the belief that they are persons, having personal properties, or powers. There is not a man that lives, who does not form all his plans, and shape his whole course of action under the influence of this inwrought and unchangeable belief.

The same remarks apply with undiminished force to the belief of an external world in general. Such a belief all men have a belief in things without, as having a positive and continued existence, in distinction from their own ideas and impressions, and no less in distinction from mere properties and powers. Nor is this belief like that which is sometimes occasioned by the illusion of our senses, which may be corrected by more careful inquiry. It goes deep into the very constitution of the mind, and can neither be shaken off nor corrected by all the art and ingenuity of philosophical investigation. And well for us is it that it cannot; for the preservation of our being depends upon it, and perhaps, too, all our moral distinctions and our consequent accountability. Certainly, it would seem that we could not discriminate between man and man, nor pass any judgment upon ourselves, without presupposing our belief in personal identity-or, which is the same thing, in the personal existence of a being, aside from his character or his qualities. And yet what identity can there be, in mind at least, if the subject and its properties, or mind and its operations, be not distinct? Bishop Berkeley himself was well aware of this; and therefore, though he denied the existence of matter, and even the possibility of it, contended for the existence of mind, as a substance distinct from its qualities, powers, or operations. The same is the case with Kirwan, the zealous and able defender of Berkeley. He insists that the mind, though known only by its properties and powers, is nevertheless a being or substance distinct from its phenomena, and introduces Mr. Merian, one of the ablest metaphysicians of his age,

as replying to Mr. Hume in the following manner. [The extract is taken from the Memoirs of Berlin for 1793.] According to Mr. Hume," says this able writer, “we are nothing but an aggregate of phenomena. Now I ask if a phenomenon can exist without being perceived? If not, I ask who perceives it? To this question there are but three possible answers: either it is perceived by itself, or by some other phenomenon, or by something that is not a phenomenon. Now, a phenomenon perceiving itself, would be strange indeed: sounds hearing themselves, smells smelling themselves, &c. Besides, in this case there could be no comparison of the phenomena, nor consequently any judgment founded on such comparison. Secondly, to say that phenomena can perceive other phenomena is still, if possible, more absurd; for instance, smells hearing sounds, sounds seeing colors. * * Therefore, thirdly, there must be a subject or substratum of these perceptions, of which they are modifications. Moreover, sensations of one sort are often compared with sensations of another sort, as those of sight with those of hearing. Now, can vision judge of hearing? or colors judge of sounds? May we not have two simultaneous sensations contrary to each other? May we not feel extreme heat in one hand, and extreme cold in the other? Can then two contrary sensations coexist without any subject? But it were idle to pursue this matter farther."

I own this argument strikes me powerfully; and if it stood alone, it would convince me that a subject and its properties are distinct things, and that the latter necessarily presuppose the former. But the argument does not stand alone. We have a deep-seated belief, I have already remarked, in our own personal existence, and in that of others, aside from our qualities, actions, or powers— a belief which prevails with undiminished strength, at all times and places, while reason itself is prolonged.

But whence the origin of this belief? Can it rationally be ascribed to anything but the forming hand of our Creator, who has deeply engraven it upon the inmost folds of the mind? Has he laid us under a necessity, then, of believing what is not true? or shall we admit the correctness of these primary and immovable impressions? To me it appears dangerous to call in question such original and invariable dictates of the human mind; for if we may be wrong here, who knows that we are right anywhere? What security can we have for virtue ? or to what tribunal shall we make our appeal even for its very existence? How can we be certain that there is a God? We infer his being from his works, because we believe that they are not self-existent, and could not come into being without a cause; but this sentiment, that nothing can exist without a cause, is neither more original, more uniform, nor more stable, than the belief we have in our own personal existence, as the subject of properties, qualities and powers. Call this belief an illusion, and who shall confirm us in the correctness of the other sentiment? But there is little danger, after all. Nature is true to her purpose; and men, though they may profess their scepticism, will continue to believe in their own existence, and in an external world. They will think that mind is something, and matter something; and though each is known only by its properties, still they cannot fail to believe that both exist, as the subject of the properties which they severally display.

LECTURE V.

ON CREATION.

GOD, says an eloquent writer, is a sun, whose brightness our eyes cannot behold; whose transcendent light blinds us, so that we cannot steadfastly contemplate it, without being dazzled and confounded. But this sun presents itself to us in a mirror; this mirror is the universe, where God has exhibited to us an admirable portrait of his perfections. And to this Paul alludes, when he says, “that the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and majesty, are clearly seen by the things that are made."

In our remarks, previously submitted, on the subject of Creation, we endeavored to make it appear that that which was created, was something distinct from God, and was neither his substance nor his attributes, nor an exercise of these; but something ad extra in relation to him-a work or creature of God. That if this something was distinct from God, it could not be a mere property or attribute, nor an assemblage of these, but a being or substance of which properties and attributes could be affirmed. To'suppose an attribute without a substance, or a property without a subject, we considered as involving the same kind of absurdity as to suppose an act without an agent, or a feeling or perception without some being that feels or perceives.

We attempted to confirm our views, not only by a reference to the common principles of all languages, and to the forms of speech employed in the Bible, but by an argument drawn from the belief which every man has in his own personal identity, and in that of his fellowmen—a belief which compels him to admit that he is a person, or being, the subject of properties, qualities or powers. And we attempted to show, farther, that this primary and deep-seated belief was a law of our constitution, as original and as stable as any of the first principles upon which our reasonings are grounded, and that if we called this in question, we had no sure footing for any of our principles or reasonings whatsoever; they having no higher authority than the original and primary feelings of our own minds.

We now raise another question, closely connected with the foregoing discussion, namely, on the supposition that we are right in supposing that every property implies a subject, and every attribute a substance, is the converse or counterpart of this true, that every subject implies a property, and every substance an attribute of some kind? or which comes to the same thing, that every created existence is necessarily, and from the mere fact of its creation, possessed of certain properties, qualities or powers?

That every created being has certain relations to its Creator, is just as certain as that it has any existence; and if there are other beings, that it bears corresponding relations to them. To suppose otherwise, would be to suppose that two lines might be drawn in the universe, and yet be neither parallel nor angular in regard to each other.

That every substance has some property involved in its existence, is a proposition we should think no less evident. For it is just as inconceivable that there should be substances without properties, as properties without