledge. Suppose, that extended substances actually occupy space, and exist in it, and the Intelligence cannot amrm the reality of ' such existences, to be a natural impossibility, who will pretend to say, that a faculty of knowledge may not be given, to which the essential quahIieM of such substances, as Matter, and as

pai'ticular classes of Matter, shall be objects of direct, and immediate or Presontativo knowledge? Who will pretend, then, to know, a priori, that the human lutchligence, in the very condition of its present existence, is not, in fact, just such a faculty; that such qualities do not, in fact, exist, sustaining to it the relation of objects, while it sustains to them the relation of a power of real Presentative knowledge? The reality of such qualities as objects, and of the Intelligence, as a power of such knowledge, cannot be intelligently amrrned to be, in itself, impossible. Hence, no evidence does, or can exist, a priori, against the truth of the propositions under consideration.

2. It cannot be shown, 4 posteriori, that is, by an appeal to facts, that such knowledge does not, in fact, exist in the human Intelligence. We are absolutely conscious, that our knowledge of the Secondary qualities of Matter is not Prcscntative, but wholly and exclusively Representative. Have we, in fact, a similar consciousness, in reference to our knowledge of the Primary and Secundo-primary qualities of the same substance? The Secondary qualities are consciously given, in the Intelligence, wholly inferrentiahly as the unknown causes of known sensations. Is time quality of extension, in Matter, for example, given in the same Intelligence, consciously in the same manner, and as a precisely similar cause of a similar feeling? On the other hand, while the Secondary quality is given, in Consciousness, as the un/~nïwn cause of a known slate of the Sensibility; is not the primary quality given, as a known object of a known slate of the º~ßeßßß~jencc Y We arc

conscious, that a state of the Sensibility lies between the Intelligence, and the unknown cause of that state, the Secondary quality, and that the reality of that cause is not directly perceived, but inferred. Aro we also conscious, that a known sensation, or state of the Sensibility, lies between the knowii act of tho Intelligence above referred to, flhl(1 its kUOWIL Ol)ject, the Primary quality, that the sensation is, and the quality is not, the immediate object of perception, and that, consequently, the quality is consciously not perceived, but its reality, mediaely inferred? If our knowledge of the Primary qualities of matter is not Presentative, but wholly and exclusively Representative, no one will pretend that we have a consciousness of the fact; nor will any one attempt to prove the fact, a postenori, by an appeal to the facts of Consciousness.

Nor can the same fact be established by an appeal to any known facts connected with the condition of the mind, as connected with its physical organ'iza.tion. What shall be the extent, limits, or modes of its knowledges, in connection with such an organization, or whether it knows all or any of the facts referred to mediately or immediately, cannot be determined, àpriori. All such questions can be intelligently answered, but by an appeal to Consciousness. Now we are not conscious, at all, that all our knowledge of the facts referred to, the Primary qualities of our own physical organism, for example, is, in no form, Presentative, but wholly and exclusively Representative.

Nor do any other known facts anywhere exist, in the uiiiverse of Matter or Mind, from which we can draw the inference that our knowledge of these qualities is not Presentative. The proposition that this knowledge is Representative, then, is neither a necessary intuitive truth, nor is it capable of being established, a posteriori, that is, by an appeal to facts.

3. Hence, I remark, in the next place, that the theory, that all our knowledge of Matter, is exclusively Rcpre~cntativc, that is, through the consciousness of Sensations, rests upon absolutely nothing but a basciess assumption, an assumption wholly unsustained by any form or degree of evidence, d~ j~i'uni, or 4 posfr.rwri, that is, an assumption neither ~clf— evidently true, nor sustained by any known facts of Matter or of Mind. The only merit that can be claimed for it is, that~ liko all false theories in mental science, it rests upon a partial induction of the facts of Consciousness. That all our knowledge of the Secondary qualities of Matter is exclusively Rcp~ resontative, and derived wholl~ through a known mediuth, Sensation, is an absolute fact of Consciousness. Upon this simple fact, the assumption, on which Philosophy, in all ages, has run off the track of truth, has becn~ based, to wit, that all: our knowledge of all the qualities of the same substance, is, and must be, of the same character, and derived exclnsively~ through the same medium. No assumption conceivable is, or: can be, more unreasonable in itself, or more unphilosophically induced. How unreasonable the assumption, that because qualities of a given character, and universally recognized as not fundamental, are known in a given manner, that therefore qualities of a totally different and opposite character, and universally recognized as fundamental, must be known in the: same manner, and through the same uncertain medium.

4. The origin of this assumption should not be overlooked, in this connection, as having a not unimportant bearing upon our present inquiries. This assumption had its origin in an attempt to determine, 4 priori, the nature, extent, limits and mock of human knowledge, facts none of which can, by any. possibility, be determined only a poateriori, or by an appeal to Consciousness. These are all, it should be borne in mind, as facts, contingent and not necessary truths. They cannot, therefore; be determined, 4 priori, but must be resolved wholly 4 postcriOri. This assumption, therefore, is tho exclusive result of a most unscientific procedure in philosophy, a procedure in which mere guessing has ever been substituted for certain knowledge, when the latter was in the immediate presence of the philosopher, and wlie'ii no higher merit was attained, than very poor guessing at that.

5. I now adduce, in favor of the truth of the three prop~sitions under consideration, to wit, that our knowledge of the Primary qualities of Matter is wholly Presentative, that that of the Secundary-priniary is partly Presentativo and partly Representative, and finally, that that of the Secondary is wholly Representative, the direct, immediate, and absolute testimony of universal Consciousness. No one will deny, that in the universal Consciousness, the Primary quality is recognized as the known object of a known act of the Intelligence (Sense-perception), and that the Secondary quality is also recognized as the unknown cause of a known state of the Sensibihity (Sensation). Nor does any one doubt that our knowledge of the Sensation itself is Prcsentativc, wholly so. Now, in all proper Sense-perceptions, we have, undeniably, just as distinct and absolute a consciousness of a direct and immediate or Presentativo aspect or knowledge of the Primary quality, extension for example, as we have of the Sensation itself, when produced by the unknown cause referred to, the Secondary quality. It would be a denial of the facts of Consciousness no more palpable, to affirm, that our knowledge of Sensation itself is wholly Representative, than it would be, to affirm, that our knowledge of the Primary qualities is not Presentative. No honest interpreter of the facts of Consciousness will deny the truth of these statements. The truth of the propositions under consideration can be denied, but upon one assumption, that the same faculty affirms, with the same absoluteness, what is true in regard to Sensation, and what is not true in regard to Sense-perception. The true and only true interpretation of the fiwis of Cunsciousi'icss, on the subject, is this: The Primary qualities are given in Consciousness, exclusively as the known presentative objects of known acts of the Intelligence, Sense-perceptions. The same holds true of the Secundo-primary, so far as they are given as qualities of Matter. So far forth as they are given as causes of Sônsations, they are given as the otherwise unknown causes of known states 'of the Sensibility. The Secondary, on the other hand, are given exclusively as such causes of such states, and in no other form ,as objects of knowledge. In reference to the Secondary qualities, and of the Secundo-primary, so far forth as they are given as causes of sensations, we are conscious of the presence of a medium between us and the object of knowledge, and that it is wholly through such medium that the object is known. In reference to the Primary qualities, and the Secundo-primary, so far as the latter are regar~1ed as essential qualities of their respective subjects, we are t~onscious of no medium between us and the object of knowledge, and still less of the fact, that it is wholly through such medium that the object is known. We can therefore, by no possibility, have a consciousness, that any form of knowledge whatever is Presentative, if we have not that such is the character of our knowledge of the qualities

last named. -

6. I remark, in the next place, that our knowledge of the Primary qualities has all the essential characteristics of Presentative, and none of those of Representative knowledge; while that of the Secondary has all of the characteristics of Representative, and none of those of Presentative knowledge. Our knowledge of the Secundo-primary, on the other hand, so far forth as they are given, as obj ects of Sense-perceptions, has all, and exclusively, the characteristics Presentative, and so far forth, as they are given as causes of sensations, has all, and exclusively, the characteristics of Representative knowledge. In Representative knowledge, the object is never given, as perceived, but its reality exclusively, as 'i~iferrcd; precisely the opposite obtains, in all respects, in Presentative knowledge. In this case, the object i~ given, as known in itself, that is, its renli ty is given, not as inj red, but as peieeived. These are the fundamental distinctions between J?rcscntativo and Representative knowledge.

Now the Secondary qualities of matter are given, in our Intelligence, as not known in themselves. Their reality is 'given exclusively, as inferred, as known only relatively. The Primary qualities are given exclusively, as known in themselves, and their reality as perceived, and not as inferred. The Secundo-primary are given partly, as perceived, and partly, as inferred, and that just so fitr forth as they rank with the PHmary, on the one hand, and with the Secondary, on the other. We experience a sensation pleasurable or painful. We affirm, that it had a cause, and that in the cause, there is a quality adapted to affect our Sensibility, 'in the manner referred to, while 'that Sensibility remains constituted as it now is. The reality of the cause and the quality is giveu, as not perceived, but inferred, and the nature of the quality, not as known as it is in itself, but only relatively to our Sensibility. The Primary quality, on the other hand, that of extension for example, is given as known in itself, and its reality is affirmed as perceived, and not as inferred as the unknown cause of a known sensation, as is true of the Secondary qualities. The same holds true .of all the Primary qualities, and of the Secundo-primary, so far as the latter take rank with the former. We can, by no possibility, make a distinction between Presentativ~ and Representative knowledge, if we have not the~se two kinds of knowledge before us, if our knowledge of the Primary qualities of Matter is not exclusively of thc former kind, and of the Secondary of the lattcr, and if that of the Secundo-primary does not, in tho sense explained, partake partly of both.

7. There are also undeniable facts of Consciousness whici. can be explained but upon the admission of the truth of the propositions which I am now endeavoing to establish. It will not be denied either, that our knowledge of tho Primary, and, ~ in the sense explained, of the Secundo-primary qualities, of Matter, is Presentative, or that all our knowledge of Matter is equally and in the same sense Representative, and derived entirely through the same medium, Sensation. , On the latter supposition, all qualities alike should be given, in precisely, the, same form, as exclusively the unknown causes of known sensations, and all alike given, not as known in themselves,, but only relatively. Their reality also should be given, as not perceived, but inferred. , Now how can one class of qualities, all of which are alike exclusively ybjeots of Representative knowledge, and known as exclm~.si~iely through the same identical medium, be given in Consciousness, as the objects exclusively of Presentative and the other ~s exclusively of Representative knowledge; the one class as known in themselves, and the other as known only relatively; the one class, as exclusively the known objects of known perceptions, and the other with equal exclusiveness, as the unknown causes of known sensa-. tions; the one class as directly perceived, and the other. as merely inferred qualities? On this. theory, the theater of Consciousness is one exclusive scene of palpable contradictions, more irreconcilable than the discords of Chaos and Old Night. If, on the other hand, we suppose that our knowledge of the Primary qualities is really and truly Presentative, and that of, the Secondary as really and tru]y Representative, and finally, that that of the Secundo-primary blends, in the sense explained, both forms of knowledge, then all the facts of Consciousness bearing upon the subject, arc susceptible of a ready and perfectly consistent explanation, and they can be explained upon no other supposition.

8. I remark, finally, that the existence of the conceptions of these qualities, just as they lie in the Consciousness, can, by no possibility, be accounted for, on the supposition, that all our knowledge of Matter is derived exclusively through Sensation, and can be accounted for but upon the assumption of the truth of the propositions which I am endeavoring to establish. We will take, as an example, one quality, that of extension. The conception of this quality must have had its origin primarily in the mind, in consequence of the quality itself having been originally the object of immediate perception, that is, of Prcscutative knowledge; or it must have been derived mediately, as the logical antecedent or consequent of sensation. The direct and immediate perception of the quality will account for the idea of said quality in the mind. Suppose we reject this supposition, and attempt to account for the existence of the idea mediately, as the logical antecedent or consequent of Sensation. If the idea be assumed as the logical antecedent of the consciousness of Sensation, then the reality of the quality must be supposed to account for the existence of the sensation itself. If, on the other baud, the idcft be assumed as the logical consequent of the consciousness of the Sensation, then the quality must be held as an effect of the Sensa-. tion, and Sensation as the cause ~f said quality. No one will take the latter position. Let us, for a few moments, look at the former. As the cause of the sensation, the quality would be known not as it is in itself, but only as the unknown cause of a known sensitive state. It would be the object, not of absolute but of relative knowledge. Further, nothing is necessarily supposed, in the cause, which is not as absolutely revealed in the effect. Now thb sensation has, in itself, the phenomena, neither of length, breadth, nor thickness. [low can the consciousness of such a phenomenon suggest even the idea of the quality of extension, as the cause of such a phenwncnon? Nothing conceivable can be more unphilosophiical than the supposition of such an origination of this idea. Its existence in the Intelligence can be scientifically accounted for, but upon one supposition, that the quality of extension was itself originally given as the object of Presentative knowledge. So of all the other Primary qualities of i~1atter, and of the Secundo-primary, so far as they take rank with the Primary.

The truth, then, of the propositions under consideration, may be assumed as a truth of science, and, as such, employed in the elucidation of the various functions of the Intelligence.


Theories of Sense-perception differing from that above elücidated, Theories formed by philosophers to explain the manner in which the mind perceives external material objects, divide themselves into two classes — those which affirm, that our knowledge of such objects is real — and those which~ affirm that it is not real, and that all that we can know of such objects is our manner of conceiving of them.

Of the former Theories, there are two subdivisions, both agreeing in this, that our knowledge of Matter is, in no form, Presentative. The first affirms, that we know external material objects through the medium of certain Images existing between such objects and the faculty of knowledge." The second affirms, that all our knowledge of such objects is exclusively representative, and derived wholly through the medium of Sensation. The former I will venture to denominate the Scholastic. Theory. The latter has, by Sir William Hamilton, been very properly dcnon~inatcd the Cosmnothctic Theory. The Theories which affirm that our knowledge. of matter is, in no sense, real or valid for time reality or true character of its object, we will denominate the Idealistic Theories. As thus designated, we will notice them, in the order named above.


To all of tho forms in which this Thcory,.has been developed, says Mr. Dugal Stewart,' "I apprehend the two following remarks will be found applicable: First, that in the formation of them, their authors have been influenced by some general maxims of philosophizing borrowed from physics; and, secondly, that they have been influenced by an indistinct, butdeep-rooted conviction of the immateriality of the soul; which, although not precise enough to point out to them the absurdity of attempting to illustrate its operations by the analogy of matter, was yet sufficiently strong to induce them to keep the absurdity of. their theories as far as possible out of view, by allusions to those physical facts, in which the distinctive properties are the least grossly and palpably exposed to our observation. To the former of these circumstances is to be ascribed the general principle upon which all the known theories of perception are produced, to the latter, the various metaphorical expressions of ideas, species, forms, .sltwlows, yhantasms, images; which, while they amused the fancy with some remote analogies to the object of our senses, did not directly revolt our reason." Very little in addition to the observations above cited, need be said upon these theories. They all agree in leaving totally unexplained the very difficulties which they profess to explain, to wit, 1~Jow can the mind perceive an object out of itself, and at a distance from itself?

The image between the mind and the object, is as really distinct from the mind, and as really removed from it, though at a less distance, as the object itself. Perception of the intermediate image is just as difficult of explanation, and as truly needs another intermediate image, as perception of the object.


.Aerording to the Cosniothiotie Theory, we have no Presentative knowledge whatever of tho material universe. All such knowledge, on the other hand, is, as we 'have said above, altogether Representative, and derived exclusively, through the medium of Sensation. If the material universe had no' existence, and. we had the same sensations thal we now have, sensations produced by any cause whatever, the immediate interposition of Deity, for example, we should have, from the' laws of our Intelligence, precisely the same Sense-perceptions,~ apprehensions, and knowledge that we now have, and the cx-' ternal universe would be just as real to us, as it now is, and in all rQspects just what it is. ~od has so constituted our Intelligence, that, on occasion/of these Sensations, our percep-' tions, &c., became what they are. Weare sc~ constituted also, that we instinctively believe the universe to be 'what we have conceivcd.it, or rathorperlwps imagined it, to be. In constituting us with such an instinctive belief, the divine veracity stands pledged, that what we thus believe in must be real: for God would not constitute us thus to believe in what is unreal. Thus we are required to believe in an external matcriaF' uni-~' verse, not because we have, in fact, in our experience, any actual, knowledge or perception of its re~tlity, any real evidence" of the fact. Our belief, on the other hand, really rests upon such grounds as the following: 1. Such is the constitution of our intelligence, that on occasion of sensations induced in us, we conceive of an external material universe, as their cause. 2. From the laws of the same constitution also, ~ye instinctively believe in the reality of that of which we have formed a conception. 3. In this constitution, we have a direct revelation from the author of nature, that what we thus apprebend and instinctively believo in as real, i~ real. 4. On the ground, therefore, not of our own perceptions and knowledgcs, but of the veracity of the author of nature, we believe iii the reality of the material universe. This is time ground on which Christian Theists, holding the Sensational Theory, do, in fact, believe in the reality of the material universe, and is the only ground on which they can, by any possibility, believe in it. On this Theory we need only make the following~remarks:

1. It has already been proved to be false.

2. It is in itself, most palpably self-destructive, and selfcontradictory. According to it, God has so constituted our Consciousness, that, in it, the material universe is given, as, in very fundamental respects, the object of real Presentativc, while it is, in fact, the exclusive object of Representative knowledge, and also that certain qualities of Matter are given, as the known objects of known states of the Intelligence, while they are, in fact, nothing but the unknown causes of known states of the Sensibility. Now if the author of nature ha~ deceived us in the constitution of our Consciousness, why should we suppose, that He has not done the same thing, in reference to our instinctive beliefs? If the voice of the author of nature is to be heeded, in our Instinctive beliefs, why not, in the revelations of Consciousness? We should then be required to contradict this Theory, and hold, that certain qualities of matter are, in reality, what they are given, in our Consciousness, as being, to wit, the real objects of Presentative knowledge.

3. This Theory also involves a most vmcious reasoning in a circle. We first reason from this very universe to the reality of the Divine existence and attributes, and then backward from the reality of the Divine existence and attribues to that of the universe from which .wo started. We must first know the universe, at least as real, before we can reason at all, legitimimately, fiom it, to its author or any of his attributes. If the universe, as this Theory affirms, is in reality in itself unknown to us, we can only, find, through it, an unknown God, a God, fiont whose attributes, we cannot legitimately reason to anything. Nothing further need be added to prove that such a Theory cannot be true.


