תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

MATERIALISM,

AND

MATERIALISTS.*

NAME. The Manicheans, and several Oriental sects, had an abhorrence of matter, and therefore all parts of scripture that mentioned the uses of matter were rejected by them as spurious, and at

* See above, p. 170, note; and p. 171.

I confess, I am disposed to believe with Dr. Priestley, that the doctrines of Unitarianism, Materialism, and Philosophical or Mechanical Necessity, if they be not equally parts of one system, are at least more nearly connected than Mr. Belsham seems willing to allow. Thus, the scheme of necessity is the immediate result of the materiality of man, mechanism being the undoubted consequence of materialism; and this last is eminently subservient to the Unitarian doctrine of the proper or mere humanitý of Christ. For, if no man have a soul distinct from his body, Christ, who in all other respects appeared as a man, could not have a soul which had existed before his body; and thus the whole doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, of which the opinion of the pre-existence of Christ is a branch, will be effectually overturned.

length the whole Old Testament was cut off at one stroke. On the contrary, many of our modern philosophers are prodigious friends of matter; and therefore, to suit their principles, the scripture must be so construed, as that even the soul may be material. The abettors of this doctrine are called Materialists.

DOCTRINE, &c.-The Materialists believe and attempt to prove, contrary to the opinion which has been almost universally prevalent in the Christian church in all ages, that man does not consist of two substances essentially different from each other; but is of an uniform composition, and that the conscious principle, or what we generally term the soul, is merely a property resulting from such an organical structure as that of the brain.

From this hypothesis it seems to follow, as an immediate and necessary consequence,-that man is not a free agent;-that the soul is not naturally immortal; and, that there is no intermediate state of consciousness between death and the resurrection, for the properties of sensation and thought must of course be extinguished at the dissolution of that system of organised matter, to which they appertain.*

* In searching the scriptures for passages expressive of the state of man at death, the Materialists cite Job xiv. 7— 12. Psalm vi. 5, &c. as texts wherein they find such declarations as, they conceive, expressly exclude any trace of sense, thought, or enjoyment.

This doctrine of Materialism has long been considered as a tenet peculiar to infidelity; and has even been held in almost as much abhorrence by the generality of Christians as atheism itself. It, notwithstanding, was very prevalent in France before the late revolution, and has also been gaining ground in this country of late. It has been copiously discussed, and warmly patronised by Dr. Priestley, in his Disquisitions concerning Matter and Spirit, and in the Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materialism, and Philosophical Necessity, in a correspondence between him and Dr. Price; and, by his friend Mr. T. Cooper, in his Philosophical Essays, &c.

Dr. Priestley states it as a primary axiom, “that the power of sensation or perception, never having been found but in conjunction with a certain organised system of matter, we ought, as philosophers, to conclude, that this power necessarily exists, and results from that organised system, unless it can be shown to be incompatible with other known properties of the same substance." This, if the premises be granted, will not readily be denied; at the same time, it must be admitted, that constant conjunction implies necessary connexion, only when reasons cannot be discovered to prove the conjunction to be accidental and arbitrary. And the argument seems to stand on somewhat similar ground, to that held up to ridicule by Tully, whereby Epicurus attempted to prove, that "the gods had human bodies, because he had never seen a reasonable or intelligent mind, but in such bodies." The

[blocks in formation]

absolute incompatibility of perception with the known and acknowledged properties of the material substance, has been illustrated by Dr. S. Clarke, in his successive replies to the doctrine of Spinoza, Hobbes, and Collins, with such transcendent ability, that little else has been left for succeeding writers on the same side, than to repeat the same arguments in different language.

On the orthodox side, see also Berington's Letters on Materialism, and his Immaterialism Delineated; Gifford's Outlines of an Answer to Dr. Priestley's Disquisitions; Dr. Beattie's Elements of Moral Science, and the 1st vol. of Mr. W. Belsham's Essays, Edit. 1799.

1

Modern philosophers have been perhaps too hasty in concluding, from the reciprocal influence of the soul and body on each other, that the former, as well as the latter, is material; for according to the opponents of this doctrine, there are no doubt arguments sufficient to evince them to be distinct beings, with different powers, though capable of exerting a mutual influence on each other. In supposing them to do so, there is no absurdity; and that they cannot exert such a mutual influence, allowing them to be distinct substances, is a negative, which, say they, never has been, nor ever can be proved. Every power of the mind, and every property observable in matter, are so essentially different, that the idea of homogeneity in the two substances is too extravagant to be admitted on any other ground than

a direct proof of the impossibility of the action of spirit on matter, without the existence of some common property. The orthodox opinion therefore is, that the soul is simple, uncompounded, and immaterial, or incorporeal, and distinct from matter. On this head, Christians in general, however widely they may differ on other points, are fully agreed; and indeed, so well satisfied in regard to it, that you will scarcely find one of a thousand, who, on being questioned, will not be ready to answer with Sterne: "I am positive I have a soul, nor can all the books with which materialists have pestered the world, ever convince me to the contrary."*

It is further observed, that, independently of what has been said against the doctrine of Materialism by others, the question seems now at length to be determined, and the modern theory of the materialists shaken from its very foundation by Dr. Ferrier, who, in a valuable paper published in the 4th vol. of the Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, p. 20-44. has proved anatomically concerning the brain, by evidence apparently complete, that every part of it has been injured, without affecting the act of thought.

Mr. Locke seems to suppose it possible that there may be some such unknown substratum, as may be capable of receiving the properties both of matter and of mind, viz. extension, solidity, and

* Sentimental Journey, p. 107. Cook's Edit.

« הקודםהמשך »