Orson Pratt

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

II. AN IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT EXIST.

IMMATERIALISTS ARE ATHEISTS.

A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE IS MATERIAL.

OF THE ESSENCE OF SUBSTANCES.

THE IMMATERIALISTS ONLY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT REFUTED.

Transcriber's Note

By Orson Pratt,

One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

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

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

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

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

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

"The Philosophy of the Mormons is IRRATIONAL."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II.—THAT AN IMMATERIAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT EXIST.