Of the Theories which affirm, that our knowledge of the material universe is, in no sense real, some affir~m, that there are no objects whatever external to the mind, thatwhatwo have postulated, as the quaiities of ol~jects external to us, are, in fact, nothing but our own mental states seen by the oyo of Consciousness. This is the Theory of' Coleridge, anti of modern Transcendentalists~gcn~ra1ly. Others maintain 'the reality of something callpd mind, on-the' one hand, and of a sotmiething not mind, on the other. They deny, however,that the latter can be to the former, in any sense, an object of real knowledge, or that either is, in itself, what. we take it to be~ When this unknown something, having in itself neither extension nor form, and existing nowhere and in no time (inasmuch as neither time nor space are realities in themselves, but only modes in us of conceiving of things as: external to us), when I say, this unknown and miameless something, in some unknown and nameless manner, affects the unknown something called mind — the latter, by virtue of laws innate in itself, postulates to itself its own sensations as the qualities of substances distinct from itself. Thus the great universe, in which we contemplate ourselves as existing, together with time and space, in which we contemplate ourselves and the universe as having being, is nothing in itself but a'fiction of our own Intelligence. This is the theory of Kant, stated without caricature. Both the kinds of theories under consideration ngroo in this, that what our Intelligence postulates as the qualities of external substances, are, in reality, nothing but men tn! states seen by the eye of Consciousness. External perception is nothing but ~ho eye of Conscioi~sness directed to an affliction wholly subjective, which the Intelligence postulates as the quality of something objective and external to the mind. In Consciousness, mental affections of different kinds are given as subjective and objective: that is, some are given as plienomena of the mind itself, and others as those of objects external to the mind. Hence, according to philosophers maintaining these theories, Consciousness has two distinct functions, the external and the internal. When taking cognizance of some affection which the Intelligence has postulated as a subjecttve phenomenon, this is Consciousness in the exercise of its interior function. When taking cognizance of some affection which the Intelligence postulates as a phenomenon of an object external to the mind, this is Coiisciousncss in the exercise of its exterior function. Sense, according to these theories, is not a faculty of knowledge at all; but only a receptivity of affections or impressions, postulated by the Inte]ligence as the qualities of objects external to the mind. Thus that which we have been accustomed to regard as a real world external to the mind, and altogether unlike ourselves, has no existence out of ourselves. Neither the universe, nor its author have any existence in itself. The1 are mere ideals of our own creating; ideals grand and perfect, and which we are therefore bound to regard and revere, not as realities in themselves, but as grand conceptions — sublime creations of our own Intelligences, creations which are true, as Coleridge remarks simply and exclusively, "because we have 'conceivedthem."

Reasons for these Theories.

Among the rcnsons given for timoso theories, the most impui(aimt', t~imtL all that •~ nOW need to notice, are time following

1. They explain the possibiU~~y of kno~lcdge. Of all things real to us, as objects of knowledge, we havo a direct and immediate Consciousness. All objects of knowledge,' therefore, are brought within the sphere of direct mental vision.:

The possibility of perception is thus fully demonstrated.

2. These theories render the reality and certainty of knowledge self-evident. If nothing exists~ in ~the object, but what our Intelligence has 'put there, our knowledge of the' object:

must be real, certain, and absolute. If, for example, nothing~ exists in a contribution box but what I have put there, and I know what I have put into it, then my knowledge of what the box contains is real and absolute. ' So when I contemplate an object which my Intellig~,uce has postulated 'as external to' ]nyself, if that object is ,in reality nothing but a pure creation of may Intelligence, and contains nothing but what the same Intelligence has put into it, how demonstrably manifest it is, that my knowledge of the object is real and absolute.

Objections to these Theories.

But while these theories apparently, at ~first thought, commend themselves to our minds, as explaining things which would otherwise be wholly inexplicable to us, they are at once, in our Intelligence, met with difficulties perfectly insurmountable.

1. They leave totally unexplained the same mystery hanging over the subject which they profess to explain, that hung over it before, to wit, the possibilit~i of knowledge. The distance



Elements of which Nortions are constituded.

Error of Kant.

Kant's Anatomy of Pure Reason.





General Terms.

Understanding and Judgment distinguised.





Terms defined.

MEMORY and Recollection are treated by philosophers only as important departments of the principle of Association. This, as we shall see, is demanded by sound philosophical analysis. The two terms above named are often used interchangeably, and never distinguished but by the following circumstances. In the process denominated Memory, notions, or conceptions of facts and events, are spontaneously recalled to the Mind. In that called Recollection, these Intellectual states are recalled by an effort of Will.

States of Mind entering into and connected with these Processes.

There are three distinct mental operations connected with each of these processes of Mind.

1. Some feeling or state of Mind which has formerly co-existed with the perception or apprehension of the object recalled--a feeling or state spontaneously recurring, or revived by some object of present thought, perception, or sensation.

2. A simple apprehension of the object or event itself~and apprehension attended with no belief or judgment whatever pertaining to the object.

3. A recurrence, in thought, of the circumstances of time and place connected with the perception or apprehension of the object.

The above statement verified.

That objects of Memory and Recollection are not recalled directly and immediately, but are suggested, in the manner above described, is obvious from two considerations.

1. From universal Consciousness. Those who are least accustomed to analyse the operations of their own minds, as well as philosophers, have noticed this fact. Hence the common affirmations: "This reminds me of," or "This suggests to my mind such and such occurences," clearly showing, not merely that such events are suggested, but that the subjects of them are conscious of it.

2. When we wish to recollect any events, or in the common phrase, to recall them, we do not attempt to do this directly, but by directing the attention to various objects, at present before the Mind, that they may suggest those which we wish to recall. Memory and Recollectoin are, in this respect, subject to preciesly the same law, and the law which governs each is the same which governs the entire phenomena of Association. The above remark is so obviously true, that philosophers, as stated above, almost universally treat of these subjects in the same connection, Memory being considered only as one department of Association.

Principle on which Objects are Remembered with Ease and Distinctness.

Taking this position for granted, or as having been already proved, it will follow, as a necessary consequence, that the ease and distinctness with which any objects or events will be recalled to the Mind, will always be proportioned to the depth and intensity of the impressions formerly received from them, and with the number of objects and events with which such impressions have heretofore co-existed, or may hereafter co-exist. This conclusion we also find to be confirmed by universal experience. When you hear the declaration, "Such and such events I shall never forget," suppose you ask the reason for such an affirmation. The answer will invariably be, "It made a deep IMPRESSION upon my Mind." On the other hand, if a person is asked for the reason why he recalls with such difficulty any particular event, he will uniformly answer, "it made such a feeble impression upon my Mind." Assuming that the state of the Sensibility is the regulating principle of suggestion, the fact is self-evident, that the ease with which any particular event will be recalled, depends not only upon the depth and intensity of the impression which it formely made, but upon the number of objects or events with which such impression may have co-existed, and shall hereafter co-exist.

Deep and distinct Impressions, on what conditioned.

One inquiry, of no small importance in mental science, here claims our attention, to wit, the circumstances under which impressions received from objects of thought or perception are rendered deep and distinct. Among these I notice the three following, as the most important:

1. Attention. In former Chapters it has been shown that attention is the condition of distinct perception, both in respect to the phenomena of Sense and Consciousness. In walking, for example, we do not remember the particular acts of volition, which directed each particular step. Yet we know that we must have been conscious of such acts. They eye that runs carelessly over a particular landscape, and nothing but the most general outline is remembered, while we know that each particular part must have been seen by us. For the want of attention, however, these objects were not distictly perceived. Of course no distinct and vivid impression was made upon the Mind, and consequently they are not remembered. The manner in which attention influences Memory is two-fold. It not only impresses deeply and distictly on the Mind particular scenes, each taken as a whole, but all the parts of such scenes. Hence the whole of such scenes will be recalled by the perception or suggestion of any particular part, which may be met with in other scenes. That Memory, however, does not depend primarily upon attention, but on the impression made by objects of attention, is evident form the fact, that the ease with which any particular event is recalled, is not proportioned to the degree of attention devoted to it, but to the vividness of the impression received from it.

2. The impression made upon the mind by a particular event, and consequently the ease with which it will be remembered, depends upon the circumstances in which the event occured~circumstances external to the Mind; such for example, as its occurrence at a time and place unexpected, in connection with other events deeply interesting to us, &c.

3. The impression which events make on the Mind, depends upon the state of the Mind itself, when they occure. Offices of kindness, when we little need them, make a comparatively slight impression upon the Mind. They are accordingly forgetten with comparative ease. But the stanger who watched over us when we were sick, in a strange land, we never forget, for the obvious reason that such occurrences are deeply impressed upon the Mind. Who is not aware that the impression made upon the Mnd in reading a book, listening to a discourse, or witnessing any scene, and consequently the ease and distictness with which they are recalled, depends greatlyupon the state of Mind at the time?

Diversity of Powers of Memory, as developed in different Individuals.

Assuming the principle, that those things of which we have formed distinct conceptions, and which have deeply moved and affected our Sensibility, will be easily and distictly remembered, the diverse kinds of Memory, as they appear in different individual, may be readily explained.

Philosophic Memory.

The philosopher is, above all things, interested in universal truths and general pinciple, and in facts which illustrate such truths and principles. With names, and minor circumstances of time and place, he has little or no interest. These, of course, he seldom recalls; while general principles and facts connected with, and illustrative of general principles, he never forgets. Here we have the peculiarites of what may be called Philosophical Memory.

Local Memory.

With general principles, however, the mass of men are very little interested. Events, as mere events, with all their circumstances of time, place, &c., are the things which cheifly interest them. In such cases, general principles, if understood at all, will readily pass from the Mind, while facts and events, with all their adbentitious circumstances, will leave their permanent impress upon it. Here we have the characteristics of what is called Local Memory.

Artificial Memory.

The third and only other kind of Memory which it is necessary to notice, is called Artificial Memory, a method of connecting things easily remembered with those which are recalled with greater difficulty, that the latter may be recalled by means of the former. The manner in which the principle of suggestion operates in this instance, may be readily explained. The two objects are brought into the relation of co-existence with one and the same state of Mind; and the familiar object, by exciting that state, recalls the one less familiar. The inexpediency of resorting to such associations, excepting upon tivial subjects, is so obvious as not to need any particular remarks.


A few topics of somewhat miscellaneous character, connected withour present inquires wil close this Chapter.

A ready and retentive Memory.

The distiction between what is called a read, and a retentive Memory, next demands attention. A philosophical Memory is know to be the most retentive and least ready. General principles are regarded by the philosopher, as above all price. These of course he never forgets. For the same reason, facts and events, connecte with, and illustrative of general principles leave an impress equally permanent upon his mind. The Memory of such a person however, will not, in ordinary circumstances, be ready, for the obvious reason, that when he wishes to recall the particular fact, he finds it necessary first to recall the general principle with which it was associated. For the same reason, Local Memory will be more ready, but less retentive. The qualities in objects with which such persons are interested, exist alike in such an infinite variety of objects, that when this quality is met with, a great multitude of similar objects will be at once suggested. They will generally be those however, which have been most recently seen. Persons possessing Local Memory merely, will excel in common conversation, and in what may be called loose and rambling composition. Philosophical Memory, displays itself in the laboratory, the hall of science, on the bench, in the lectrue room, and pulpit.

The vast and diverse Power of Memory possesse by different Individuals.

The degree in which this faculty is developed in different individuals, may now be readily accounted for. It is owing, as I suppose, to two circumstances~ natural diversities in which the power is possessed by different individuals, and an accidental direction of the power. Themistocles knew every citizen of Athens by name. Cyrus and Hannibal had each a similar knowledge of every soldier in his respective army. Their original endowments made them capable of such acqusitions. They made such acquistions, because they considered them necessary to the end they designed to accomplish.

Imporvement of Memory.

But for the faculty under consideration, the past would beto us, as if it had not been. No advantages could be derived from experience of our own or that of others. Existence, at each successive moment, must be commenced anew. The same errors and follies, which formerly occurred, must be repeated, without the possibility of improvement. Through this faculty, the past funishes the chart and compass for the future. The progress of improvement is onward, with perpetually accumlating force. The question, therefore, How can this faculty be improved? presents itself, as of special importance. The following suggestions may not be out of place on this point:

1. The first thing to be kept distinctly in Mind, in all plans for the permanent improvement of Memory, is the principle on which its ready and retentive action depends, to wit, deep and distinct impression. All our plans for the accomplishment of the object under consideration, should be formed with direct reference to this one principle.

2. As impressions depend very much upon distinctness of conception, in all efforts, to improve this faculty, we should habituate ourselves to form distinct conceptions of objects especially of those which we wish to recollect. In this, manner the impression will not only be deep and permanent, but the ntion associated with it being distinct, will, when recalled, possess a corresponding distinctness.

3. In thought, the object should be located, in distinct relation to the circumstances of time and place with which it is associated. In this manner the impression and conception both will not only be rendered deep and distinct, but each circumstance referred to, as it recurs in connection with other thoughts and perceptions will, by exciting the feelings under consideration, recall the object associated with it.

4. Knowledge, in order to be retained permanently, must be systematized and reduces to general permanent principles. Otherwise, it will be exclusively subject to the law of local Association which is so temporary in respect to retention.

5. To converse with others, and write dwon our thoughts which we wish to retain, contributes to permanency and distictness of rcollection. Knowledge, by this means, is rendered distinct, the correspeonding impression deep and permanent, and the whole subject of thought most likely to be systematically arranged. All these circumstances tend to render Memory distinct and permanent.

6. Memory also, to be improved, must be trusted, but at the same time, not overburdended, as is the ase when everything is communicated to it, and without the aid of a judicious diary of important thoughts and occurrences. That faculty which is not exercised will not be developed and improved. Memory is not exempt from this law. At the same time, to everburden a faculty is a sure way to palsy its energies. Nothing but reflection and Judgment, properly exercised, can fix upon the line where memory should and should not be trusted, without the aid of written records of our thoughts, and thus secure a proper develpment of this faculty.

Memory of the Aged.

One of the first indications of approaching feebleness of age, is failure, in a greater or less degree, of the power of Memory. A characteristic precisely the opposite is also sometimes presented in the experience of aged persons~ a wonderful revival of the Memory of the occurrences of early life. A lady of my acquaintance, for example, aged about niney years, had occasion to amuse some of her greate-grandchildren one day. She thought she would, as a means to this end, relate to them the substance of a story, related in verse, which she had read, when quite young. She had never committed it to memory, and doubtless had thought little of it for more than half a century. As she commenced the story, the entire poem came fresh to her recollection. She could repeat it all, word for word. These two facts in the experience of the aged, the failure, on the one hand, and the wonderful revival of this power, on the other, need to be accounted for.

In respect to the first class of phenomena, two reasons may be assigned for their existence.

1. The failfure of the faculty of perception and attention. As a consequence, distinct notions are not formed of objects of present thought and perception. Nor do they affect the Mind as they formerly did. For these reasons, the peculiar feelings which have co-existed with former thoughts and perceptions, and would, if revived, suggest them, are not revived.

2. In the failing of the perceptive faculty, there is a corresponding change in the correlation of the Sensibility to objects of thought and perception. Hence the same feelings preciesly are not now excited by objects of thought and perception, as formerly, and consequently former intellectual states are not reproduced.

In respect to the second class, I would remark, that every one is aware, that amid the hurrying scenes of ordinary life, such crowds of associations ruch upon the mind, at one and the same time, that no one entire scene of the past, is often distictly recalled. On the other hand, when we are in a state of temporary isoclation from the varying tide of events which is floating by and around us, then is the time when our recollections of the past become full and distinct. Now the aged are in a state of isolation of a more permanent character. Hence when a past scene is recalled, the Mind is in a state of comparative freedom from all diverting and distracting associations. Consequently the scene, in its entireness, is brought into full and distinct remembrance.

Duration of Memory.

If the law of Association illustrated in the preceding Chapter be admitted as true, it will follow, as a matter of course, that Memory is absolutely indestructible. Thought can never perish. If the impression with which any thought has co-existed, should, at any period, however remote, be in any form revived, the thought itself may be recalled. If any element of a given impression be reproduced, no reason can be assigned, why a thought which co-exist with it, myriads of ages ago, should not thereby be realled, as well as the one which co-existed with it but yesterday.

Numberless facts also, which lie around us in society, fully confirm the principle under consideration as a law of Memory. The case of the aged lady referred to above, presents a fact of the kind. The most striking one that now recurs to my recollection is given by Coleridge. It is the case of a German girl who had always labored as a domestic. While Coleridge was on a visit to Germany, and in the vicinity of her residence, she sickened, and if I mistake not, died. During her sickness, she began to utter sentences in languages unknown to all her attendants. Learned men, from a neighboring University, were called in. It was then found that she was reciting, with perfect correctness, entire passages from the Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Syriac Scriptures, and also from the writings of the ancient Fathers. The occurance was, by many, regarded as miraculous. A young physician in attendance, however, determined to trace out her past history, for the purpose of finding a clue to the mystery. He found at last, that when quite small, the young woman had lived in the family of an aged clergyman of great learning, who was in the daily habit of reading aloud in his study from the writings above referred to. As the child was at work in a room contiguous, she was accustomed to stop from time to time, and listen to those strange sounds, the meaning of not one of which did she understand. There was the clue to the mystery. Those sounds were imperishably impressed upon the Memory. Hence their repetition, under the circumstances named. Cases of a similar nature might, to any extent, be adduced. They point with solemn interest, to the nature of the immortal powers within, as well as to facts of portentous moment in the future development of those powers.



Imagination and Fancy Elucidated.

Charachteristics of the Creations of the Imagination.

Remarks on the preceding Analysis.

Creations of the Imagination, why not always Fictions.

Imagination the organ of Ideals.

Action of the Judgment relative to that of the Imagination.

Productions in which the action of the Fancy or Imagination is most conspicuous.

Combinations of Thought denominatied Wit, as distinguished from

those resulting from the proper action of the Imagination or Fancy.

Propriety of using the Imagination and Fancy in Works of Fiction.



Secondary Ideas of Reason~Idea of Right and Wrong.

Idea of Fitness.

Idea of the Useful, or the Good.

Relations of the Ideas of Right and Wrong and of the Useful to each other.

Ideas of Liberty and Necessity.

Ideas of the Beautiful and Sublime.

Idea of Harmony~Reflections.

Idea of Truth.

Idea of Law.

The Philosophic Idea.

First Truths, or Necessary Principles of Reason, as distinguished from Contingent Principles.

Idea of Science, Pure and Mixied.

Function of Reason denominated Conscience.

General Remarks pertaining to Reason.



Remarks upon the relations of Intuitions to one another.

Secondary Faculties.



Additional Remarks and Illustrations.



True Explanation.

Manner in which the General, Abstract, and Universal, are eliminated from the Concrete and Particular.






