II. MATERIALISM.

THERE are two questions, connected with Materialism, very different in themselves, which are often confounded. The one is, ON what is the mind dependent for existence? The other, ON what is it dependent for its power of manifesting itself in this life? Phrenologists declare themselves unable to decide upon the first; but maintain that facts demonstrate the second power to depend on the condition of the organization. When, therefore, a phrenologist says that "the mental qualities and capacities are dependent upon the bodily constitution," the sentence falls to be completed "not for existence, but for the power of acting in this material world." This doctrine has been frequently stated in all the Phrenological books; and it ought always to be understood, as it is tedious constantly to repeat it.

The objection, however, that Phrenology leads to materialism, has been frequently urged against the science; but it appears singularly unphilosophical, even upon the most superficial consideration. Phrenology, viewed as the assertion of certain physical facts, cannot, if unfounded, logically lead to any result, except the disgrace and mortification of its supporters. On such a supposition, it cannot overturn religion, or any other truth; because, by the constitution of the human intellect, error constantly tends to resolve itself into nothing, and to sink into oblivion; while truth, having a real existence, remains permanent and impregnable. In this view, then, the objection, that Phrenology leads to materialism, is absurd. If, on the other hand, the science is held to be a true interpretation of nature, and if it be urged, that, nevertheless, it leads fairly and logically to materialism, then the folly of the objection is equally glaring; for it resolves itself into this, that materialism is the constitution of nature, and that Phrenology is dangerous, because it makes this constitution known.

The charge assumes a still more awkward appearance in one shape, in which it is frequently brought forward. The objector admits that the mind uses the body as an instrument of communi

cation with external nature, and maintains that this fact does not necessarily lead to materialism. In this I agree with him; but I cannot perceive how it should lead nearer to this result, to hold that each faculty manifests itself by a particular organ, than to believe that the whole mind acts on external objects by means of the whole body, or the whole brain. In short, in whatever point of view the system is regarded, whether as true or false, the objection of materialism is futile and unphilosophical; and one must regret that it should have been brought forward in the name of religion, because every imbecile and unfounded attack against philosophy, made in this sacred name, tends to diminish the respect with which it ought always to be invested.

The question of materialism itself, however, as a point of abstract discussion, has of late excited considerable attention; and I shall offer a few remarks upon its general merits. In entering on the subject, it is proper to take a view of the nature and extent of the point in dispute, and of the real effect of our decision upon it. The question then is, Whether the substance of which the thinking principle is composed be matter or spirit? And the effect of our decision, let it be observed, is not to alter the nature of that substance, whatever it is, but merely to adopt an opinion consonant with, or adverse to, a fact in nature over which we have no control. Mind, with all its faculties and functions, has existed since the creation, and will exist till the human race becomes extinct, and no opinion of man, concerning the cause of its phenomena, can have the least influence over that cause itself. The mind is invested by nature with all its properties and essences, and these it will possess, and manifest, and maintain, let men think, and speak, and write what they will, concerning its substance. If the Author of Nature has invested the mind with the quality of endless existence, it will, to a certainty, flourish in immortal youth, in spite of every appearance of premature decay. If, on the other hand, Nature has limited its existence to this passing scene, and decreed that it shall perish for ever when the animating principle passes from the body, then all our conjectures, arguments, discussions, and assertions, respecting its immortality, will not add one

day to its existence. The opinions of man, therefore, concerning the substance of the mind, can have no influence whatever in changing or modifying that substance itself; and if so, as little can these opinions undermine the constitution of the mind, or its relations to time and eternity, on which, as their foundations, morality and religion must, and do, rest as on an immutable basis. According to Phrenology, morality and natural religion originate in, and emanate from, the primitive constitution of the mental powers themselves. Innumerable observations have proved, that faculties and organs of Benevolence, Hope, Veneration, Justice, and Reflection, exist. Now, our believing that the mind will die with the body, will not pluck these sentiments and powers from the soul; nor will our believing the mind to be immortal implant a single one more of them in our constitution. They would all remain the same in functions and constitution, and render virtue amiable, and vice odious, although we should believe the mind to be made of dust, just as they would do were we to believe the mind to be a more immediate emanation from the Deity himself.

