derive our notions of mind from without, is much like that by which we suppose the existence of color in the object. We see in external things, operations more or less resembling those which mind produces, and we suppose, that it is from those operations that our knowledge of the operating mind is obtained; whereas the recognition of any such operation as belonging to mind, supposes in us a similar previous operation with which we compare it, and without such previous operation in us from which we really obtain the idea, and by which we make the comparison, the knowledge of mind is impossible.

The brutes do not, and cannot know God, because they have in themselves, none of those elements which constitute his character as God, and man can only know him, in so far as he is made in the image of God, in respect to the kind of faculties which he possesses. Certainly it is only by the transference to God of the elements contained in our minds, that we can form any conception of him. If, therefore, there be any thing in reference to which we are not formed in the image of God, in respect to the kind of faculties which we possess, then, so far forth as those faculties exist in him, he is no God to us. As we can have no idea of the qualities of matter, except those derived from the senses which we possess, so we can have none of the attributes of mind, except those derived from our own mental powers. We can conceive of reason, of conscience, of free-will, of wisdom, and goodness, because we have the principles of these things in ourselves, and we can suppose them to be extended till they become infinite or perfect; but if, besides these and other powers which we may possess, there are in God still other perfections, we cannot conceive of them, they are to us as though they were not.

The above powers or attributes are those which chiefly go to form our idea of God, and without them he would not exist as God to us. But the idea of them is not derived to us from nature, in the usual sense of that term; they have nothing to do with contrivance; they come to us from the fact of the existence of our minds, and from the original, spontaneous operation of the faculties with which they are endowed. We might see nature move on forever, and not have the least idea of conscience or free-will, unless we found them existent in ourselves.

Let us suppose then two systems: the one containing

contrivance more perfect, if possible, than the present; the other, and we may suppose it, for we believe it to exist, consisting of minds disencumbered of matter, possessing spontaneous activity, thought, free-will, reason, conscience, judgment, affections. Each of these we suppose to be an effect. Which of them, we ask, would give the most decisive evidence of the existence, in its cause, of those attributes, the union of which, in one being, constitutes our idea of God, that which alone would be able to conceive of him, and would contain in itself faculties and powers similar to those which he possesses; or that which would not? The answer to this question cannot be doubtful. Strange indeed would it be, if the mind, in subserviency to which the body, with its contrivances, was evidently made, which alone can apprehend God, and exhibit godlike manifestations, should furnish less evidence of his existence than the contrivances made for its convenience. Mind, it is true, is not mechanism, it is not that we know it to be a contrivance in any proper sense of that term, but it is an effect, it is an effect sui generis, it is the highest of all known effects, and we may infer from it, in regard to its cause, what we can infer from no other of the works of God, even that he is not only "the Former of our bodies," but "the Father of our spirits." We see, therefore, that the existence of a created mind is not only the direct and proper evidence of a mind that created, but that it is the only condition on which the conception of such a mind can be formed, or the knowledge of it brought to light. We see, also, that all the important attributes of God, those without which he would not be God, are derived to us from the operations of our own faculties, and not at all from nature or contrivance. It would seem illogical, then, to say the least, to derive the chief, and indeed the only evidence for the existence of God, from that which may indeed be the consequence of his existence; but which does not contain or indicate the main elements in which his nature and character consist.

What, then, is the state of the argument from cause to effect? Taking along with us the principle that every event must have an adequate cause, our first assertion is that something now exists. This we prove, or rather it is self-evident, from the senses and from consciousness. The inference from this is, that something must have always existed, since no one supposes that something can come out of nothing

"Ex nihilo nihil fit." Something, then, having existed from eternity, we inquire what that is. Of the possibility that matter has always been, we need say nothing, but in examining its modifications, we find marks of design and matchless contrivance; there must, therefore, have been a contriver capable of adapting means to ends. But this power of contrivance being possessed by inferior animals, and the operations of nature being, moreover, in many respects, strikingly analogous to theirs, we do not yet find evidence of the higher and moral attributes of mind; or if we discover traces of wisdom and goodness, they are so obscure as to render it uncertain whether they exist, except by chance. We pass, therefore, entirely from matter and its modifications, to mind. Here we find, as an effect, all the attributes which we ascribe to God as a cause. Here we find personality-here the true evidence for the existence of a personal God. He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?

It only remains to show, and we may do it in a word, that the powers that cause the grass to spring, and uphold the order of the heavens, belong to the same being who created the mind, and who consequently possesses the highest intellectual and moral attributes of which we can conceive. The body of man is one of the productions of nature, is formed in like manner, and with like proofs of contrivance with its other parts. Of this, there can be no doubt. But the adaptation of the body to the mind, and their mutual action on each other, render it certain that one being was the author of both. It follows, of course, that he who made the human mind, and endowed it with its faculties, is possessed of those illimitable powers which carry on the course of nature, as well as of the highest possible attributes of intelligence.