Different kinds of Reasoning.

Conception of Logic.



Kant's distinction between Analytical and Synthetical Judgments.

Progress of Transcendental Philosophy since the time of Kant.

Remarks upon the Systems above Presented.

Modernn Transcendentalism~Eclecticism of Cousin.

Common Sense.

Characteristics of the German Mind.


solutions to those questions which philosophers agitate. It is another philosophy prior to philosophy properly so called, since it is found spontaneously at the bottom of every Consciousness, independently of all scientific research. There are accordingly two votes on the questions which interest humanity, namely, that of the mass and that of the philosophers, the spontaneous vote and the scientific vote, Common Sense and systems."



IT has been very common with philosophers to represent all created existences, from the highest Intelligences in heaven to the crude forms of matter, as successive links in one great chain, each link in the chain, commencing with the lowest, differing mainly in degree from that which immediately succeeds it. The highest forms of brute, and the lowest of rational Intelligence, for example, differ, it is asserted, not in kind, but only in degree. Of late, the reality of orders of existences, as successive links of a great chain, has come to be seriously doubted. The intelligence of man and of the brute, it is said, differs not in degree, but in kind. If we conceive of the highest forms of brute intelligence increased to any degree whatever, as far as degree is concerned, still it makes no approach at all to real rationality. The different orders of brute instincts do constitute, it is thought, different links of one chain. Those of rational Intelligences constitute another and totally different chain, a chain none of the links of which are connected, in any form, with any of those of the other. This last is the opinion entertained by the author of this Treatise. I will now proceed to state the grounds of this opinion. I will introduce what I have to say upon this subject by two extracts, somewhat lengthy, from Coleridge. In the first, we have a classification of the different forms of brute Instinct; in the second, we are presented with two instances of Instinctive Intelligence, in their highest manifestations


"It is evident that the definition of a genus or class is an adequate definition only of the lowest species of that genus: for each higher species is distinguished from the lower by some additional character, while the general definition includes only the characters common to all, the, species. Consequently it describes the lowest only. Now I distinguish a genus or of powers under the name of adaptive power, and 'give, as its generic definition, the power of ~e1eeLing and adapting nicans to proximate ends; and as an instance of' the lowest .spcctcs, of this genus, I take the stomach of a caterpillar. I ask .myself, under what words I 'can generalize the action of this organ; and I see that it selects and adapts.the appropriate meaus (i. e., the 'assimilable part of the vegetable cony çsta) to , the proximate end, '1. e., the growth or reproduction of the insect's l~ody., This we call ViTAL or Vita prOj)ria of the stoinucli; and this being the lowest, species, its definition is the same with the definition of the kind. . ' ,

~cy~Tell, from the power of the stomach I pass to the power exerted by the whole animal. I trace it wandering from spot to spot, and plant to plant, 'till it finds the appropriate vegetable; and again on this chosen vegetable, I mark it seeking out and fixing on the part of the plant, bark,' leaf, or petal, suited 1'o its nourishment; ; or (should tito animal have assumed the butterily form), to the (lepoSlliOI1 of its eggs, and the sustcn- tation of the future larva. here I see a power of selecting and ~adapting means to proximate ends according to circumstances. And this higher species of adaptive power we call INSTINCT.

"Lastly, 1 reflect on the facts narrated and described in the succeeding extracts from I-Tuber, and see a power of selecting the proper means to the proximate ends, according to varying circumstances. And what shall we call this yet higher species? We name the former, Instinct; we must call this


"here then we have three powers of the same kind, Life) Instinct, and Instinctive' Intelligence; the essential characters that' define the genus existing in all three. But in addition to these, I find one other character common to the highest and lowest, viz.: that the purposes are all manifestly pre-determined by the peculiar organization of the animals; and though it may not; be possible to discover any such immediate dependency in all the actions, yet the aCtions being determined by the purposes, the result is equivalent: and both the actions and purposes are all in a' necessitated reference to the preservation and continuance of that particular animal or of the ~progeny. There is a selection, but not citoice - volition rather than Will The possible 'knowledge of a thing, or 'the desire to have thó thing representable by a distiiiot' correspondent thoitgiit, dQCS not, in the animal, suffice to render the thing an object, or, the ground of a purpose. I selec~,and adapt the, proper means to the separation of a 'stone froi_' a rock, which I neither,can, n,or desire to make use of for"food, shelter or 'ornament: because, perhaps, I wish to measure the angles of its pEirnary,crystals, or, perhaps, for'no better reason than the apparent, difficulty of loosening the stone - stat pro rcttione voluntas - and thus make a motive out of the absence of all motive, and a reason out of the arbitrary will to ;tct without aiiy reason."


"Huber put a dozen humble-bees under 'a, bell-glass along with a comb of about ten cocoons,' so unequal in height as not to' be capable 'of standing steadily. '; To remedy this, twO or three of the' humble-bees' go~ upon the comb, stretehe~ themselves over its edge, and with their heads downwards fixed their fore feet on the table on which the comb stood, and so with their hind feet kept the comb from falling. Wlie~i these were weary others took their places. In this constrained and painful posture, fresh bees relieving their comrades at intervals, and each working in its turn, did these affectionate little insects support the comb for nearly three days, at the end of which they had prepared sufficient wax to build pillars with. But these pillars having accidentally got displaced, the bees had recourse again to the same inaneeuvçr (or rather pca'wu- ver), till 1'Iubor pitying their hard case, &c.

I shall at present describe the operations of a single ant that I observed sufficiently long to satisfy my curiosity:

"'One rainy day, I observed a laborer digging the ground near the aperture which gave entrance to the ant-hill. It placed in a heap the several fragments it had scraped up, and, formed them into small pellets, which it deposited here and there upon the nest. It returned constantly to the same place, and appeared to have a marked design, for it labored with ardor and perseverance. I remarked a slight furrow, excavated in the ground in a straight line, representing the plan of a path or gallery. The laborer, the whole of whose movements fell under my immediate observation, gave it greater depth and breadth, and cleared out its borders: and I saw at length, in 'which I could not be deceived, that it had the iu(citt'iwi of establishing an avenue which was to lead from one of the stories to the under-ground chambers. This path, which was about two or three inches in length, and formed by a single ant, was opened above and bordered on each side by a buttress of earth, its concavity en forme de gouttière was of the most perfect regularity, for the architect had not left an atom too much. The work of this ant was so well followed and understood, that I could almost to a certainty guess its next proceeding, and the very fragment it was about to remove. At the side of the opening where this path terminated, was a second opening, to which it was necessary to arrive at by some 'road. The same ant engaged in and executed alone this undertaking. It furrowed out and opened another path, parallel to the first, leaving between each a little wall of three or four lines in height. Those ants who lay the foundation of a wall, a chamber or gallery, from working separately, occasion now and then a want of coincidence in the parts of the samo or different objects.

~IL~Jt (1)~I1flJ)lO5 nr~ of no uii frequent OcettI'rOflCO, but they by no means embarrass them. What follows, proves that the workman, on discovering his error, knew bow to rectify it. A wall had been erected with the view of sustaining a vaulted ceiling, still incomplete, that had been projected from the wall~ pf the opposite chamber. The workman who began constructing it, had given it too little elevation to meet time opposite.partition upon which it was to rest. lIad it been continued on the original plan, it must in'fldhibly have met time wall at about one-half of its height, and this it was necessary to avoid. This state of things very forcib,j4y' claimed my attention, when one of the ants arriving at the place, and visiting the works, appeared to be struck by the difficulty which presented itself; but this it as soon obviated, by taking down the ceiling and raising the wall upon which it reposed. It then, in my presence, constructed a now ceiling with the fragments of the former one.' "- Jiabcr's ,Mzt. lust, of Ants.

The facts above cited, every one will acknowledge, may be assumed as representing Instinctivelntelhigence, in its highest form. The question to be settled is, In what respects is this like rationality, as it exists in man? In what respects do these forms of Intelligence agree, and disagree?


In conducting our inquiries on this subject, time first thing to be settled is, the prviiciple on which our conclusions shall be based. On all hands it i~ agreed, that there are points of resemblance between the manifestations of Intelligence in the brute and among mankind. At the same time, there are points 'of dissimilarity equally manifest and important. Now let A ropreson t tho mental l~Q'°~ which appear in imutu, and never appear in the brute. If we can find limo po~ver or powers in man from which the phenomena represented by A result, we have then determined fully the faculties which man possesses and the brute wants. The faculties thus asserted of man, are to be wholly denied of the brute, and all the mauifest~tions of brute intelligence arc to be accounted for by a reference to what remains, after the former have been subtracted. All must admit, that this is the true and the only true principle to be applied in the case. It now remains to apply the principle to the solution of the question beibre us.


That brutes, such as are supposed in, the present argument,

~ the faculty aI external j)ereeption, such as sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, that such perceptions are followed by feelings of a given character, and that those feelings are followed by external actions which are correlated to the perceptions referred to, and that all these manifestations are common to man and the brute both, will be denied by none who have, however carelessly, observed the facts which have presented themselves to their notice. Such are the phenomena common to man and the brute.



There are two distinct and opposite hypotheses on which these common facts may be explained. When man has an external perception, Reason at once suggests certain fundamental ideas in the light of which he explains to himself the phenomena perceived, and passes certain judgments upon them. .Aetion with bitim has speoiiii rcl'oroneo; not to the pliononiena, but to the judgments 'thus passed. All these things we know from Consciousness, to be true, in reference to man.

As far as the facts under consideration are concerned, it may be that the same is true of the brute. All the phenomena of brute action, however, are equally explicable, on an entirely different hypothesis. When a brute has a perceptipu of sdmne object, without the presence of any fundamental ideas in time light of which he can explain to himself what, ho sees, and consequently form notions and judgments of the object 'perceived, and then act in vie~v"of judgments thus formed, it may be, that such perceptions are followed by certain feelings, and that from these, as necessary consequents, external acts, such as the brute puts forth, arise. All that would be intellectual with the brute, on this hypothesis, would be the simple

po~~'ci' to ,pei'eei~.'e the object, without the capacity to recognize himself as time snitjcct, or the timing perceived as the object of the perception, so as to form any conceptions or judgments pertaining either to the subject or object. The feelings which attend such perceptions, together with such as arise from the internal organism of the brute, such as hunger and thirst, are followed necessarily by external ~actions in harmony with the sphere for which the creature was designed. The action of the brute would be in fixed harmony with law - law, however, which has no subjective existence in the Intelligence of the creature, but which exists as an idea in that of the Oreator. Action, in such a case, would be purely mechanical, the pro~~e11iug force being the feelings generated as above supposed, while the law of actiomi would be an idea which Limo subject of the action never apprehended, but in conformity to which the organism of the brute is formed.

A case stated in the' public prints, a case, whether true or false, at least conceivable, and therefore proper to be used in illustration, ~vihI fully illustrate Limo hypn1hes~s lL1i(ler consideration. A lady, somo time before time birth of a child, was struck at by a' rattlesnake, and barely escaped with her life.' As a consequence of the fright of the mother, the child, when born, had upon parts of its body the marks of the serpent. His eyes had the fiery and vengeful appearance peculiar to the reptile. One arm, also, lay coiled upon its side in a manner perfectly serpentine. As the child grew up, and came into the presence of certain objects, despite of all efforts of his Will to. the contrary, his eyes would roll in their sockets, with time fiery vengeful appearance peculiar to the serpent when attacked by an enemy. At the same time, the arm referred to would strike at the object perceived, in exact conformity to the motions of the reptile in similar circumstances. In connection with the physical organization of this individual, two classes of actions, each equally eonlbrmed to idon~, np~')earod ; Limo one ciass, however, the consequents of vol~iion in liarniom~y with conceptions and judgments, and time other caused by feet ~'°u~ generated by external perceptions. Now, in conformity with the fact last named, we can explain all the phenomena of brute action, however intelligent in appearance. All such phenomen~m may be the exclusive result of the peculiar feelings and organism of.' time animal, in the total absence of the Intelligence peculiar to man. The question is, .'Arc there any facts peculiar to brute' and human action, verifying this hypothesis? This question will now endeavor to answei~, in the light of the principle I have laid down as time basis of our conclusions on this subject.


In order to test the validity of the hypothesi~ under consideration, we will now attend to the fundamental phenomena whelm distinguish luau from time brute. Among these, I will ~j~e~i 1y only the following

I. I~.iami, lroui time laws of hi~ Intelligence, is a scient~/ic being. Time main direction of time human Intelligence is not merely towards phenomena, but towards the scient Vie explana~ lion of phenomena. This is on,e of the great wants of human nature, time scientific explanation of phenomena. ,All mankind'~ agree in time assumption, that in the brute there is a"~otal ab~ serico of this principle. Brute intelligence pertains exclusively to more phenomena. The creature noverseeks an explanation of what lie sees. ile acts from feelings generated by ,perceptions, without ever seeking anyplanation of what he sees or feels.

2. Man, as a race, is progressive. 'The brute is perfectly stationary. For six thousand years, each race, has been spectators of precisely the samime phenomena. The commencement of ohmserval.inii WI lii maim, was the conimenceincut of intellectual progress, which has been onward from generation to generation. '\'Vitlm all hiS observations, time brute has miever advanced a single step. I-lie is now just where he was six thousand years ago. The beaver builds his dam, lives and dies, just as did the first that ever appeared on earth. Tlme same is true of the action of every brute race. , .

Man is the subject of moral obligation, and consequently of moral government. In other words, man is a moral agent. All this is universally denied of the brute. He is

never, except when man acts towards him, as all acknowledge, irrationally, regarded or treated as the subject of moral obligation or of moral government. I might cite other points of dissimilarity, equally manifest, and equally fundamental. But these ai'e sufficient for the present argument.


It no~remains to apply the facts above stated to the solution of the question under consideration. When we have determimied the iheulties iieec~urily supposed, es the eou(1iIiun of science, progress, and moral agency in man, we have determined the faculties which we are totally to deny of the brute. For it should be borne in~.mind, that the facts above named do not exist in one degree in man, and in a smaller degree in the brute. The difference is not that of degree, but of total dissimilarity. What various individuals of our race, in time respects under consideration, possess in dilThrcnt degrees, tho brute totally wants. The faculties, therefore, which are to be affirmed of man as the condition and ground of these facts, are to be totally denied of the brute.

1. I ask, then, in the first place, What faculties constitute man a scient~jfic being, those in the absence of which he cannot possess science, and in the possession of which lie is, of course, scientific? Sense, time fitculty of external perception, man, as we have seen, has in common with the brute. But tlii~ a creature mmLy l)0S5C55 in any degree, and make no approach whatever to science. Other fhculties in addition are supposed as the condition and ground of such developments. What, then, are these faculties? I answer, they are of the primary faculties, Reason, and Self-Consciousness; and of the secondary, Understanding and Judgment. In the absence of Reason, fundamental ideas, in the light of which phenomena may be explained, are totally wanting, and consequently Science becomes impossible. Without Reason also, Self-Consciousness would, properly speaking, be impossible, or if possible, absolutely useless, and therefore not supposable, as originating from perfect In telligeiicc. Without Reason, too, conceptions, notions, and judgments would, as we have seen in former Chapters, be absolutely impossible. Notions canflot be formed without ideas of Reason, such as substance, cause, time, space, &c. Judgments, also, and consequently classification~and gencuahizat ion, cannot take place without the ideas of resemblance moot (Ii Ili~i'ciiee. ~hi oilier words, without Reason, the exercise of time Understanding and Judgment is impossible. The existence of these faculties is therefore not to be supposed. 1f then, as we are logically bound to do, we take from the brute Reason, Self-Consciousness, Understanding, and Judgment, what remains to him? Just what we have attributed to him, to wit, the power of external perception, together with corresponding feelings and susceptibilities, and an external organism, tIme action of whelm is in necessary conformity to the feelings thus generated.

It should be borne in mind, that science in man does not depend upon the degree in which the faculties above named are possessed by him. The degree of the scientific movement will be, other things being equal, as the degree in which these~ powers are possessed. When they exist in any degree, there wihi be real science. The total absence of science in time brute,, iwlicaics most clearly a total absence of the scient~fio faculties, faculties which are so connected with each other, that if one be conceived of as wanting, the others also must be.:

The question, I repeat, is not whether the action of the brute is not in harmony with fundamental ideas, but whether these ideas have a subjective existence in his Intelligence. The bee, for example, builds its cell in conformity to pure ideas of Reason.' But does it not thus build, not because it knows such ideas, but because of time peculiarity of its perceptions, sensations, and physical structure, all of which render its thus building mechanically necessary? The facts before us show clearly that it does.

2. In the next place, we will raise time inquiry, What faculties in nian render him a progressive being Y They are evidently the same as those which render him scientific, with time addition of time Immiagination. It is because that where pimelmomeumL appciu~, imimuikimid ore able, in the light o~ ideas oL' :l.tea- semi, to expliun to themselves these Ihets, amid thus fInd time fundamental principle involved in them, that, as a race, we are progressive. For this reason, also, mankind, gain important knowledge from accidental experience, a fact which never appears in the brute. A man and a brute are swimming together across a river. They become exhausted, and when about to sink, meet with something like a plank floating by. They both get on to it and are saved. The brute passes on without being a whit wiser from his experience. The occurrence constitutes an era in the history of the human race. Man reflects upon the occurrence, and hence arises all the wonders of shipbuilding and navigation. All these had their origin in accidental occurrences like that above supposed. In the knowledge obtained from occurrences similar in their nature, the art of printing, and all time results of steam-power, &c., originated. Man and time brute n1~() hear melodious sounds. Each alike copies what lie hears. On time part of man, those sounds are recombined into strains still more melodious. Hence the science of music. The brute copies what he hears, but never, in a solitary instance, recombines, in the least, what he hears. Time mocking-bird presents a striking illustration of the truth of this statement. It will copy almost every melodious sound it ever hears. Yet it was never known to produce a single new combination of sounds. Such facts most indubitably indicate in the brute the total absence of all the faculties which lay the foundation for progress in man, the faculties of Reason, Self-Consciousness, Understanding, Judgment, and the iniagination. With these in any degree, creatures are in a corresponding degree progressive. Without them, whatever~ else they may possess, they are perfectly stationary. Nothing is more unpimilosophical and illogical, than the conclusion often drawn, in the presence of progress on the one hand, amid its total absence on Limo other, that brute instinct and human In-'tehligeuce differ only in degree. How demonstrably evident is the conclusion, that they differ not in degree, but in kind.

