APPENDIX.

WHILE writing the foregoing examination, several particulars, which to me appeared unsound in the Dr's. theory, were, for the sake of being brief, passed without notice; some of which will be here called in question. By connecting several passages in the sermon, which seem to indicate an independence of the mind of man on the body; and as being distinct from its powers or influence; and as being capable of existing without it, we have a subject of discussion, which requires something more convincing than mere assertions to justify a final decision.

Page 222, the Dr, says:

'What is death? It is the dissolution of certain limbs and organs by which the soul now acts. But these, however closely connected with the mind, are entirely distinct from its powers, from thought and will, from conscience and affection. Why should the last grow pure from the dissolution of the first? Why shall the mind put on a new character, by laying aside the gross instruments through which it now operates ?' Page 223.

'Lop off the criminal's hands; does the disposition to do mischief vanish with them? When the feet mortify, do we see a corresponding mortification of the will to go astray? The loss of sight or hearing is a partial death; but is a single vice plucked from the mind, or one of its strong passions palsied, by the destruction of its chief corporeal instruments?'

Page 227.

'It can hardly be thought, that in a creation which is marked by gradual change and progress, we should make at once the mighty transition from our present state into a purely spiritual or unembodied existence And accordingly, it is rational

to believe, that the corrupt and deformed mind, which wants moral goodness or a spirit of concord with God and with the universe, will create for itself, as its fit dwelling, a deformed body, which will also want concord or harmony with all things around it.'

Judging of the Dr's. theory from the bearings of the forgoing quotations, from his sermon, and from the evident design of the preacher, as manifested by the connexion in which these passages are found, we are led to suppose that he believes that all moral evil, all vice or wrong-doing, in which men have ever employed there mental or physical powers, originated, not from the body, composed of flesh and blood; but in a mind, which is distinct from the body, and which uses the several parts and members of the body as mere instruments convenient for accomplishing its own evil purposes. Also, that this mind of man, being thus distinct from the body and its organization, does exist with all its powers, and passions when the body is dead, in an unembodied state, where it creates for itself, as its fit dwelling, a deformed body.' &c.

In the first place, there is no little reason to doubt the correctness of the opinion, that all moral evil originates in the mind, and not from elementary power. What desire ever influenced the will to an evil act, that did not originate from some passion or appetite of the body? If I have not entirely failed in my researches into the truth concerning this subject, there is no propensity in man to evil deeds, that does not owe its origin to fleshly lust. James says, 'Every man is tempted when he is drawn away with his own lusts, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.' Chap. i. 14, 15. Paul says, 'But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.' Gal. v. 15, 16, 17. Again Rom. vii. 23. ‘But I see another law in my members warring against the law

of my mind, and bringing me into captivity unto the law of sin, which is in my members.' These divine declarations, which are evidently corroborated by every man's experience, should weigh more as evidence in the case now under consideration than the Dr's. assertions to the contrary.

The reader will readily perceive why the Dr. is unwilling to allow that sin is the natural fruit of the flesh. If he allowed this, he would at once see, that when flesh and blood are dissolved in dust, its fruit can no longer be produced.

Secondly respecting the Dr's. notion, (for I can give it no higher title,) that the mind of man, after the death of the body, exists, as mind, and then creates for itself a body, I would call on him to show, from the testimony of the scriptures, that he has any authority for it. St. Paul says, We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.' 2. Cor. v. 1. Will the Dr. condescend to show that his opinion is more correct than the one expressed by the apostle? I know of no passage in the scriptures, which, taken in its true meaning, teaches us to believe that man has any sentient existence between this state of flesh and blood, and that state which is promised in the resurrection. In his vindication of the doctrine of the resurrection, St. Paul says, 'It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weaknesss, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' 1. Cor. xv. 42-44. But be it remembered that the apostle never hinted that this change was effected by the death of the body; but says, 'For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself,' Phil. iii. 20, 21.