glorified body of the Lord. More painful still, according to priestly logic, God himself, with matter, time, and space, must cease to be. It will scarcely be denied that even he is limited by the attributes of his own being. Again, it is inconceivable that he could annihilate space, create a being equal to himself, or make the diameter of a circle equal to its circumference. Dr. Adam Clark, in his posthumous work on theology, says that God can do anything which does not involve contradiction or absurdity. How we are to determine what proposition involves contradiction or absurdity he has not informed us. How he knows that the creation of matter out of nothing which is the old way of putting it-does not involve contradiction and absurdity we are not told. To our mind the act is inconceivable. Be that as it may, here are limitations even to divine power, and, “if limited in any way," he cannot be infinite; if not infinite, not eternal; and, if not eternal, he must cease to be!

The Pentateuch portrays God as of human form, after whose image man was made. “And they saw the God of Israel," etc.-Exodus xxiv. IO. "And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."-Exodus xxxiii. 21, 22, 23.

This was the anthropomorphic idea of early history. Anon, since men's ideas became less gross, God has been viewed as a Spirit, whom the heaven of heavens could not contain. Interpretation has grown gray in attempt to conform these two opposite ideas to each other without disturbing the harmony of Scripture. The method of reconciliation is this: the advanced idea being accepted, the older and less spiritual one

must mean the same, though, according to the plain words of Scripture, it means the very reverse.

Lambert.-"If this universe of matter alone exists, the mind, intellect, or soul must be matter or a form of matter," etc.

Certainly, but this is but to affirm that all that is is all that is. But those who hold that matter always existed may yet claim that within its folds were enwrapped all of the phenomena of past, present, and future time, including animal and vegetable life, gravitating forces, etc. No one, so far as I know, regards thought as a material substance, although born of materiality, or expressed from its inter-relations. So also of gravity.

But the Father, from words unsaid by his opponent, depicts fearful consequences; such as, that the free agency of man is destroyed, and that he becomes a mere pile of drift floating and down the ocean of life whither wind and current may carry him.

up

Lambert.-"The forces that govern matter are invariable. From this it follows, that every thought of the philosopher, every calculation of the mathematician, every imagination and fancy of the poet, are mere results of material forces, entirely independent of the individuals conceiving them."

How they can be "entirely independent of the individuals conceiving them," in any rational view of the case, appears to us an insoluble mystery. Perhaps, however, the Father intended to have said, entirely independent of the volition of the individuals conceiving them.

But will it be affirmed that mind, in its conceptions and the moral results which follow them, is entirely capricious? That it is not governed by laws germane to its own nature? Were one sufficiently skilled in mental mathematics, and knew all of the factors which go to make up a moral or intellectual

problem in relation to human thought and action, could he not predict results? Is not man, when free to act, controlled by the strongest motive or motives? If the individual nature of a man impose no limits upon choice, how can we predict that if Washington had lived another year, conditions having been favorable to such result, he might not have betrayed his country? The truth is, in the universe of mind there are many unsolved problems; and this, the question of volition, is one of them. The action of mind is subtle, and the data from which we would judge of its attributes and essence are wont to elude our grasp. We know something of mind from what is called self-consciousness-something from intercommunication with the thoughts and feelings of others, but of that something those who are the wisest dogmatize the least.

CHAPTER III.

REPLY TO CHAPTER II.

Law-Laws and Nonentities-An Insane Conclusion-The Inductive and Deductive Processes of Reasoning-Witches, Heretics and Unbaptized Infants— Cruelty of Dogmatism-Small Criticisms-Definition of Law, etc.

IN Chapter II. of the "Notes" we are met by this surprising declaration :

Lambert.—" The idea of law in general is, and must be, prior to the idea of particular laws."

Our wonder at this postulate is heightened when we read in subsequent chapters of the "Notes" that justice, larceny, industry, prosperity, etc., are mere abstractions, and that abstractions are nonentities and "have none but abstract consequences, which are no consequences at all." Yet law is no less an abstraction than justice. Then we must conclude that we gain a knowledge of particular laws by means of a nonentity "which exists intuitively in the mind!" To avoid this insane conclusion we take issue with the Father, and say, that we do not usually formulate an abstraction, nor avail ourselves of one already formulated or intuitively existing in the mind, and then, by travelling downward, discover the differentiations of its actions. Suppose we see for the first time that molten lead when precipitated from a shot-tower, rain-drops falling from the clouds, and the dew-drops pendent on blades of grass, all assume a globular form. We inquire, why is this? and the inquiry leads to the discovery of a tendency in all liquid substances to draw towards a common

66

centre. This uniform tendency or apparently inherent principle we name attraction." We look further and note a tendency in liquids to rise in a tube; that, contrary to its usual action to descend towards the earth, water rises through porous substances, such as sponges, sugar, etc. We name this principle which so inheres in matter, and produces this effect, “attraction" also; for, though it differs from the former kind, it is akin to it, as it results from a supposed affinity of the particles of matter for each other.

Hence arises our conception of what we term the laws of attraction of various kinds; i. e., the rules or modes of action governing inanimate matter under certain conditions. When we further see that all nature is controlled by principles of action, modified only by changes of relation and condition, we arise to a conception of law in its abstract sense. Thus we

ascend from effect to cause, from the special to the universal. This is known as the Baconian or inductive process, though formulated by Aristotle, and employed by child and sage alike, ever since thinking man essayed a solution of the mysteries of the universe.

"We say," says the Father, "a particular law is a law because it corresponds with the form of law which exists in the human mind."

If by "form of law" be meant the plasticity and innate adaptability of the mind to receive impressions of facts and principles relating to the universe external to itself, we are in full accord with the last quoted dictum. There is a concordance between those things external to man and his internal or spiritual being—a relation analogous to that which exists between his body and the food he takes to nourish it. But we fear this theory will be found destructive of the fabric the Father is attempting to support.

Two kinds of argument may be employed to reach a con