3. In respect to the inquiry, What lhculties in, man exist as time condition~ and ground of moral agency in him? 'the answer is ready. They are the faculties above named, together with that of Free Will. Time absence of those first named, in the case of time brute, has already been established. Shall we still attribute to him that of Free Will ? The following considerations perfectly satisfy my own mind, on this point:

(1.) The action of Free ~i1l, in time absence of conceptions and judgments, is impossible. Till I have conceptions of A and B, and judge that one differs from the other, or at least, that one is not the other, I cannot choose between them. There may be selection, but not choice; nor can there be selection such as implies the action of Free Will.

(2.) None of the phenomena of brute action necessarily suppose time presence of Free Will in the subject. All such phenomena are just as explicable on the opposite hypothesis as on this. Now a power is never to be supposed, when its presence is not affirmed by positive facts, or necessarily supposed by the known sphere of time subject. No such considerations demand the assumption of Free Will in the brute. Such an assumption therefore is'wholly illogical.

(3.) All the phenomena of brute action clearly indicate the absence of the power under consideration. Place the brute in' any circumstances whatever, and there let particular sensations be generated in him, and his action will be just as fixed and uniform, as that of any mechanical l)o%v~1 whatever. As often as time experiment is repeated, it will invariably be attended with the same results. With such facts before us, how illogical the assumption of Free Will in the Brute.

(4.) Such a power as that under consideration would be a totally useless appendage to Limo brute, contemplating him in reference to time si)tmeI~o br which ho is designed. \V heir tire intellectual faculties above named are denied him, what a useless appendage to the brute, and how worse than useless to man, in respect to the use to be made of the animal, would such an appendage' as Free Will be. Time creation of such a power, under such circumstanccs, would be a wide departure from all time manifestations of wisdom visible iii all the Divine works beside.

(5.) Finally, the power under consid~ration constitutes one of time most essential elements of the Divine image in which man was created. Why should we suppose an element so fundamental in that image to exist in a creature, in whom all the other elements are totally wanting, and that without any solid basis for that conclusion?

Thus, by time most logical dediietioii~, we have clotcrmnmued limo powers of time bnito, as distinguished frommi those 0 man. Taking from Limo former, what liunlamuemital pliermoimiemia 1'(~(1UiFO us to do, to wit, the powers of Reason, Self-Consciousness, Understanding, Judgment, Imagination, and Free Will, we leave him with the powers of external perception, with a sensibility, and physical organization, of such a nature, that under the yam med circumstances of his being, his 'iction is in necessary harmony with the ends fom which the all-wise Creator designed him. All the phenomena of brute action can be accounted for on this hypothesis, and its truth is also affirmed by funda-'mental phenomena. Iii this lower creation man stands alone:

There is nothing like him "in the heavens above, nor in the' earth beneath, irom. in time waters under the earth." There he stands, "the image and glory of God." Fallen though he is,

"his form has yet not lost

All its original brightness, nor appears

Less . . . . than the excess

Of glory OJ,5CIi1'O(l."


1. We are now prepared to explain the ground of the misjudgment so common in respect to the action of the bruto.~ Men judge of brute action in the light of their own conseious-~ ness, pcrtainimmg to similar actions in themselves. Whei mcn~ and brutes are placed in similar circumstances, and the extor-~ nal actions of both are similar, men often conclude, that the~ brute acts in view of the same'~onceptions and judgments~in'. view of which they are cons~ious of acting themselves. NowT such conclusions are wholly unauthorized. The external manifestations of instinctive and rational Intelhgence may be, mn~' many important respects, similar, yet there may be a total dis- '~ siurihiri fy iii the nature of these different kinds of Intelligence.

2. We are also 1)r(~parcd to state time conclusion which time facts con irected with brute Intelligence force upon us. it is one of these two: Either the Intelligence of the brute is in-"'comparably more perfect than that of man, or, aside from the~ power of external perception, he has no Intelligence at all,':

mmuèh as man possesses. The first manifestations of Intelligence in man, how imperfect and feeble I How rude' and ill-shaped, for example, the first habitations built by man!' How slow the~ progress of humaD irchitecture from such rude beginnings to its present perfection! On time other hand, the first productiomi of the brute bears time stamp of perfection. Time first damim built by time beaver, the first nest built by time bird, have never been surpassed. The first cell built by time bee can hardly be improved, evemi in thought. Now suppose that such actions of the brute are, as is the case with man, the result of the cai~ryiug out of an idea, a plan, previously developed in his Intelligence, what must we conclude? Why, that time first race o brutes thu t over appeared on earth, Iuul a (legroc of Intelligence which man, after six timousand years of laborious progress, has hardly reached. This or the opposite one forces itself upon us.

3. Another consideration to which I would direct attention is this - the facts on which the conclusions of individuals have been based, in respect to the existence of time higher powers of Intelligence in time brute, as contrasted with others in the samire connection, which have been totally overlooked. A distinguished naturalist, for example, states that the wild ass, when he begins to flee from a man, will first turn one ear, and then the other, backwards towards the object of his terror. From this fact, he concludes, that the animal is deliberating what course he shall take; and, as a consequence, attributes to it the possession of the powers of deliberation and Free ~Wih1. A. grave conclusion, surely, to infer from the leering of aim ass, tire existence of such powers. liow often have the actions of the elephant been proclaimed, as proof of the existence of the higher powers of Intelligence in that animal? Now let us contemplate another class of facts in connection with the same animal. .Those who have visited menageries are familiar with the dancing of the animal at the "sound of the lyre," actions as indicative of superior Intelligence as any be ever puts forth. How was the creature taught such an act? Did lie take lessons, as men do, and thus acquire it?

It was by a process very different from this. When the keepers wisii to have the animal acquire the art under consideration, they place hmini upon a floor covered with plates of iron. These plates are gradually heated, till the creature, beginning to feel pain in his feet from the heat, lifts first one foot and then the other. As soon as such motions begin, the music commences, which is made to become more and more lively as the animal steps with greater and greater rapidity. When this process hn~ boon continued for a sufficient length of time, the music ceases, and time animal is instantly taken from his painful condition. These experiments being repeated a few times, such an association is established between the sound of the lyre and time Sensibility of the animal, that as soon as ho hears the music he begins to dance, and continues the pace tilLtho music ceases. Thus we have the elephant dancing in his wisdoni, as many suppose. Now had the animal the real Intelli~ genee possessed by any individual of our race, who is in any degree remov~d above absolute idiocy, such an imposition could not be practised upon him for,%'single hour.

The actions of the creatt~re, in this case, in conformity to Intelligence, are not, as all perceive, a manifestation of Intelligence in him, but in the keeper. So whatever Intelligence the animal manifests in any instance, is not an indication of Intelligence in l.mirmi, but in the Creator. Time same is true of all other animals.

4. TIre lUrm in which memory exists in brutes, may now be readily pointed out. 'Memory, in man, is the recalling of the fact that we were, in particular circumstances, the subjects of such and such thoughts, feelings, &c. In the brute no such recollections can occur. When the brute has been affected in a given manner, in given circumstances, the same sensations are reproduced in him when he comes into similar circui~istances again, and hence the same actions are repeated.

5. Finally,' we notice the error of some who attempt to account for time diversities of intellectual manifestations between muon and brutes, on the ground of diversities of plmrcnologieal deVelopment. To suppose that the soul of a dog, if placed in connection with the brain of a Newton, would manifest the Intelligence of that great philosopher, is as illogical as to suppose that gold and water will exhibit the same phenomena, when subjected to Limo same influenoc~. Time immanifestations of substances diverse iii their mmature will, under time same circuimistances, be as diverse as their nature. The brute, in any circumstances, is still a brute, and not a man, nor an angel. Diversities of phrenological development may account for the diverse intellectual manifestations among men; but not for those between man and the brute. Time brute must become another being, before he can manifest the intelligence of man.



Ai4'i'4 legitimate reasoning, in respect to the nature of any' substance, is based upon time assumption, that all substances are as their essential phenomena, that. substances all of whoso'~ phenomena are totally and fundamentally unlike, are as totally ~ and fundamentally diverse from each other in their nature, and.~ that so far as the fundamental phenomena of any substances:

differ, there is, and must be, a corresponding difference in the nature of time substances themselves.

All icasoning, also, pertaining to subatanees, must be based', upon their known qualities. ,Ro qualities known to exist~. must be overlooked or disregarded, and no unknown' qualities must be supposed to exist, unless the reality and the character of the unknown are clearly indicated by those that are known, and then the former are no longer unknown, but positively discerned. Such arc time principles on which the argument pertaining'to theso two substances-Matter and Spirit-must' be based.


We have already, in a former Chapter, said all that need'be said on this subject. In showing, as we think we have done,. that the material hypothesis cannot account for all the facts of' the universe - that of Mind especially - we have shown that Matter is not the only substance; in other words, that Spirit or Mind is not Matter. All that is requisite on the present occasion, is to indicate simply the nature of the argument bearimig upon this subject. The reality of a fundamental distinction between these two substances, cami be denied but upon one of two hypotheses - time Material hypothesis which resolves the phenomena of Mind into those of Matter, or the Spiriti~al hypothesis which resolves time phenomena of Matter into those of Spirit. Against each of these hypotheses I urge the 1~hlowiiig fundamental objections

1. Eaclm alike stands opposed to the absolute intuitions of the universal Intelligence. T,hat Intelligence no more confounds one of these substances with the other, than it does substance with space, .or scarlet color with the sound of a trumpet. It has separated them as opposites. ' Now this conviction must be held to be true until it. has been demonstrated to be false. The universal Intelligence has separated Matter and Spirit, as diverse and 'opposite substances. Time burden of proof lies upon him who would convict that Intelligence in this separation of fundamental error.

2.' No positive evidence of any kind or degree can be adduced in favor of either of these hypotheses. Each hypoth~'~ esis alike must rest, as we have seen in a former Chapter, upon mere assumptions wholly unsusceptiblo of proof', and as totally unsustained by any form or degree of positive evidence. This, we arc quite sure, will mmot be denied.

3. Time truth of either of timese hypotheses is absolutely inconceivable and impossible, excepting upon time assumption' that our knowledge of the qualities of these two substances is not valid. If we admit that thought, feeling, and voluntary determination, are the real qualities of the Mind, we must ad-, mit that the substance in which these qualities inhere is an absolute unity,' wholly incapable of division or composition on the one hand, and as utterly void of solidity, extension, and form, on the other. We cannot divide a thought, feeling, or act o~ Will. Neither of these phenomena has a this side, a that' 'side, a top or a bottom, length, breadth, thickness, taste o~color. The substance, itself, thus assuming that its real qualities are known, must be an absolute unity, as absolutely void of all the properties of Matter. So if we assume that the qualities of Matter are really known to us, and that the substance itself is as its qualities, then we can, by no possibility, conceive of it as nirytlring clt~o than a compound, extended, solid, and figured substance, that is, as not being an absolute unity, void of ex~ tension and form, and endowed with the powers of thought, feeling, and free Will. Suppose we assume that our knowledge of time qualities of these substances is not valid, then the sub.., stances themselves are absolutely unknown to us, and we can-, not reason about them at all. We should also deny the~ validity of all knowledge of every kind: for if we know not time qualities of Mind, on the one hand, and of Matter, on the other, it is absolutely impossible for us to know anything. Assuii~ming our knowledge of the~qua1ities of these substances to be real, time truth of the doctrine of Materialism or Ideal'~ ism, each alike, is absolutely inconceivable and impossible. Assuming this knowledge to be invalid, then neither of these hypotheses can be held as true, because we know nothing, and can know imotiring, upon this subject or any other. The doctrine of' time immateriality of the soul, 'then, can be denied but upon aiw hypotlmesis, a denial of time integrity of time Intelligence as a faculty of knowledge in respect to all subjects alike.


A few of the common, and most important objections to the above argument, demand a passing notice:

1. It may be said, that for aught we know, there may be phenomena yet unknown to us, common to both these substances. To this I reply, that when such phenomena are discovered, we will acknowledge that ~o far, and so far only, their natures are alike. Such a discovery, however, would not affect the above demonstration; for it would still remain true, that, as far as the phenomena under consideration are concerned, they are wholly unlike.

2. It may also be objected, that these two substances have always, so far as our knowledge extends, existed together. This objection supposes us ignorant of the Eternal mind, an admission which we shall by no menus grant. But suppose we yield even this. Does co-existence, and even necessary co-existence, suppose a common nature? Body and Space always co-exist, as far as Body is concerned, and as far as our experience goes; but to supppose them, for this reason, identical in their nature, is absurd.

3. The mutual influence of these two substances, the one upon the other, is often adduced as proof of the identity of their ultimate essence. But this fact equally consists with both hypotheses, and of course can prove neither. Before it can be shown to possess any force, it must be shown that no two substances can mutually affect each other, only on the single condition of a common nature. But this can never be done.

These are the principal and only objections, as far as my knowledge extends, to the above demonstration. Their weakness shows 11w weakiws~ of the hypothesis they arc designed to sustain.



THE relations of spirit to the eternal future before us, present questions of greater moment to us, as intelligent beings, capable of investigating the question of our own destiny, than any other of which we can conceive. Indeed, all real interests with such beings are involved in such a question. In the volume of Inspiration, this doctrine is, as we should expect, set with the greatest possible distinctness before our minds. The individual who confides in the truth of that sacred record, needs no other foundation on which to rest the question of his own Immortality. The examination of the truth of this doctrine, however, pertains not merely to those who are privileged with the knowledge of Inspiration. This conviction may properly be presented as the great phenomenon of the race, of the universal human Intelligence. It belongs to Philosophy to investigate the grounds of this universal conviction.


Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the grounds of this conviction, a few preliminary considerations demand our special attention:

1. The first that I notice, is the fact above stated, that the conviction of the truth of this doctrine is co-extensive with the race of man. It belongs to no age, to no form of religion, to no nation, to no race of men, as a peculiarity. It is the common element of all religions, the common conviction of the race, in all ages and conditions. To the wild son of the forest, to the ferocious cannibal of the isles of the Pacific, to the wanderer among " Afric's sunny mountains," and the inhabitants of " India's coral strand," as well as to that portion of the race to whom Christianity has imparted the blessings of civilization, the conviction of an endless existence after the closing up of the concerns of this mortal sphere is an omnipresent reality. " Simple nature" has imparted this expectation to the race, as the common boon of heaven, irrespective of rank or condition.

2. This conviction does not exist in the universal Intelligence as the result of investigation, of logical deductions from processes of reasoning. This is evident from the fact, that it exists among races of men totally unaccustomed to reason on any such subject. here, also, it exists with as much strength as among those who are most disciplined in logical deductions. It lies in the mind as one of the great primary intuitions of the universal Intelligence. It has precisely the same claim to a place among such intuitions that the belief of our own existence has.

3. This conviction lies in the Intelligence in such a form, as to be, in reality, incapable of increased confirmation by any process of reasoning. When we fall back upon the primary intuitions of our minds, we find it there, as one of the great starting points of the intelligence. We find it, not as a point to be reached after we have left the sphere of primary intuitions, but as one of the seven pillars on which the temple of truth, reared by investigation and reasoning, must rest. Like all other primary intuitions, this conviction is incapable of essential confirmation by any process of logical deduction.

4. While this conviction, as a primary intuition of the universal Intelligence, is incapable of essential confirmation from logical deductions, it remains equally proof against all apparent demonstrations to the contrary. An individual may pile what he may deem demonstration upon demonstration upon this conviction, in order to crush and annihilate it, till he triumphs in the terrible assumption, that its light is for ever extinct in his mind. Still, in a moment, it will rise before him again, in all the strength and vigor of immortal youth. He again knows the truth of that conviction, with an assurance, with which he hardly recognizes his own existence. This apparent resurrection is not the result of logical deductions. In that moment the Intelligence looks down into, the depths of its inner being, and there again finds this intuition unmoved from its eternal foundations, as the moveless rock beneath the billows of the ocean. The individual who thinks that he has demonstrated to himself the fact, that as a brute he shall live and die, should remember, that however secure he may think himself from the conviction of, to him, the unwelcome truth of his own immortality, the terrible reality will hereafter leap upon him again, as an armed man. He will never escape from it. It will and must be to him as a guardian angel, or a specter of darkness.

5. In the facts above stated, we have the highest possible evidence of the truth of the doctrine under consideration. What the universal Intelligence affirms, in view of certain facts, must have its foundation in these facts, or we must assume that the Intelligence itself is a lie; and then to reason on any subject becomes the perfection of folly.

6. As a primary conviction of. the universal Intelligence, the exclusive province of philosophy pertaining to it is, to investigate the grounds of this conviction, and not to attempt to establish the truth of it by any other process of logical deduction. Here, I think, lies the error in the common demonstrations, or attempted demonstrations, of the doctrine of Immortality. The assumption in all such demonstrations is, that the truth of this doctrine is to be found as some distant point in a process of logical deduction, instead of recognizing the conviction of the truth of the doctrine as one of the primary intuitions of universal Reason, and then falling back upon the intuition itself; to discover its foundation, or chronological antecedent. One fact should be kept in mind here. In falling back upon any primary conviction of the Intelligence, for the purpose of finding the foundation of the same, the validity of that conviction does not depend upon the success of our endeavors. Reflection may fail of its object, "yet the foundation of truth standeth sure."


There are two foundation principles on which the entire argument pertaining to the doctrine of Immortality rests:

1. The first is this, that every sentient being is formed for a particular destiny. To fill the sphere of existence for which each creature was formed, that constitutes his destiny. That each creature is thus formed and adapted to a particular sphere, the filling up of which constitutes his destiny, is a fundamental conviction of the race.

2. There is in the constitution of each being, and order of beings, a fixed adaptation to his or their particular destiny. To suppose the opposite, would be to suppose that the Creator lacks wisdom, or goodness, or both.

Hence, if we would determine the destiny of any being, or order of beings, we must investigate their powers and susceptibilities, and from these learn what their real destiny is. The great French naturalist, from a single bone belonging to an animal of an extinct species, could determine at once, in view of that single part, the genus or species of the animal, and the main features of its physical structure. So true is Nature in the adaptation of one part of her works to another. Equally real and perfect is the adaptation of the constitution of each creature to his particular destiny. Of this all men are convinced. All men believe that the destiny of the bee differs from that of the horse, and that that of man differs from that of either of the former. The ground of this conviction is the fundamental difference of their nature and constitution

We must admit the validity of the above principles, as the ground of the argument pertaining to the doctrine of Immortality, or deny wholly the validity of all conclusions based upon the laws and constitution of Nature. If we deny the propriety of reasoning from the fundamental laws and constitution of a being to his destiny, it becomes perfect folly for us to reason from or about creation at all. If the voice of. Nature is false in this instance, he is guilty of infinite folly and absurdity who will trust her anywhere.


We are now prepared for a distinct statement of the ground of the universal conviction of the truth of the doctrine of Immortality. It is the conscious adaptation of the powers and susceptibilities of the soul to that great idea, or to its realization, as the appropriate destiny of man. Our godlike powers and susceptibilities are in conscious adaptation to the realization of that idea as our appropriate destiny, and to none other.