In short, therefore, this question of materialism is one of the most vain, trivial, and uninteresting that ever engaged the human intellect; and nothing can be more unphilosophical, and more truly detrimental to the interests of morality and religion, than the unfounded clamor, or cant shall I call it, which has been poured forth from the periodical journals about the dangers attending it. A mánly intellect, instead of bowing before prejudice, would dissipate it, by showing that the question is altogether an illusion, and that, adopt what opinion we will, concerning the substance of the mind, every attribute belonging to it must remain unaltered and unimpaired.

But not to stop in our investigation till we have reached the goal, we may inquire, whether it be possible to discover the substance of which the mind is composed, and to determine whether t be material or immaterial? The first step in this investigation is to ascertain what means we possess of arriving at a knowledge of the essence of the mind. All our knowledge must be derived either from consciousness or observation. Now, by reflecting on

what we feel, we discover nothing concerning the nature or essence of the thinking being. We do not feel a spiritual substance stirring within us, and elaborating sentiment and thought; and neither do we feel a material substance producing these effects. We are conscious of feelings and emotions, of friendships and attachments, of high conceptions and glorious thoughts; but whether these originate from matter or spirit; whether the first embryo substance of reflection dwelt lowly in the dust, or soared a pure ethereal essence amid the regions of boundless space, before it was constituted a part of us; whether GOD, in creating man, was pleased to invest his material organs with the property of thought, or to infuse into him a portion of immaterial fire ;-on all these points Consciousness gives us no information. A great deal of popular delusion, indeed, has been kept alive on this point, by the fact being overlooked, that we are not conscious of the operations of the brain. Men in general, because they are sensible only of thought and feeling, and not of the movements of any material organ performing these acts of the mind, imagine that it is necessarily an immaterial substance, which is thinking and feeling within them; but they are equally unconscious of the contraction and relaxation of the muscles, and they might as well imagine that their legs and arms are moved, not by material organs, but by the direct impulse of spirit, as entertain the supposition in question. In short, the truly philosophical conclusion is, that, by means of consciousness, we are unable to discover of what substance the thinking principle is composed.

Does observation, then, throw a stronger and steadier light upon this long agitated question? The mental organs, while in health, and in the natural state in which their functions are most perfectly performed, are completely hid from inspection. No eye can penetrate the integuments of the head, the tables of the skull, the dura mater, and the pia mater, to obtain a view of the operations performed in the brain, while the thoughts run high, and the sentiments swell with emotion; and when external injury or disease removes these coverings, the mind does not disport in all the vigor of its healthy action. Besides, even when all these external obsta

cles to inspection are removed, still it is only the surface of the convolutions which is perceived, and the soul may be enthroned in the long fibres which extend from the surface to the medulla oblongata, or thought may be elaborated there, and still evade detection. It will be said, however, that death will solve the question, and allow the whole secrets of the soul to be disclosed; but, alas! when the pulse has ceased to beat, and the lungs no longer play, the brain presents nothing to our contemplation, but an inert mass, of a soft and fibrous texture, in which no thought can be discerned, and no sentiment perceived, and in which also no spirit or immaterial substance can be traced; so that from inspecting it even imagination receives no food for conjecture, as to the presence or absence of an immaterial guest while life and health yet animated its folds.

Observation, therefore, reveals as little in regard to the substance of the mind, as does reflection on consciousness; and as no other modes of arriving at certain knowledge are open to man, the solution of the question appears to be placed completely beyond his reach. In short, to use an observation of Dr. Spurzheim, Nature has given man faculties fitted to observe phenomena as they at present exist, and the relations subsisting between them; but has denied to him powers fitted to discover, as a matter of direct perception, either the beginning, or the end, or the essence, of any thing under the sun; we may amuse our imagination with conjectures, but will never arrive at truth, when we stray into these interdicted regions.

The solution of this question, therefore, is not only unimportant, but it is impossible; and this leads me to observe, that no idea can be more erroneous than that which supposes the dignity and future destiny of man as an immortal being, to depend, of necessity, on the substance of which he is made.

Let us allow to the materialist, for the sake of argument, that the brain is the mind, and that medullary matter thinks,-What then? If, in fact, it does so, it must be the best possible substance for thinking, just because the CREATOR selected it for the purpose, and endowed it with this property. In this argument, the religious