This intelligence must of course be present in connection with those amazing powers, wherever, through the immensity of space, the operations of nature extend. We have, therefore, as the source of all things, as the principle of unity in all things, instead of a blind, unconscious principle, which general laws would seem to indicate, and which men call nature, or by whatever name pleases them, one, free, all-pervading, all-inspecting, all-comprehending, personal God, from whose presence we cannot escape, from whose spirit we cannot flee. We have also these

general laws, now assuming the form of his stated and most wise administration, the operation of which, when the greatness of the emergency demands it, he still stands ready to suspend.

Such, with the expansion and particular applications of which it will be seen at once that it is susceptible, is the argument from cause to effect, when pushed to its proper point. Thus stated, we see not how it can be evaded by one who does not deny first principles, and thus destroy the foundations of all knowledge. It goes upon no principle or assumption, that is not involved in the argument from design, the true force of which we shall not be suspected of any desire to diminish. Our only wish is, to show the foundations on which the pillars of truth in fact rest, since they always appear more massive and imposing when seen as they really are. We cannot doubt, as men are freed from the bondage of a material and atheistic philosophy, as the knowledge of mind is seen to be equally certain as that of matter, and the great facts of spiritual consciousness are distinctly apprehended and more fully rested on, but the department of the creation of God, which alone is in direct communion with him, will be seen to be that upon which the evidence of his being and high attributes is most legibly enstamped.

more

In corroboration of this, we now return to the work, the title of which is placed at the head of this article, though, as the reviewers are wont to say, we have already occupied so much space, that our notice of it must be brief. Sooth to say, the body of this article was written before this work came to hand, and we availed ourselves of it, chiefly for the purpose of showing that we are not singular in the views we have taken. Aside from its general ability, we welcome it as the first work of the kind which has fallen under our notice, in which the logic of inferring from the effect only a similarity of cause, has been adhered to. The author, it is true, takes no formal exception to the argument from design; but he does this virtually, since he bases the general argument precisely as we have done. The only extracts which our limits will allow, must bear upon this point. They will, at the same time, furnish a happy instance of the particular application of the argument of which we have spoken, and give such a specimen of the work, as we hope may lead our readers to its entire perusal.

"All men are perpetually led to form judgments concerning actions, and emotions which lead to action, as right or wrong; as what they ought or ought not to do or feel. There is a faculty which approves and disapproves, acquits or condemns the workings of our other faculties. Now, what shall we say of such a judiciary principle, thus introduced among our motives to action? Shall we conceive that while the other springs of action are balanced against each other by our Creator, this, the most pervading and universal regulator, was no part of the original scheme? That-while the love of animal pleasures, of power, of fame, the regard for friends, the pleasure of bestowing pleas ure, were infused into man as influences by which his course of life was to be carried on, and his capacities and powers developed and exercised;-this reverence for a moral law, this acknow ledgment of the obligation of duty,-a feeling which is every where found, and which may become a powerful, a predominating motive of action,—was given for no purpose, and belongs not to the design? Such an opinion would be much as if we should acknowledge the skill and contrivance manifested in the other parts of a ship, but should refuse to recognize the rudder as exhibiting any evidence of a purpose. Without the reverence which the opinion of right inspires, and the scourge of general disapprobation inflicted on that which is accounted wicked, society could scarcely go on; and certainly the feelings and thoughts and characters of men could not be what they are. Those impulses of nature which involve no acknowledgment of responsibility, and the play and struggle of interfering wishes, might preserve the species in some shape of existence, as we see in the case of brutes. But a person must be strangely consti tuted, who, living amid the respect for law, the admiration of what is good, the order and virtues and graces of civilized nations, (all which have their origin in some degree in the feeling of responsibility,) can maintain that all these are casual and extraneous circumstances, no way contemplated in the formation of man; and that a condition in which there should be no obli gation in law, no merit in self-restraint, no beauty in virtue, is equally suited to the powers and the nature of man, and was equally contemplated when those powers were given him.

"If this supposition be too extravagant to be admitted, as it appears to be, it remains then that man, intended, as we have already seen from his structure and properties, to be a discoursing, social being, acting under the influence of affections, desires, and purposes, was also intended to act under the influence of a sense of duty; and that the acknowledgment of the obligation of a moral law is as much a part of his nature, as hunger or thirst, maternal love or the desire of power; that, therefore, in conceiving man as the work of a Creator, we imagine his 41

VOL. I.