1. The universal conception of the idea, as one of the primitive ideas of Reason, indicates in man powers adapted to its realization. For who should realize an idea but the being who has conceived of it? The conception of the idea of Paradise Lost indicated, in Milton, powers adapted to the production of that immortal poem. So the universal conception of Immortality, as one of the fundamental phenomena of the human Intelligence, indicates, in man, powers adapted to the realization of that conception.

2. But when this conception arises in the human mind, we find our powers and susceptibilities in conscious adaptation to it. The realization of the idea becomes the great object of desire, and our whole being shrinks back with horror at the thought of annihilation. How true to nature, as the truth lies revealed in the depths of universal mind, is the sentiment which Milton has put into the mouth of a fallen spirit:

"For who would lose,

Though full of pain, this intellectual being

These thoughts that wander through eternity,

To perish rather, swallowed up and lost

In the wide womb of uncreated night,

Devoid of sense and motion?"

Unless the fixed direction of universal nature is towards the unreal, Immortality is the destiny of man. Now it is the conscious adaptation of his powers to that idea, together with the principle, that the destiny of each being and race of beings is as their powers and adaptations, that constitutes, as it appears to me, the chief ground of the universal conviction of the truth of the doctrine of Immortality. What other conviction should arise in the conscious presence of such facts?

3. But there .is another fundamental fact winch lies at the basis of the universal conviction of which we are speaking — a fact of which every one becomes sufficiently conscious, as soon as he knows himself to lay the foundation of the conviction under consideration, although the fact may not, in most minds, possess all the distinctness of reflection. It is the fact, so undeniably and universally manifest, that all the powers of the soul are capable of and adapted to a state of endless progression. The powers of thought involve the elements of endless progress in knowledge. So all our capacities are, in their nature adapted to a state of limitless expansion. What is the conviction which forces itself upon the mind in the presence of such powers? The answer is, that the doctrine of Immortality reveals the destiny of man, or the fundamental tendencies of nature are towards the unreal and untrue. .Which conclusion is most reasonable, that powers and susceptibilities adapted to endless expansion are just to begin to open to the light and influence of truth, and then descend into the abyss of non-existence, or that "the eternal years of God are theirs?" What excuse can a rational being have, in the presence of such faculties, for not assuming his own Immortality as the great goal towards which all his plans and purposes shall be directed?

4. There is another important fact bearing upon this topic — a fact of which every one is conscious as soon as he comes to recognize himself as a moral agent. It is a fact, that we do violence to our moral nature, and render ourselves really incapable of the virtues to which cur nature is adapted, when we reject the doctrine of Immortality. When we contemplate ourselves as the creatures of a day, our nature shrinks to the dimensions of its own withering, contracted conceptions, and thus becomes incapable of great thoughts and noble aspirations. "The grander my conceptions of being, the nobler my future. There can be no sublimity in life without faith in the soul's eternity." It is only in the presence of such conceptions and anticipations, that great virtues, such as render us pure and blessed even here, become possible to us. The individual who does not "dial on time his own eternity," cannot become truly great, nor greatly good. His aspirations and his virtues, if he could have any, would, of necessity, be as contracted and groveling as his conceptions of his own destiny, and that of the race with which he is connected. Now this feeling of suicidal violence done to the higher departments of our nature, in the denial of this doctrine, is one of the chief sources, as I suppose, of the universal conviction of the truth of the soul's eternity.

5. I mention another fact as the ground of this conviction. It is the fact, that every one becomes aware of as soon as the fact presents itself to his mind, that no real reasons whatever exist against the doctrine of which we are speaking. On the one hand, the truth of the doctrine stands forth as a primary, fundamental intuition of universal Reason.. On the other, no reasons at all present themselves against this intuition. What reason, for example, does the dissolution of the physical organization, with which the soul is now connected, and the consequent disappearance of any manifestations of. the soul's existence to us, afford against this doctrine? This fact is just as consistent with the soul's Immortality, as with the opposite supposition. It may be but one of the necessary steps in the progress of its future development.

The same holds true of the loss of mental vigor which often attends the approach of dissolution under consideration. When from weariness and exhaustion, we approach a state of sleep, we find the same want of vigor; yet we know that the real powers of the soul are not the less, under such circumstances. The same may hold true in the case above referred to. It may be, and no doubt is, one circumstance which attends our mortal state, while it has no bearing whatever against the soul's Immortality. With such evidences as that above stated, and in the total absence of all evidence to the contrary, every one feels that it would imply infinite guilt in him not to assume the doctrine under consideration as true.

6. There is one fact which science has developed, as confirmatory of the universal conviction under consideration, though from its being a fact of science, it cannot constitute a ground of that conviction. At death, not a particle of the physical organization, with which the soul is here connected, perishes. How unreasonable and absurd the supposition, that the soul, for which all else was made, is the only reality that then ceases to be? As the particles of the body immediately enter into new combinations, how reasonable the conclusion (and how unreasonable and absurd the opposite conclusion, that the soul also passes away from the present scene to the sphere of its future existence!


There is one element of the doctrine of Immortality which should not be passed over without special attention. I refer to the question, whether the soul, in the eternal future, is to exist in a state of moral retribution. The following considerations may be presented as having a decisive bearing upon this question:

1. Wherever, throughout the wide world, the idea of Immortality is met with, we find it connected with the belief and anticipation of a state of moral retributions. There is not an age or nation where an exception to this belief can be met with. Such a fact marks the doctrine of future retributions, as one of the primary intuitions of universal Rason.

2. All our ideas of moral fitness are met in this doctrine, and are perfectly reversed by every other hypothesis. No individual can contemplate a life of self-sacrificing virtue, and of flagrant wickedness and crime unattended with repentance, as terminating in the same condition hereafter, and retain his sentiments of moral esteem for the "Judge of all the earth." Every individual does as fatal violence to his moral nature, who entertains the sentiment that God does not, in eternity, hold deserved retributions in readiness for the virtuous and vicious, as the man does who denies the soul's immortality. I feel perfectly safe in venturing the affirmation, that there is not an individual on earth, who holds that God has prepared the same rewards hereafter for the virtuous and the vicious here, that does, or can, in the depths of his own mind, entertain feelings of esteem and reverence, and is inspired with feelings of delight and praise, for the Eternal One.

3. I mention one other very decisive fact bearing upon this question. Every observer of the facts that lie all around him in the universe, cannot have failed to notice an invariable tendency, common to the practice of both virtue and vice; it is a tendency to changeless fixedness of character in the one specific direction in which an individual accustoms himself to act. Now, what does such an unvarying and universal fact indicate, in respect to the character of the future destiny of moral agents? Certainly this, and this only, that the moral universe is advancing, not only in the line of immortal existence, but to a state of fixed and changeless moral retributions. What other convictions do such considerations tend to impress upon the Mind of all who seriously throw their thoughts upon the eternal future before them? How thoughtfully, then, does it become us to walk along the borders of that " undiscovered country," across whose bourne we are so soon to pass.



WE come now to a consideration of the last and most important subject to be investigated in the present Treatise - the idea of God.


In the commencement of my remarks upon this subject, special attention is invited to the following preliminary considerations:

1. The idea of God, like that of Immortality, is in all Minds in whom Reason is in any considerable degree developed. This will be admitted by all who are at all acquainted with the history of the race. The idea of God is a common phenomenon of the universal Intelligence.

2. Like the doctrine above named, it is not in the Mind as the result of logical deduction; yet it is there with such weight of conviction, that every one feels that he involves himself in infinite guilt, in denying, or entertaining a doubt of its objective validity. This is evident from the fact, that every skeptic, in the depths of his own mind, believes that, if there is a God, he has forfeited His eternal favor, in the denial of his existence, a fact clearly evincing the consciousness, that in doubting, instead of adoring and worshiping, he has done fatal violence to the laws of his own being.

3. This idea is naturally in the Mind with such weight of conviction, as to be apparently incapable of any considerable increase or diminution by any process of logical deduction. Arguinen ts in favor ot its valiili ty, do not, in iiiost instances, really increase the weight oi' 1~ree of this conviction. They simply develop in the Mind a distinct and reflective consciousness of what it was absolutely assured of before. Nor can professed arguments to the contrary erase this conviction from the Mind; a fact fully evinced by the force with which the assurance of the being of God often leaps upon the Mind of the skeptic, in moments of solemn thought, of sudden calamity, or unexpected exposure to death.

4. As this conviction is thus in the Mind, and not there as the result of logical deduction, it must be ranked among the primary intuitions of Reason.

5. As a first truth of Reason, the Divine existence is susceptible, in the first instance, of the kind of proof common to all first truths, and in the second, of that which is peculiar to all necessary intuitions.

In the light of the above observations, we will now proceed to a consideration of the ground of the universal conviction of the reality of the 'Divine existence. There are two fundamental forms in which the idea of God exists in the Mind, to each of which special attention will, be directed, to wit, God, the unconditioned cause of all that exists and acts conditionally - and God, the Infinite and Perfect.



Whatever ideas mankind may entertain of the universe, whether they resolve all substances into Matter or into Spirit, or whether they regard thought as the only reality, there is one point in respect to which they all in fact do, and must perfectly harmonize, to wit, that there is an iiltimatc reason why the facts of the universe, whatever their nature may be j~))o~1 to be, are what th~y are, and not otherwise. Now if 1.1)0 lw),) ( 0(1 1))) (~Inployc(~ tO designate this ultimate itoason, or unconditioned Cause, then all mankind do really and truly believe in God, and none doubt, or profess to doubt his existence. It is no more possible for us to doubt the reality of such ultimate Reason, than it is to doubt the validity of'the principle, that every event must have a' cause. "As thus. defined, the question, and only question, at issue between the Theist and anti-Theist is, not whether God exists, but what 'is his character P that is, 'What is the nature and character of this final, unconditioned Cause, the reality of whose existence all admit, and none can, by any possibility, doubt?


On a moment's reflection, it will be perceived, that the~o are but a certain number of possible hypotheses on this sub~ jcct, and that some one of thes9çto the exclusion of all the others, must be true. It is self-evident, that this cause must exist as an inherent law of nature, or it must exist out of and above nature, as a power exercising an absolute control over it.

If the latter supposition be granted, then, as all will admit, the Theistic hypothesis, as above defined, must be true. If, on the other hand, the former supposition be granted, then th~ unconditioned Cause must exist as an inherent law of Matter, or of Spirit, or of pure thought, no other supposition being conceivable or possible. The true answer, then, to the question, What is the nature and character of the ultimate Reason or unconditioned Cause under consideration, will be found in the hypothesis, of Theism, of Materialism, or in that of some one of time forms of Idealism. This must be' true, because these include all conceivable hypotheses.

.Mmc but the J]lteistic Hypothesis can be true.

Tf it be admitted, thn t there are two orders ol finite S1Il)Stnu- ecs - J\1atter and Spirit - and that they 1)oss()~ the attn Iiute~, and sustain to each other the relatious which we have attributed to them, then the truth of the Theistic hypothesis is undeniable. Indeed, it has never been denied, but upon the assumption of the non-reality of Spirit as distinct from Matter, or of Matter as distinct from Spirit, or of all substances whatever. The Unconditioned must be an inherent law of thought, of Spirit, or of Matter, or the free, intelligent, self-conscious personality of Theism. The truth of these stateme'iits is so self-evident, that no one was ever known to deny it.

Now it has already, we think, been rendered perfectly evident, that neither the hypothesis of Materialism, nor any one of those of Idealism can. be true. That of Theism, then, must be true. We might with perfect safety rest time argument here. The paramount importance of time subject, however, requires that we give to the argument bearing upon that subject, a still more extended elucidation.



The relation of the Divine existence considered as the Ultimate Reason or Unconditioned Cause of time facts of time universe, is an absolutely necessary truth, the opposite being inconceivable, and in itself, impossible. ilence, as we have already remarked, it~ is a truth universally admitted. Now whatever attributes are necessarily implied in the idea of such a cause, on the one hand, and in the facts of the universe, on time oth~r, must be affirmed of God. This all will admit. Time process of time argument, in time first instance, is wholly a yrwr~, and in time next a posicrwr~.



The following may ho enumerated as time attributes necessa~ai'ily implied in the idea of God considered as the Unconditioneci Cause, to wit, Eternity, absolute Immutability, and full and perfect adequacy and adaptation to produce the facts of the universe, and render them what they are, and not. otherwise. If this Cause did not exist from eternity, it would itself be an effect of some other and prior cause, and therefore not itself the ultimate or unconditioned Cause. If it were not absolutely immutable, its condition and states would be determined by some other cause, in which case also, it would not be the ultimate Cause. If it did not possess perfect adequacy, and aclaptation to produce the facts of time universe, it could, in no sense, be time cause of those facts. These attributes then must pertain to God, as the Unconditioned. As necessary corollories from these truths, the three following propositions may. be affirmed of the Unconditioned : /

1. The cause assigned, in a"ny given hypothesis, must have, to possess any claims whatever to our regard, an intelligent

adaptation to produce the facts of the universe, and render them what they are. If it has no apparently adequate adaptation to such an end, the hypothesis containing it, is intrinsically absurd, and may be properly rejected on the ground of


2. The cause assigned must not rank lower in kind than the effect attributed to it; otherwise such cause could hate no intelligent adaptation to produce the effects attributed to it.

3. The Unconditioned Cause assigned for the facts of the universe, must be one which possesses in itself the power of self-originating activity, that is, of commencing action from a state of rest, and that from the influence of no cause out of itself. The facts to be accounted for are not a series of events existing fnoiii eternity, but one having, as we ~halI see hereafter, its beginning iii, Ii inc. TI ie (Ti icon di tione I iiiust he a cause thmemi, having in it~eIt~ the 1)o\~'em' o1 ~ILVO seR~origiiiotiiig activity. It must be one possessing a creative, or formative energy, which remained inactive from eternity up to a certain moment in time, and then, from no cause out of itself, conimenced such activity. The truth of these statements, the first two, to say the least, will not be denied. How the last can be is hardly conceivable.



We now come to a consideration of the attributes of the Unconditioned, necessarily supposed in the facts of the Universe. To proceed intelligently in this department of our inquiries, we must first classify the facts from which these attributes are to be deduced. Among these facts, I notice the following:

Facts of creation bearing upon our present inquiries.

1. These facts, that is, the present order of things throughout the universe, had their origin. 'in time, and are not a series of events existing from eternity This statement is afflimed as tiue by time intuitive convictions of thefl race, by all the deductions of science bearing upon the subject, is assumed as . true in all the theories of time universe invented by the ingenuity of man, and is contradicted by no known facts in exist- '

ence. We therefore assume the truth of the proposition as universally granted.

2. The present state of the earth is time result of a series of 'independent creations, each having its beginning in time. The earth has existed under time reign of ii'islmes, under the reign of Reptiles, under time reign of Mammals, and it now

exists under that of Man. Not a solitary fact can be adduced 1r05(m Li iig tim reiiiolcst i fl(iiei%LI(iIl, tioLt any one or those orders

ci existence originated by transmutation from any one that preceded it. All time known facts of creation, on the other hand, affirm, and that most absolutely, the . opposite supposi-~ tion. I simply announce here the teachings of science on thu

subject, and assume the truth of its uncontradicted teachings. as the basis of the present argument.

3. Every distinct species of animals or plants that 'now exists, or ever has existed on earth, has an independent existence, that is, did not derive its existence by transmutation from any pre-existing species. If science has not established this fact, it may truly be said to have established nothing.~J..~~

4. Creation, from its commencement, has been progressivo in one direction exclusively, from the less to the ~ore perfect. Time truth of this proposition is affirmed directly by. all. ~ho teachings of science pertaining to the facts of creation, and. is assumed as true in all the the'6ries of time universe, of every kind. This fact, which is in'itself of fundamental importance, also implies, that time series of creations had a beginning; ~e1se there could be no progress in time direction referred to.

5. No evidence whatever can be adduced of the existence of any power inhering intrinsically in nature, of originating from a state of total and universal inorganization, any, much less time leading, orders of animals or vegetables that now exist, or ever have existed on the earth. The only power pertaining to this subject, even apparently inhering in nature, is that of perpetuating species already existing, and that according to a fixed and immutable law of propogation. Nothing can be affirmed as a law of nature, if this proposition is not true.

All the material elements of which the earth is now conStitUte(1, once existed in a state of total unorganization,

with no animals or vegetables upon it, and no embryo principles from which such organizations new originate. Au mdividual iu U~ t dust) ii iS tO~ ti) nI I Litu ittii LS ci U eulugi ()lLl He LOll 00~ to doubt thu truth ci thi~ proi)osition.

7. Two orders of finite substances, Matter and Spirit, are to the Mind, as the basis of its reasonings on this subject, objects of absolute knowledge. These substances are in all their ,known qualities not only diverse the one from the other, but perfect opposites. Mind, rational Mind, I mean, everywhere stands revealed with the attributes of a free, intelligent, sensitive, self-conscious personality. Matter exhibits none of the properties which make any approach whatever towards the idea of such a personality. Undeniable and fundamental plienomena place an impassable gulf between them, as far as unity of nature is concerned. No one will question at all these statements, but upon one assumption, that their real qualities are wholly unknown to us. This is a formal impeachment of the validity and integrity of the Intelligence, as a faculty of knowledge, and then all inquiry after truth becomes an absurdity. }Ier~ce, I remark:

8. That while these substances are in their nature fundamental opposites, a fixed and undeniable relation exists between them, which imparts an absolute unity to creation. Mind is the center about which the entire material universe rovolves. Mind is the end, to which the entire organization and. movements of the universe sustain the exclusive relation of a means. Creation is thus an absolute whole, in which there is a place for everything, and everything is in its place, as far as the great, all-comprehending law of means and ends is concerned.

9. Creation, throughout, is constructed upon principles of pure science as developed in the Intelligence. Everything within and without us, seems, to ~ay the least, to be the realization ci' a plan, which had a pie-existence in the lutellect of the great Architect of nature. In the constitution of our naLure, jncnt:tl and pilytueni, in tile general structure of the uni- VerSO~ as devoluped in the science of Astronomy, and in the olgalLizatLoLl of animals and plants in tho world around us, ideas and principles of pure science, as they exist in the Intelligence, are everywhere realized. Creation, throughout, wea'i's this one exclusive aspect, and this is one of the fundamental facts that bear upon our present investigations.

