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 powersa belief which prevails with undiminished strength, at all times and places, while reason itself is prolonged.

its

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 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.

1

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

substances, or either without relations. Take away every supposable property from a substance, and what would remain? What is matter without solidity or extension, without attraction, repulsion, or any other property cognizable by the senses? What is mind without sensation, perception or reflection-without memory, will or desire? Strip it of its qualities, and you strip it of its being; because it seems as impossible that it should exist without these, as that it should exist and not exist at the same time. A substance and its properties, at least those which are primary, mutually involve each other, just as a substance and its relations. But relations, it may be said, have no real or positive existence. They are only modes of being, or the abstract notions we form of substances in regard to each other, or in regard to something which we suppose to exist; out of our minds, they have no existence at all. It is a fact, nevertheless, that we necessarily form these notions as often as the related substances are presented. Two tennis balls are placed upon the table. As soon as I perceive them, the relations of distance or contiguity, of equality or inequality, are perceived. That is to say, these substances excite in my mind such ideas of relation, or, they thus affect me; and because they thus affect me, I believe and pronounce them to be thus related. And I believe, moreover, that while the substances in all respects remain the same, and their position and other circumstances the same, these relations will be the same.

Nor does it make any difference in my belief, whether it be supposed that these ideas of relation were excited in my mind by the immediate agency of God, or by the tennis balls themselves. I firmly believe that these relations exist, and that they will continue to exist, unless some change shall take place in the organization or position of the substances related. The relations are seen