10. Mind is constituted in fundamental and immutable correlation to one idea of the Unconditioned, the idea exclusively presented in the Theistic hypothesis. Two absolutely universal instincts noticed in a preceding Chapter, point, as thus shown, exclusively in this one direction - those of worship and prayer. To these I may add. a deep and universal sentiment, frQm which, indeed, those just named take their rise, that of profound dependence upon a power out of and above itself. M~~in, also, is fundamentally constituted as a subject of moral government. In the interior of his Mind there is a perpetual revelation to him of the idea of ~ig1~t and wrong, or of the law of duty; through his conscience he ever recognizes himself as in the presence of a solemn behest to do the one and avoid the other. At the same time, lie feels deeply impressed with the sense of the moral desert of good or ill, as he does the one or the other, and he instinctively anticipates from a power out of and above himself corresponding retributions. It is, finally, an numutable demand of the moral nature of universal Mind, that all the interests of the moral universe should be finally adjusted according to the principles of eternal and immutable justice. All the above-mentioned principles and instincts of our rational nature, are immutably correlated to but one idea of the Unconditioned, that of a free, intelligent, self-conscious ~)orsonnli1y, rulIng the universe in absolute wisdom and-righteousness. Whether such a being exists, is not now the question.

We might, however, as ~vell deny that Mind, or any of its opeiittions OxistS at :111, as to deny the fads of it~ coii~ti LiltiolL above reterred to.

11. i~inaiiy, tllrOtIghiOLLt the cutiro domain of nature, one fixed and iiuiiiutabie, law obtains, as far as the observation of man extends, to wit, For every fundamental want of sentient existence, there are corresponding provisions, and for every fundamental adaptation a corresponding object, or sphere of activity. 1-Juman observation has never yet discovered a solitary exception to this principle. Nature, never vibrates towards the unreal. Nor is there, we may safely conclude, throughout the wide domain of her creations, such a chasm as there would be, were the above principles untrue.



Such are the great leading facts of the universe bearing upon our present inquiries, facts against none of which will any well-informed and candid mind venture a denial. Now we affirm, without fear of contradiction, that from these facts the truth and necessity of the Theistic hypothesis, in opposition to every other, actual or conceivable, is intuitively evident. We cannot deny the facts without impeaching the validity and Lntegrity of the Intelligence itself, as a faculty of knowledge, and then all inquiries after truth of every kind become absurd. We cannot, on the other hand, admit the facts, without affirming, as self-evident, the truth of this one hypothesis, and the total invalidity of every other. But the truth of this one hypothesis, as affirmed by these facts, needs a still more particulai~ and special development. To accomplish this cud, I

remark -


I . The 1 1ItCoII(hitIOfle(i can, by no possibility, be any law

'1'fl./i(~i1iI(J Vfl flUtUre., any law, as affirmed by the material hypothesis on the one hand, or the Idealistic, in any of its forms, on the other. This I affirm for the following reasons: ~

(1). As we have already seen, not one of these hypotheses can be true, and sonic one of these must be true, if the Unconditioned is an inherent law of nature. We need not repeat the argument, by which the truth of these statements ha~ already been demonstrated.

(2). On no such.hypothesis can we account for the undeniable fact pertaining to the Unconditioned, that of cqrnrnencing'. activity, or putting forth of creative power fro'm a state of iliac-:

tion. Creative energy in the Unconditioned remained inactive from eternity up to a given period, and then it commenced action. Now this could 'not possibly . be true of any law inhering in nature. Any such law remaining inactive, from eternity. to any one period, must rema)~n'~o to eternity, unless roused tOi~ action by some power out of itself; and then this law would~ not itself be the Unconditioned. The idea of a law of nature remaining from eternity to a given period inactive, and then. commencing action from no cause out' of itself, is just as inconceivable and impossible as an event without a cause, or the annihilation of space.

(3). 'Elence, I remark, that on no such hypothesis, can we ac-count for the undeniable fact of Creation, that of its originS im time. The Unconditioned, as we have seen, must be immutably the same, from eternity to eternity. If it were an inherent la~ of nature, it must have acted as a creative energy from' eternity, or it never could have acted at all. Creation, then, could not have been a fact having its origin in time. It is auch a fact, and therefore the Unconditioned is no law inhering in ILI Lure.

(4). The clement ot Pm CSS10fl from time less iim time direction of the more perfect, mm element which undeniably comisti- tutes a fundamental characteristic of creation, can be accounted for on no hypothesis that the Unconditioned is in any form a law inhering in nature. Progression proceeding from such a law must have been from eternity, and would already have attained to infinity. It has not thus attained, 'and therefore cannot proceed from such a law. The hypothesis, under consideration, then, cannot be true.

(5). The facts of the origin of animal and vegetable organizations, such as really appear on earth, from a state of universa.l unorganization, cannot be accounted for on the hypothesis under consideration. Matter was once exclusively in this state, with no embryo principles or conditions from which such organizations now originate, or by any known law of nature can originate. This is absolutely undeniable. Now from what known (and we must reason only. from the known) inhering law of nature can the origin of all the species~ of animals and vegetables that have existed and now exist on earth, be accounted for? No such law can be designated, and therefore the facts before us must be attributed to a power out of and above nature.

(6). This hypothesis can be true, also, but upon the validity of one assumption, to wit, that nature, in all the higher departments of her works, is immutably correlated to the unreal, instead of the real in the Unconditioned. I refer, of course, to the higher and spiritual departments of Mind. These, as we have seen, are in fixed correlation to time Theistic hypothesis, in opposition to every other. The 'great fundamental principle of science, that flr every 'lundIunoImLnl want of sentient oxk~t- ence there is a supply, and for every fundamental adaptation a COITOSI)O1I (ii IIg Sl11e10 of notion, IS l.otrmhly false, if Limo ]Iypoth1e~is u,uIrr ouiisidermmtiwm is ~ it cannot be true, for the reason Liutt 'Ibr the fimeLs of the universe it assigns a cause, which makes nature opposed to herself, and from which ,~uch facts can, by no possibility, arise.

2. The Unconditioned can be no cause acting from necessity. This is absolutely evident from considerations already presented. A necessary cause must act, as soon as the conditions of its activity are fulfilled. This is the fundamental element of our idea of such a cause. With the Unconditioned these conditions must have been fulfilled from eternity, or not at all. The opposite supposition involves time assumption that the action of the Unconditioned depends upon a cause out of itself, in other words, that it is not the Unconditioned. Creation, then, would be from eternity, and could not be an event of time. To account for creation as having had its beginning in time, a cause must be assigned, that could have acted as a creative energy, at that one mo,~ent, and need not to have thus acted at any preceding ~oiie, and that cause remaining from eternity to eternity absolutely immutable and determined in its activity by no other cause. Now time idea of necessitated causation does not, and cannot answer these. conditions. It has no power from a state of inaction to commence activity, but from causes out of itself. From one state it cannot assume a new form of activity, but from the occurrence of new conditions which render continuance in time former state, and non-action in the new direction, equally and absolutely impossible. Now no such new conditions could have arisen with the Unconditioned, at the moment referred to, the very supposition of their occurrence implying a self-contradiction, to wit, that the iJiicouditioned is not time Unconditioned. No reasons existed lbr Limo commencement of creation at the moment referred to, rather than at any other moment, each period being in itself

in all respects absolutely like every other, and as equally distant from the eternity past and the eternity to come. The fact of creation as an event of time, a fact undeniable, cannot be accounted for upon the supposition, that the Unconditioned is any form of necessitated causation.

Every objection also, almost without exception, that lies against the idea that this cause is any inhering law of nature, lies with equal force against the idea, that it is any other form of necessitated causation. It is just as impossible to account for the facts of creation on one supposition as on the other.

3. The Unconditioned must be a free Cause, in opposition to all forms of necessary causation. On no other supposition is the undeniable fact of creation as an event having its beginning in time, a conceivable or possible event. On this hypothesis, it is both conceivable and possible. If the Unconditioned is a free and not a necessary cause, then at each successive moment from eternity, he might or might not put forth his creative energy. Its non-exercise at each previous moment, and its exercise at the moment when it was put forth, is conceivable, and therefore possible. On no other conceivable supposition can the fact, that the effects of the Divine agency are in time and not from eternity, be accounted for.

A cause that acts from necessity must, as we have seen, act as soon as it exists, and the conditions of its activity are fulfilled, which must have been true of the TJuconditioiicd from eternity. The effects of the Divine agency, then, if the Unconditioned is a necessary cause, must have been from eternity, and not, as in fact they are, in time. If the human race, or the universe of mind around us, had their origin from a necessary cause, their existence must have been from eternity, or'they could never have existed at all. That which rendered it impossible for the Unconditioned to create such beings from eternity up to any one moment, would have rendered it impossible for 1dm to have created them to eternity. There can be no possible escape from this supposition.

To suppose the Unconditioned to be a necessary and nota free cause, is also self-contradictory. What is the fundamental element of our idea of a necessary cause? It is this: a cause which can act only as it is acted upon by something which necessitates its actior~. A necessary cause, therefore, in its action, must be conditioned, and not unconditioned and absolute. If God, then, is not a free, he is not the unconditioned caUse-of all conditional existences. Besides the supposition that the unconditioned and absolute is under the law of necessity, implies that the necessitating power acted antecedently to the:

unconditioned. This is equivalent to denying that God is the~ first, as well as the unconditioned and absolute cause.

4. As an unconditioned and absolute cause, Qod must4~e possessed of Intelligence. This follows as a necessary consequence of the fact, that lie is af,ec, and not a necessaryagentf~ IFree agency, in the absence of"Intelligence, is an absolute impossibility. We cannot possibly conceive of such an agent. Further, the universe to which God has given existence is one. Every object and element in the universe exists as a part of the great whole. The whole is in perfect adaptation to each~ and every part, and every part is in adaptation equally perfect to the whale; and the great whole, with all its parts, exists in perfect harmony with fundamental ideas of the Intelligence. Now to suppose that a free cause without Intelligence has created and constituted a universe, all the parts and depart. mnents of which, as parts of' one great whole, exist in perfect harmony with fundamental ideas of the universal Intelligence, is an absolute impossibility. It is, in reality, the gross absurdity of affirming an event without a cause.

5. As the unconditioned and absolute 'cause of all that conditionally exists, God is a spiritual, and not a nw(ei'irl existence. This follows, as the logical consequent of time i~ict~ that he is a free and intelligent, and not a necessary and unintelligent agent.

6. God also must be a moral agent. This likewise is a logical consequent of the fact that he is an intelligent and free agent. Intelligence and free agency cannot be postulated of any being without, as the logical consequent of that supposition, attributing to him moral agency.

7. As the unconditioned cause, God exists and acts as the moral legislator and governor of the moral universe, exercising' the functions of moral government in perfect harmony with the laws of absolute wisdom and rectitude. The basis of the universal and necessary conviction that God thus exists and acts, is found, I suppose, in the conscious laws and operations of our own mental and moral nature. ilere we are conscious of the actual establishment of a moral government in perfect harmony with the immutable principles of justice and goodness. Oonscience reveals the right and the wrong, and demands implicit and absolute obedience to the one, and corresponding avoidance of the other. Nor can we do the one or the other without experiencing in ourselves corresponding retributions. 1-lere is moral government established, and no one can mistake its character. What is without may present apparent disorders, in the midst of which, however, we canimot mistake the fact, that all things are tending towards an ultimate adjustment, in accordance with the principles of absolute truth and justice. The revelations in the interior of our own mental and moral being, however, we cannot mistake, the i-cv. elatiomis of " tied as the judge of all," ruling time moral universe in absolute wisdom, justice, and beneficence.

8. I remark, finally, as a necessary deduction from all that we havc previously established, that as the Unconditioned, God is a free, intelligent, self-conscious Personality, in opposition to the impersonal god of Pantheism and kindred hypotheses. Freedom, intelligence, spirituality, and moral agency must, as we have seen, be affirmed of God. Now these attributes necessarily imply Personality in the Godhead. With this position the entire facts of the universe, material and mental, perfectly accord, and they accord with none other. Our entire mental and moral nature are immutably correlated to the unreal, if God is not such a personality. Man also exists as such personality. To suppose that the Unconditioned is not a person, but a thing, as in that case he must be, is to assign for the effect a cause which ranks infinitely lower in kind than that which it produces. From what has already been established, however, the truth of time proposition before us is self-evident. No further enlargement of the argument is demanded in this connection.


We come now to consider the seàond form in which the idea of God is revealed in the human Intelligence, to wit, God, the Infinite and Perfect.

This a First Truth of Reason.

That this form of the idea of God is a first truth of Reason, is evident from this one consideration. Shouldany one nttrilnito to Gol an acknowledged iniperfcciion Of any kind, lie would know in himself, that ho had thereby involved himself in iu1iu~te guilt. Men may, witho~t conscious guilt, ii~

1)1110 to the Most high rt~tl ioIperhiot101H4, but 1101 ;e ~~e1i. Whatever individuals regard as necessarily implied in the idea of the Infinite and Perfect, they universally conceive themselves as under the highest obligatioii to attribute the same to God. Further, there never was a time, since the idea of God first arose in our minds, when we did not thus regard him. There never was a time since the period under consideration, when we would not regard ourselves as infinitely guilty in attributing to God any acknowledged imperfection, or in not affirming of him whatever we regarded as involved in the idea of the Infinite and Perfect. God, then, the Infinite and Perfect, is a first truth of universal Reason. It now remains to designate the grounds of our conviction of the objective validity of this form of the idea of God.


At the outset of our inquiries here, an important question arises, to wit: Does creation reveal its author as Infinite and Perfect? Can an effect acknowledged to be finite reveal its cause as infinite? If so, this revelation cannot be found in the mere extent of the Divine works. Suppose that the creation of one world only would have revealed its author as finite, how many such worlds would it take, to reveal him as infinite? Nothing short of a number absolutely infinite, which is an absurdity. It is the height of absurdity, therefore, to reason, as is commonly done, from the mere extent of creation, which is still acknowledged to be finite, to the absolute infinity and perfection of its author. Yet we cannot say, a pl'iorz, that God may not stand revealed hi hi~ ~vork~, as the iLifluilo and Per- feet. That he is thus revealed therein, has been shown above. The fact we are bound to admit, although we may not be able to (leMigmmto Llio grounds of our convictions in respect to iL It not uufrequently happens, that in the presence of certain facts, our Intelligence affirms absolutely particular conclusions, as the logical antecedents of the facts, while we may be at a loss to determine the particular elements in view of which those conclusions are affirmed. For such a reason, the conclusions ought to be to us none the less valid. I once read of a painting which presented with great perfection of execution, a human countenance. Every one. that contemplated the countenance, felt, as his eyes were fixed upon it, a sort of horror creeping over him. Let us suppose that no one could designate the elements in the picture, which sustained to those feelings the relation of cause. No one would, for that reason, doubt the existence of such elements in the object. So, in the presence of the universe, God stands revealed to our minds as the Infinite and the Perfect. Though we may not be able to find those elements in his works, which thus reveal ~imn, shall we, for that reason, doubt the reality of the revelation? In the case of the painting ~eferred to, it was found that the author had produced it, aft5r perpetrating the crime of murder. Hence he had penciled in the countenance, the internal feelings of his own mind. So God, for aught we can know, a priori, may have somewhere in his creation, penciled out the indications of his own Infinity and Perfection, pencilings which the universal Intelligence discovers and correctly interprets, without, in most instances, being able to distinguish. This I believe to be the real state of the case. God, in his works, stands revealed as the Infinite and Perfect. The elements in his works, by which he is thus revealed, may not yet have been designated. Yet they will be. It becomes us, as philu~oplien4 awl Christians, to continue our observations till the elements under consideration are recognized and presented to the world.

mite to the Most I ugh refli iI.fll)(~1'1e0ti0115, Tint not as ~ii~Ii.

Whatever individuals regar(l as necessarily implied in the idea of the Infinite and Perfect, they universally conceive themselves as under the highest obligation to attribute the same to God. Further, there never was a time, since the idea of God first arose in our minds, when we did not thus regard him. There never was a time since the period under consideration, when we would not regard ourselves as infinitely guilty in attributing to God any acknowledged imperfection, or in not affirming of him whatever we regarded as involved in the idea of the Infinite and Perfect. God, then, the Infinite and Perfect, is a first truth of universal Reason. It now remains to designate the grounds of our conviction of the objective validity of this form of the idea of God.


At the outset of our inquiries here, an important question arises, to wit: Does creation reveal its author as Infinite and Perfect? Can an effect acknowledged to be finite reveal its cause as infinite? If so, this revelation cannot be found in the mere extent of the Divine works. Suppose that the creation of one world only would have revealed its author as finite, how many such worlds would it take, to reveal him as infinite? Nothing short of a iiiiinber absolutely infinite, which is an absurdity. It is the height of absurdity, therefore, to reason, as is commonly done, from the mere extent of creation, which is still acknowledged to be finite, to the absolute infinity and perfection of its author. Yet wo cannot say, a p1ior~, that God m:ty not stnnd revealed iii his ~vorks, as the infinite and Per- feet. That he is thus revealed therein, has been shown above. Time fact we are bound to admit, although we may not be able to designate the grounds of our convictions in respect to it. It not unfrequently happens, that in the presence of certain facts, our Intelligence aiirmns absolutely particular conclusions, as the logical autccedeuts of the facts, while we may be at a loss to determine the particular elements in view of ~which those conclusions are affirmed. For such a reason, the conclusions ought to be to us none the less valid. I once read of a painting which presented with great perfection of execution, a human countenance. Every one. that contemplated the countenance, felt, as his eyes were fixed upon it, a sort of horror creeping over him. Let us suppose that no one could designate the elements in the picture, which sustained to those feelings the relation of cause. No one would, for that reason, doubt the existence of such elements in the ol~ject. So, in time presence of the universe, God stands revealed to our minds as the Infinite and the Perfect. Though we may notbe able to find those elements in his works, which thus reveal him, shall we, for that reason, doubt the reality of the revelation? Iii the case of the painting ~eferred to, it was found that the author had produced it, after perpetrating the crime of murder. Hence he had penciled in the countenance, the internal ~ feelings of his own mind. So God, for aught we can know, a priori, may have somewhere in his creation, penciled out time indications of his own Infinity and Perfection, pencilings which the universal Intelligence discovers and correctly interprets, without, in most instances, being able to distinguish. This I believe to be the real state of the case. God, in his works, stands revealed as the Infinite and Perfect. The elements in his works, by which he is thus revealed, may not yet have been designated. Yet they will be. It becomes us, as phiFe4~1,hLetH and (Jinistlaims, to continue our observations till time elements under consideration are recognized and presented to tIme world.



Permit mc hero to suggest tho inquiry, whether, mainly for the three following reasons, almost, if not quite all efforts to find the ground of the conviction under consideration, pertaining to the Divine Infinity and Perfection, have proved unsuccessful:

1. The two forms above designated, in which the idea of God is developed in the Intelligence, have not been recognized and separated from each other. Hence, considerations adapted only to reveal God as the unconditioned and absolute cause, have been adduced to prove his Infinity and Perfection. Failing to establish this last point, they have been rejected, as having no bearing whatever upon the question of the Divine existence.

2. An attempt is always made to demonstrate the reality of the Divine existence and perfections by a formal process of logical deduction, instead of recognizing the belief of these truths as among the primary and necessary intuitions of Reason, and then falling back upon those intuitions to find their chronological antecedents, in other words, the grounds of such affirmations of Reason pertaining to God.

The argument for the Divine Infinity and Perfection has almost invariably taken a wrong direction, to wit, the clement of wim(~i1s1fjJ in the external creation. This iiniuensity is limited, finite. The infinite is not found here. Hence, many have concluded, that no evidence at all exists in creation, of the Infinity and Perfection of God. So Kant reasons; and because this one element of creation does not reveal God as the Infinite and Perkut, lie argues, that creation ~ no evidence at all, even of the Divine existence, - a most strange and illogical conclusion~ Where, then, should we cx-l)(et, ~ /w~, to find those pencilings in view of which thc iii lelligenee affirms the Divine Inlinity and Perfection? Not surely in the external material universe, but in that "which i~ minnie in time image of God," the universe of Mind. Among the laws of its inner being, Mind~ will.find the indications of the Infinity and Perfection of its Author, if itfinds them at all.


We are now prepared for a direct consideration of the

grounds of the affirmation of the Intelligence, that God is both

Infinite and Perfect.

1. The first that I notice is a fundamental~ element in the idea of God, as the unconditioned and absolute cause of all that exists conditionally. Whatever the Intelligence necessarily apprehends as finite, it as necessarily regards as conditioned. In tracing back every chain of causes and effects to the first, or unconditioned and,ab~o1ute cause, we naturally~ and necessarily ask, in respect to ~evcrything given as finite, What caused that? We put this question with no more doubt that it had a cause, than we have that no event exists without a cause. The Intelligence does not, and cannot recognize itself, as in the presence of the unconditioned and absolute, till it finds if~self in the presence of the Infinite and Perfect.. This I believe to be ono of the chief sources of the conviction in our minds in respect to God as the Infinite and Perfect.

2. In the presence of this idea of God, the Intelligence intuitively and absolutely affirms the total absence of all evidence, that God is finite and imperfect. Hence the Intelligdnce cannot affirm either of God. Further, from the depth of our inner being there proceeds a solemn prohibition again~st imputing to God any imperfection, natural or moral, without positive evidence. Every one feels the presence and force of that prohibition, who attends properly to the admonitions of his own nature.

3. To the idea of God, as the Infinite and Perfect, our entire mental constitution is in conscious harmony. It is only in the presence of this idea that the Mind is capable of the degree of virtue and happiness which its nature consciousiy demands. We cannot exist without a consciousness of su~h facts pertaining to the fixed correlation between time changeless demands of our own nature and the reality of God, as time Infinite and Perfect. Our nature shudders and shrinks back with horror at any other conception of God than this. The idea of God, as the Infinite and Perfect, is the great want of universal Mind. To every other want, in the universe within and around us, a corresponding reality exists. To know the demands of the nature of any being, is to know with perfect certainty the reality of corresponding objects in creation around. Shall we suppose that time great overshadowing want of universal Mind is the only necessity to which no corresponding reality exists? Now, I b~lieve that the CQflSCiOUS correlation of our immortal powers to the idea of God, as the Infinite and Perfect, and to that idea alone, is one of the chief grounds of the affirmations of our Intelligence, under consideration, pertaining to God.

In all minds, also, there exists a conscious conviction that God Should be nothing else thAn the Infinite and Perfect. Morally perfect we know lie ought to be. So the Intelligence affirms, that having voluntarily given existence to beings whose nature demands nothing else than Infinity and Perfection i~u him, he ought to be to those beings what their nature, as ho has constituted it, demands. Hence, also, from the depths of our being, there not only comes up a solemn prohibition against attributing finiteness and imperfection to God, but a solemn admonition to esteem, adore, and worship him as nothing' els than the Infinite and Perfect. Every one who properly his tens to what is passing in the inner sanctuary of his own mind will recognize what I mean in these declarations.

5. Worship is recognized by universal Consciousness, as ~ changeless demand of our nature. Yet every one feels that In. does that nature infinite violence, when he worships anything but divinity, and divinity in harmony with any idea opposed to that of God as the Infinite and Perfect. What does such a law of universal Mimi indicate? Certainly, that God, the only object of worship, is nothing else than the Infinite and Perfect. In the consciousness of such demands in our nature, the Intelligence perceives at once, as their logical antecedent, the reality of Infinity and Perfection in the Author of that nature.

6. One other ground of conviction under consideration yet remains to be designated, a ground more fundamental, if' possible, thami any yet pointed out,,, Mind is everywhere revealed to itself, not only as destinej,to an immortal existence, but as possessed of powers involving in their own nature the elements of endless progression. Every power and susceptibility of our nature possesses this one characteristic, a fixed adapta~ tion to a state of endless growth and expansion. Of this characteristic of his own immortal powers every one is really, though lie may not be reflectively, conscious. What do such powers indicate in respect to their Author? Nothing else than Infinity and Perfection. As Mind descends to a contemplation of its own powers and susceptibilities, and perceives in them all the elements not only of Immortality, but of endless growth and expansion in thought, feeling, and action, 'here it finds those: pencilings in which it reads, with the'most profound and solemn convictions of its being in the presence of eternal realities, the Infinity and Perfection of the Author of its existence. Mind knows, that in the endless growth and expansion of its immortal powers, nothing but Infinity and Perfection in God can meet the eternally enlarging demands of those powers. In view of its own powers and destiny, Mind reads, with the most undoubted convictions, the Infinity 'and Perfection of the eternal Guardian arid Disposer of the Immortal interests involved in the possession of suchpowers.

Such, as I conceive, are the grounds' of the affirmations of the universal Intelligence in refererice to God, as the uncondi'tioned and absolute cause of all that conditionally exists, and as the Infinite and the Perfect.



The two forms of the Divine idea above elucidated, to wit, God, the absolute and unconditioned cause of all that exists conditionally, and God the Infinite and Perfect, are 'the great foundation principles in the science of Theology. Whatever is correctly affirmed or denied of God, 'must be done in the light of these two principles. In their light every other truth of God, and a11 the principles of his eternal government, stand revealed to our minds. Do we, for examplej affirm omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, justice, goodness, truth, of God; it is because these perfections are involved, as essential elements, in our idea of him 'as time Infinite and 'Perfect. Do we legitimately deny anything of God, it is becausO that, in attributing it to him, we' should affirm finiteness or imperfection of him. The same holds true of every form in 'which any particular eltarnoteristie is to be attributed to (hod. That conception of any particular characteristic which most fully harmonizes with the fundamental demerits involved in the idea of absolute Infinity and Perfection, is to be 'affirmed of God; while every other, and especially every 'opposite form, is to be' denied of him.


Theology defined.

Theology is the science of God, systematically evolved in the light of the fundamental ideas of Reason, pertaining to him, obove, cincida ted. This will, be admitted by all in whose minds the idea of science is developed at all, as a correct, and' the only correct, definition of the subject.

Postulate, Axioms, &c,, in Theology.

The great postulate, the foundation principle in the science, as shown above, is the idea of God as the unconditioned and absolute cause, and as the Influito and P~erfccL'

The axioms in the science are tire two following:

1. Whatever is involved as/an essential element of our idea of air unconditioned aud,ttbsolute cause, and of Infinity and Perfection, is to be affirmed of God.

2. Whatever, if attributed to him, would contradict the idea of an unconditioned and absolute cause, or affirm 'finiteness or imperfection of God, is to be denied of him.

All particular attributes, the definitions in the science, are then to be elucidated in time light of the postulate and principles, or axioms, above presented.

Kind of Proof pertaining to each particular .iittrihutc.

The proof, and the only proof, to be presented, that any par~ioular characteristic is to be affirmed of God, is a demonstration of tire fact, that such characteristic is essentially involved in our conception of him as the unconditioned and

absolute cause, or as the Infinite anti Perfect. This is the kind of proof peculiar to all scienceS - proof resting upon the principle of contradiction. While it is shown that such or such an attribute, or any particular form of a given attribute, must be affirmed of God, else we deny of him the prerogative of unconditioned and absolute cause, or the characteristics of Infinity and Perfection, we have presented absolute demonstration of the fact, that such attribute belongs to God.

This Science to be cvolve(~ 'in the iiql~t of the W~rks qf God, material amul mental, aui of the Teachings of Inspiration.

This science also should be evolved with continued reference to the works and Word of God. In developing the attributes involved in the principles under consideration, we should not go to the Bible to proec that such a characteristic is to be affirmed of God, but the teachings of Inspiration should be adduced, to show the correspondence between the affirmations of science and the Word of God. Thus the science under consideration would be, as far as it. extends, a continued coinmeutary upon the sacred volume. The perceived harmony of the two would give additional force to the influence of each upon the mind. Facts in the external material creation will not he adduced in proof of the reality of particular attributes in God, but creation itself will be thrown before the mind, as the work of God, in the light of all the attributes involved in the ideas of him as the unconditioned and absolute cause, and as the Infinite and Perfect. The great truth to be developed is, What may be accomplished through matter, under the guidance and control of a being possessed of all the perfections involved in the principles under consideration ? (if course, no attempt will be itiade to determine particvlar developments. But this great thought will be thrown into distinct visibility before the mind, to wit: that all that is possible, through matter, the attributes involved in the ideas of Infinity and Pe~feotiou, enable the Most lUgh to discern and accomplish.

In respect to Mind, this science should be evolved in~~ cor~ relation to all the powers and susceptibilities of our nature. The fundamental object of the science relating, to Mind being mental development, in harmony with the idea of God as ..the unconditioned and absolute cause, and as the Infinite and Prfeet, under the influence of these ideas, it should be so evolv.;d that the natural result upon the Mind, of a knowledge and contemplation of the system, would be endless progression and expansion of the powers of thought, feeling, and action. The demands of the logical department of our nature will be fully met, when each attribute, and each characteristic of every attribute, are seen to follow, as logical consequents of the ideas of God under consideration. The demands of the Sensibility will be met, when the Divine perfections rise before the contemplation in such a manner, as is best adapted to excite all those feelings and sentimentywhicli the finite is bound c~•to cherish towards the Infinite. The demands of the voluntary powers arc met when the Divinity stands in distinct contemplation before.the Mind, as the proper, and only proper object of the Mind's supreme choice, obedience, love, worship, and delight.

In the development of this science, another great thought wouhd be thrown into distinct visibility before the Mind, to wit: What will be the destiny of Mind, what its future developments, under the teachings, guidance, and control of such a being? Here, also, no attempt would be made to determine particulars. The contemplation, on the other hand, would be turned upon the destiny and developments of Mind, viewed in the general point of light, in the contemplation of the fact~ under consideration.


Theology, with truth and propriety, has been separated into two departments, natural and ~evealed.

JS,ta(ural Theology, as a science, is a systematic development of those truths pertaining to the attribntes, character, and government of God, involved in the ideas of him, considered as the 'unconditioned and absolute cause, and as the Infinite and Pe,f~'ct.

The idea of a Divine revelation, as far as it pertains to God, is, God the 'unconditioned and absolute cause, and God the Infinite and Perfect, revealed in. fixed and perfect conT.elation. to the necessities 'of the beings to whom that revelation is made. Nothing in such revelation would contradict either of tho principles under consideration, nor any of the logical consequences of the same. As far as natural theology and revelation pertain to the same things, there will be a perfect harmony between them. Each will elucidate and confirm the teachings pf the other. Revelation' will extend' the sphere of mental vision in relation to divinity and humanity both, far beyond the reach of natural theology. But the natural and revealed will harmoniously blend into one beautiful, all-comprehending' unity. Such will be the character of any real r&velation from God. Such a revelation the sacred volume claims to be. ' Its friends have no fear, in meeting the question of, its 'divine origin, in. the' light of.; these principles. When the 'science 'of theology shall 'be developed in a fbrm truly scientific, then the harmony between the natural and revon led, and ot the teiwli i ogs ot be 11 with the dictates of uli versal Reason, will become distinctly visible to the world. The accomplishment of this object is a want yet, as it appears to me, to be met with, in the science of theology.



The terms mystery and absurdity are in very common use in theology. Doctrines presented as affirmed by the direct teachings of Inspiration, are often objected to, on the ground of intrinsic absurdities imputed to them. When the clement of absurdity is imputed to a given doctrine, the doctrine is often defended, on the ground, that mystery is a common element of all religious truth, and that consequently the fact that any' doctrine is very mysterious, is no valid objection against it. It belongs to the province of Intellectual Philosophy to discriminate between a real mystery and absurdity.

Absurdity Defined.

When all the elements contained in the subject and predicate of a given proposition are fully and distinctly known to the mind, and when those term~ are said to agree, while the Intelligence clearly perceives~'froin the nature of the elements which they represent, that they cannot agree, or when they are affirmed to' disagree, while the Intelligence perceives and affirms absolutely that they do and must agree, here 'we have a contradiction, or absurdity. If God himself should directly require us to affirm as true, what our Intelligence thus aflirnis to be false, we could not comply with the requisition. A professed revelation containing any such proposition as the above, we cannot admit to be a real revelation' from the Infinite and Perfect. The intehligcnco, on no authority whatever, can af- firm any such proposition of God, while it still affirms his Infinity and Perfection.

Mystery defined.

On the other hand, let us suppose that the subject and pro.dicate of a proposition, each embraces some elements which we know, and some which we do not know, and that in the proposition the subject and predicate, in view of the elements which we know, are affirmed to disagree, and on the ground of the unknown it is affirmed that they agree, or vice versa, the admission of the truth of such a proposition involves no contradiction. The grounds of the agreement or disagreement under consideration would be a mystery. As such we might reasonably admit the truth of the proposition, on sufficient testimony.

.Mijstery and Absurdity defined in. another Form..

Further, facts arc 'sometimes presented to us in such a light, that their logical antecedents, or the condition amid ground of their existence and explanation, are also given at the same time. On the other hand, facts of the highest moment to us may be revealed as facts merely, while the condition and ground of their existence are wholly unrevoaled and unknown to us. In the former instance, if a proposition is presented to us, affirming, as the logical antecedent of the facts.referred to, what our Intelligence affirms can never be such antecedent, in other words, when any proposition contradicts the necessary intuitions of our Reason, the Intelligence, on no authority whatever, can admit its truth. Time proposition is absurd. On the other band, when facts are affirmed, as in the second instance above specified, we can adiiiit their reality as flmcL~, while the ground of their existence is unknown, that is, inysterious to us. There is a mystery but no absurd it~'q in such a case. The proper application of these principles will be Ibund to be of fundamental importance in the science of theology.


We have in our hands a book which claims to be a revelation to man from the Infinite and Perfect. The questibii arises, In what light shall we regard the book? By'what. pminciples shall we test its claims? The following may be laid down as decisive principles to be rigidly applied under such circumstances: ' ,.

1. As far as the revelation pertains to. the, same subjects which fall within the legitimate domain of natural theology, as above defined, there will be a perfect harmony between the natural and revealed.

2. In this revelation, the Infinite and Perfect will stand revealed in full and fixed correlation to the condition and fundameiitai wants of man, circumstanced as lie now is, as affirmed by the testimony of human consciousness. The consciousness which every man that truly knows himself and God, ba~ timat the truth of what is affirmed is a chiamigeloss demand of his, nature, in his present and prospective condition, will be, to hint time highest evidence that the record is amidinust be true.

3. Such a revelation will pret~nt a resolution of the great questions of human duty and' destiny, the solution of which is one of the great wants of man.

4. The claims of the record, a~s a revelation from God, will be urged upon us, by all the external evidence which, in all other cases, distinguishes truth from error.

Such a record the sacred volume professes to be. Its friends, as before remarked, have no fear, in submitting the claims of Christianity to the most rigid test of the principles above elucidated.

Revealed Theology defined.

We are now prepared for a distinct definition, of 'revealed theology. As revealed theology includes the teachings of nat-, ural, it may be defined as the systematic developme'nC,~ in the light of sonic one great central idea or principle, of the truths

of inspiration pertaininy to the character and government of God. In its most comprehensive signification, it would in-elude the entire system of divine truth, pertaining not only to God exclusively, but to human duty and destiny, in both of which God stands revealed to our minds. Everything pertaining not only to the character and government of God, but to the subjects of that government, so far forth as their revealed duty and destiny would illustrate the principles of the Divine administration, would be comprehended in a system of. revealed theology, using the words in their most extensive application. Such, as I suppose, is theology. Its systematic development upon principles purely scientific, still remains as one of the great wants of humanity. This want will remain unmet, till the true conception of such a system shall be distinctly developed in the minds of philosophers and theologians both. If the hints above given shall tend to this result, I shall, feel that no small service has bccn done to the cause of truth.


There is no department of human thought where system, scientifically developed, is not a great want of the human mind. In no other department is this want more deeply felt, than in theology. There is no subject of thought which, when developed upon scientific principics, does not become an object of interest. Theology, in itself the most interesting and im-' portant of all subjects, will, wlieii as a system it shall be developed upon profoundly scientific principles, possess an interest which shall, as it ought to do, overshadow all other subjects. Every system of truth has some one great~ central truth or principle about which all the others revolve, and in the light of which thöy' appear as harmonious parts of one great whole. No subject of thought is scientifically developed,. until it is evolved in conformity to the conception above givel ; in other words, till it is systematically, evolved in the light ~ fundamental ideas. To no subject are the above remarks more fully applicable than to that of theology. Theology, like every other department of human research, has its great central truths and principles, about which all other truths and principles pertaining to. the same subject revolve, and. in the light of which they all appear as parts of one great whole. Unless this is true, to speak of the science, or system of theology, is to use words without meaning, or to "speak of things, that , are not, as though they were." In the definition given of revealed theology, I have not designated the particiilar truth or truths, about which, as I suppose, the entire systern of revelation revolves, and into which all its diversified parts blend into one sublime and harmonious unity.': I leave it to theologians who may condescend to receive a hint from a source so humble, to find, in thihight of it, this great central position, and from it to giveI~ the system of theology a truly scientific development. The man is yet to rise, who, by a "wisdom which cometh from above," shall do this great work for humanity. That man, when his work shall come to be appreciated, will be ranked among the greatest benefactors of his species.

But I have wandered much further than I expected, when I commenced this seeming digression from my subject, which Is, the defects of method in the common systems of theology. On this subject, as a friend of truth as well as philosophy (for philosophy as well as theology is deeply concerned in the subject 'upon which I am speaking), 1 may be permitted to speak my thoughts with all freedom. What then are the errors, particularly of method, in time, common systems of theology? Among these I notice the following:

1. An error frequently noticed in the preceding part of this Chapter, and which I need but hint at here, is the method of proving the Divine existence. ' If in the first step an error of method is committed, time whole subsequent procedure is marred, and the system of theology is developed in a manner not fully satisfactory to the mind. If the question in respect to the Divine existence is not settled to the full satisfaction of the mind, the proof pertaining to cacli particular attribute will be in a corresponding degree unsatisfactory, and a feeling of uncertainty, in respect to that which time mind really knows with more certainty than almost anything else, a feeling somewhat at least bordering on skepticism, will creep over the mind, in relation to the whole systcmn. Now there are, as it appears to me, three prominent errors of method in the prevailing treatises on theology, in respect to time subject before us.

The first is the fact, as stated above, that the Divine existence is not recognized as a truth already known and affirmed by the human Intelligence, and that the only proper method of demonstration of that truth, is by a InethQd purely piychological, that is; by falling back upon' the convict.ionitself, and finding the' real f~cts on which it truly rests, in time depths of the Intelligence. When the Intelligence has affirmed any truth with profound conviction on any 'subject, the only real demonstration of that truth which can be presented to the mind, is to throw into distinct visibility, the real facts in view of which the reality of the truth was affirmed. Now thcolo-glans, insteadof recognizing this fact in respect to theology, j have gone beyond time circle of the iitiin1'~ convictions, to fimid

some facts in the external world from which, as a logical consequent, the truth of the Divine existence 'would follow. The mind of course returns from its researches more unsatisfied than when, from the center of real iIlurnin~tion, it wandered abroad in search of light.

Another error which I repeat here, is not recognizing ~ two distinct and prominent forms in which the idea of ~id is developed in the human Intelligence, to wit: God the ui-conditioned amid absolute cause, and God the Infinite and '.I~'~ei~-. feet. Hence considerations perfectly demon~trative 'of the validity of the idea in one form, but which are without i~rce in reference to the other, are adduced without diserinminntion of their real bearing. The 'Mind perceiving that time argument has no real weight to prove the existence of God in the form in which it expects it to prove it, assumes that it has no real bearing' upon the subject, and thus becomes dissatistled with the whole argument on time stmbject. This' is a natural consequence. hence many a student in theology has~had occasion to confess that he never doubted the reality of the )ivine existence, till he turned to time arguments adduced in'~ books and time theological recitation room to prove it. •

r1110 other error is in attempting to deduce the evidence of the infinity and perfection of/God from the extent and~1aws of the world of Matter, h~stead of that of. Mind.' On this point I have already said so much that I shall not enlar~e, hero.

2. The second, and the great error of method, in the common (so called) systems of theology, is an almost, if not quite, total want of scientific development. I know of no professed system of theology, time mode of presentation and development of which accords with any proper conception of a system of truth, much less with a true definition of real science. Thoro is and can be no real system where there are not one or more great central truths or principles which impart unity and harmony to time whole. There is and can be no such thing as' a system evolved in such, a manner as to realize the idea of sciemice, in which the relations and properties of a given subject are not systematically evolved in the light of fundamental ideas.

Now where is the system of theology that is developed in any degree of conformity to the idea of system or science as above announced, or to any other proper definition of the idea of a system scientifically expressed? I know of no such systern. What is the mode of procedure in such systems? The first thing proposed is to prove the existence of God. The next step is to take up each particular attribute, and by a separate course of argument, prove that such attribute is to be affirmed of luiiii. Now this can be shown in a moment to be a most uuphulosopliical procedure.

In the first place, if the proposition first proved, to wit, God exists, does not in itself involve a real demonstration of the reality of his particular attributes, the proposition absolutely amounts to nothing; for it is a demonstration of the existence of a God without attributes - that is, the existence of no God at all. For a God without attributes, is, in fact, no God.

If, on the other hand, the demonstration of the proposition, God exists, does involve in itself a corresponding proof of his particular attributes, then the only proper subsequent scientific procedure is, to evolve analytically each particular attribute as involved in the proposition already demonstrated. To attempt iii any other form, by a separate cOurse of argumentation, a subsequent demonstration of each particular attribute, is a most uimphulosophical and unscientific procedure - a procedure which really, as shown above, nullifies all that went before.

Further, when the proposition, God exists, is proposed as a subject of demonstration, the first thing to be done is to define the buns used, especially the term (lod. Now if this term is not so defined as to involve his particular attributes, the term means nothing, and the demonstration is null and void. If the term is so defined as to involve the particular attributes, then, when the proposition, God exists, has been demonstrated, the reality of each attribute is involved in the demonstration, and the only subsequent procedure really philosophic, scientific; and reasonable, is to evolve each particular attribute as thus involved in what has already~ been proven. To attempt, by a separate course of argumentation, to demonstrate the reality of any particular attribute, is to confess the futility of the previous demonstration. In fact, if the common procedure is time correct one, we have not proved that God according to any proper definition of the term, exists, till we have presented a formal demonstration of the reality of each particular attribute. For a God destitute of any essential attribute is not God.

In proving the proposition, God exists, according to the two forms above stated, to wit, God the unconditioned and absolute cause, and God, the Infinite and Perfect, we have done what every demonstration should do - that is, demonstrated a proposition which involves every~articular attribute, and which has given us a great centrai'position, from ~which the entire system of theology may receive a purely scientific development. The whole sphere of vision becomes as luminous as heavenly light.

3. Time third general defect that I notice in the common systems of theology, is time total unsatisfactorin~ss of the argumuemits adduced to prove the reality of particular attributes. Suppose we have fully satisfied our minds of the validity of time two forms; of the idea Cf God presented in~ this Chapter. Our attention is turned to a partkular attribute. We see at once that we must affirm this attribute of God, or deny of liiiim the prerogative of unconditioned and absolute cause, or impute to him finiteness and imperfection. The reality of the attribute as a characteristic of God, thus becomes demon~trably evident. In affirming time attribute of him, every department of our naturo is satisfied. The demands of the logical department are fully met. The scientific and plulosoplucal ideas also receive a most1 full and delightful realization.

On the other hand, let us suppose, that having proved the proposition, God exists, we attempt, by a new and separate course of argumentation, to prove the reality of some particular attribute - the Divine omnipotence, for example. What should we naturally expect from such a procedure? Just what, in fact, we shall find - arguments perfectly unsatisfactory and inconclusive. The nature of the argument, as presented in such a system of natural theology, may be thus stated, and these present the strongest arguments that can be met with

1. The fact and the extent of creation.

2. The fact that God now sustains and governs the universe, particularly the physical.

Now, here are effects undeniably finite. From them it is argued, that their cause must be infinite, a palpable violation of a fundamental principle of logic,~ a principle universally admitted, to wit, that no legitimate conclusion is more extensive than the premises from which it is deduced. Hence it is, that the Mind does not and cannot perceive any force in the argument; and as this is the best that can be adduced in the same direction, a feeling of dissatisfaction and doubt arises in respect to all arguments to iwove the divine Infinity and Perfection.

When the testimony of Inspiration is adduced in confirmation of such arguments, the feeling of dissatisfaction experienced in the presence of the first attaches to that of the second, and the result very pt'ollLEly i~, that 11'elings more allied to skepticism than joyful confidence and faith, creep over time mind, and it may be, mar its peace and purity.

I mention one other defect. According to the cornmon mnetimod of developing truth in theology, we have no proper tcsts which we can apply to determine the question, whether any particular attribute shall be affirmed of God, or the particular formS in which it shall be affirmed. If we assume the idea of God as the unconditioned and absolute cause, and God the Infinite and Perfect, as the great central idea about which the entire system of truth pertaining to God, his, character and government, is to revolve, and in time light of which each particular truth is to be explained, we have a plain and sure test, a standard to which we can apply in all cases in determining what attributes and characteristics we shall affirm or deny of God, and the light in which we shall affirm or deny them. The great question to be asked in each instance is, Must we affirm this pamticular attribute, and must we affirm it in this or that particular form, or either deny of God his prerogative,. as the cause unconditioned and absolut~, or assert of him finiteness or imperfection? .

But according to the comnt'~ion methods of theologizing, when we take up any particu'1~tr attribute, we have nothing in what has gone before, or what is to follow, to which we can appeal as a standard or test, to determine what attributes, or what forms of particular attributes, we are to affirm o~r deny of God. The entire system of theology is thus rendered vague and indefinite, and the truth makes no deep and palpable unprc~sioiL upon the Mind. No other result can follow ~from such a method of evolving the truths of theology.


~Iw (I~teMt1o11 is often asked, Of what real utility arc the common treatises on natural theology - such, for example, as that one so celebrated of Dr. Paley? To me such treatises appear really worse than useless, if presented as grounds of proof of the existence of God, particularly as the Infinite and Perfect. how many persons have said, " I never doubted the reality of the 1)ivine existence, till .1 sought for a proof of it in " Paley's Natural Theology." If, on time other hand, such works arc referred to, as sources of beautiful and striking illustrations of the "handiwork of God," thus awaking in us a sense of time Divine wisdom and glory, they may be read with great interest and profit. This, as I conceive, is their appropriate, and only appropriate use.


I must here take my leave, for the present, of the inquirer after truth in this field of vast and solemn thought and contemplation. If we were never to return to it again, to renew our researches, I should part with him with the deepest regret. If, however, the inquirer has become imbued with a love of the science which we have investigated, and has understood and appreciated the bearing of its principles, it may be that the time is not far distant when I shall behold him upon elevations, and traversing fields of thought which my own powers never enabled me to reach.

One thing has cheered me on in these interesting and momentous investigations - the thought that they were all legitimately tending in one fixed direction - to God as the Infinite and Perfect.

Here I leave the inquirer, with time fervent hope, that at last, in the unveiled presence of that infinite, all-perfect, and Eternal One, we may again meet; that Eternal One, "in whose presence there is fullness of joy, and at whose right hand there are pleasures for evermore."



We come now to a consideration of the last and most important subject to be investigated in the present Treatise--~the idea of God. In the remarks which I shall make upon this subject, I shall take for granted two important facts:

1. That there are, in the universe around us, two orders of existences~matter and spirit.

2. That there is in our minds the idea of a Being of infinite perfections, who sustains to all conditional existences the relation of an unconditioned and absolute cause. We not only conceive of such a being as possible, but really existing. This may be assumed as the conviction of the race; at least, wherever the Intelligence exists in any considerable degree of development. My object in the present chapter is to elucidate the ground of this conviction.

Preliminary Considerations.

In the commencement of my remarks upon this subject, special attention is invited to the following preliminary considerations:

1. The idea of God, like that of Immortality, is in all minds in whom Reason is in any conderable degree developed. This will be admitted by all who are at all acquainted with the history of the race. The idea of God is a common phenomenon of the universal Intelligence.

2. Like the doctrine above named, it is not in the mind as the result of logical deduction: yet it is there with such weight of conviction, that every one feels that he involves himself in infinite guilt, in denying, or entertaining a doubt of its objective validity. This is evident from the fact, that every sceptic, in the depths of his own mind, believes that, if there is a God, he has forfeited His eternal favor in the denial of His existence, a fact most clearly indicating the consciousness, that in doubting, instead of adoring and worshipping, he has done fatal violence to the laws of his own being.

3. This idea is in the mind with such weight of conviction, as to be apparently incapable of increase or diminution from any process of logical deduction. It may be doubted whether all the propesed demonstrations of the past and present century, have added any considerable weight to the conviction already exicsting upon the mind, of the reality of the Divine existence. Nor have all professed arguments to the contrary, erased this conviction from the mind of the sceptic himself; a fact fully evident from the force with which the consciousness of the fearful reality often leaps upon such minds, in moments of solemn thought, or of sudden calamities, or unexpected exposure to death.

4. As this conviction is not in the mind, as the result of logical deduction, it must be ranked among the primary intuitions or principles of Reason; primary, as opposed to convictions resulting from processes of reasoning.

5. As a first truth of Reason, the Divine existence is susceptible, in the first instance, of the kind of proof common to all first truths, and in the second, of that which is peculiar to all necessary intuitions. In the light of the above observations, we will now proceed to a consideration of the ground of the universal conviction of the reality of the Divine existence.

There are two fundamental forms in which the idea of God is developed in the human Intelligence, to wit, God the unconditioned and absolute cause of all that conditionally exists, and God the Infinite and Perfect. I design to consider this subject in each of these forms.


The ground of the belief of the existence of God, considered as the cause, unconditioned and absolute, of all that conditionally exists, that is, of all things whose existence can be conceived of only on the condition of admitting the reality of something else as the condition and cause of their existence, the ground, I say, of the convictions of the reality of the existence of God, contemplated in this light, is simply the apprehension of the reality of the conditioned. The reality of a cause unconditioned and absolute of all that exists conditionally follows, as the logical antecedent, of the conception of the conditioned. This is evident from the fact, that we can no more conceive of the opposite as true, that is, that something conditioned may exist, without a cause unconditioned and absolute, that we can conceive of an event without a cause. Indeed the principle that the conditioned supposes the unconditioned as its logical antecedent, is only one form of announcing the principle of causality. These two principles, which in rality are not two but one, must stand or fall together. The reality of the Divine esistence therefore, contemplating God as the cause, unconditioned and absolute of all that conditionally exists, is just a evident as the principle of causality, to wit, the proposition that no event exists without a cause. The unconditioned, as a matter of fact, does exist. This we know absolutely from Consciousness. Our mental states, as well as our own existence and that of reality and condition of the external world, we necessarily conceive of, as conditioned. God, the unconditioned and absolute cause, therefore, must be. It is impossible even to conceive of the opposite, any more than we can conceive of body without space, succession without time, an event without a cause, or phenomena without substance. No individual does or can, in thought, deny the reality of something conditioned, that is, of somethng caused by something else. It is impossible therefore even to conceive the non-reality of a cause, unconditioned and absolute, of that which we necessarily conceive of as condtioned.

This Principle holds, whether the conditioned be conceived of as finite or infinite.

The principle under consideration holds, in whatever light the conditioned may be contemplated, whether as finite, or infinite. Let X represent the conditioned. Now if every element in X be conceived of a conditioned, that is, depending upon something out of itself, as its cause, the whole of X must depend upon something unconditioned and absolute, out of itself. Even to conceive of the opposite is an absolute impossibility. The idea of God, therefore, contemplating him as the cause, unconditioned and absolute, of all that exists conditionally, is an idea absolutely universal and necessary.


Now all that will follow as the logical consequents of the form of the idea of God above elucidated, must be true of him. One inquiry of fundamental importance with the philosopher and theologian is, What are these consequents? To a consideration of some of them, special attention is now invited. What, then, are the attributes which we necessarily ascribe to God, contemplated as the cause, unconditioned and absolute, of all that concitionally exists, and in view of the character of his works, contemplating him as such a cause? Among these, I specify the following:


As such a cause, God must be eternal in his existence. If his existence is not from eternity, then it is an effect of some other cause, and God would not be the cause uncondtioned and absolute of all that condtionally exists.

Freedom as opposed to Necessity.

God, as the cause unconditioned and absolute, is a free, and not a necessary cause. This is absolutely evident from the fact, that the effects of the Divine agency are in time, and not in eternity. A cause that acts of necessity must act, and act to the full extent of its power, as soon as it does exist. If we suppose a necessary cause to exist from eternity, the effects of its action must also be eternal. To suppose the opposite, which must act as soon as it exist, and yet that through the eternity of the past, it did not act at all. The commencement of its action in time, therefore, would not only be unaccountable, but inconceivable. If the human race, the world of mind around us, had their origin in a necessary and not a free cause, their existence would be fom eternity, and not have commence in time. It did commence in time. God, then, the unconditioned and absolute cause of their existence, is a free, and not a necessary cause. This conclusion follows of necessity. Further, to suppose God to be a cause unconditioned and absolute, and yet that he is a necessary and not a free agent, is a palpable contradiction. What is a necessary cause? It is a cause which can act, only as it is acted upon by something out of itself, a something which necessitates its action. A necessary cause, therefore, in its action, must be condtioned, and not unconditioned and absolute. If God, then, is not a free, he is not the unconditioned cause of all conditional existences. Besides the supposition that the unconditioned and absolute is under the law of necessity, implies that the necessitating power acted antecedently to the unconditioned. This is equivalent to denying that God as the first, as well as the unconditioned and absolute cause.


As an unconditioned and absolute cause, God must be possessed of Intelligence. This follows as a necessary consequece of the fact, that he is a free, and not a necessary agent. Free agency, in the absence of Inelligence, is an absolute impossibilty. W cannot possibly conceive of such an agent. Further, the universe to which God has given existence is one. Every object and element in the universe exists as a part of the great whole. The whole is in perfect adaptation to each and every part, and every part is in adaptation equally perfect to the whole; and the great whole, with all its parts, exists in perfect harmony with fundamental ideas of the Intelligence. Now to suppose that a free cause has created and constituted a universe, all the parts and departments of which, as parts of one great whole, exist in perfect harmony with fundamental ideas of the universal Intelligence, is an absolute impossibility. It is, in reality, the groos absurdity of affirming an event without a cause.


As the unconditioned and absolute cause of all that conditionally exists, God is a spiritual, and not a material existence. This follows, as the logical consequent of the fact, that he is a free and intelligent, and not a necessary and unitelligent agent.

Moral Agency.

God also must be a moral agent. This likewise is a logical consequent of the fact that he is an intelligent and free agent. Intelligence and free agency cannot be postulated of any being without, as the logical consequent of that supposition, attributing to him moral agency.

The Exercise of Moral Government, in Haromony with the Law of Justice and Goodness.

Every individual, from a consciousness of what is passing in the interior of his own mind, knows perfectly, that in the constitution of his mental being, a moral governement, in harmony with the law of justice and goodness, is actually established. He is conscious, that he cannot act in opposition to the law of justice and goodness, without doing violence to the fundamental laws of his moral being. Here is moral government established. What does its existence indicate, in respect to the character of God, the author and establisher of that government? We must affirm that truth is not revealed at all in nature, or that the fact under consideration reveals God as the moral legislator and governor of the universe, administering his government in harmony with the law of justice and goodness. In the depths of his own Consciousness, every one finds the basis of his convictions in respect to God, as the righteous moral legislator and governor of the universe.


We come now to consider the second form in which the idea of God is revealed in the human Intelligence, to wit, God, the Infinite and Perfect.

This is a First Truth of Reason.

That this form of the idea of God is a first truth of Reason, is evident from this one consideration. Should any one attribute to God and acknowledged imperfection of any kind, he would know in himself, that he had thereby involved himself in infinite guilt.