The soul is a thinking substance or being. But let matter be modified into any form, and it will neither think nor perform any operation or function of the soul. Atoms as such do not think. Did they, there would be an innumerable multitude of thinking beings in such a compound of existence as man. Atoms, in an accumulated or organized form, do not think. They have no more capability of thinking, when in juxta-position or aggregated, than when separated and apart, let their elements, their chemical properties, their position, attenuation or motion be what they may. They are, and ever will be, absolutely incogitative. There is nothing in matter, which can enable it to think. In confirmation of these remarks, it may be observed, that no philosopher has ever made matter think, or perform one operation of the soul, or has ever approximated towards doing it. It may also be remarked, that thought cannot be superadded to matter, so as to become a property or an attribute of it, or to be inherent in it. If thought should be annexed to matter, so as to become an appendage to it, it would neither become a property, nor an attribute, of it. Surely, the soul is not a material substance.

II. Another theory respecting the soul, is, that it is a succession of thoughts or ideas and exercises.

The Cartesians define the soul to be " a thinking, incorporeal, inextended substance." In their discussions of this subject, they seem to make thinking the essence of the soul.-Modern philosophers, who adopt this theory, reason thus, We can conceive of ideas and exercises, because we are conscious of them, and are thus certain of their existence; but of a substance, whence they proceed, a cause by which they are effected, an agent who is the author of them, we can form no idea, because of these we are not conscious, and, consequently, can have no conception of them. Their conclusion, therefore, is that they do not exist.

The incorrectness of this position will appear, if we apply the same reasoning to God, his existence, his perfections, his works of creation and providence, and his operations in regeneration and sanctification. The modus existendi et operandi of God is to us wholly unknown. We are not conscious of it, and, therefore, can have no conception of it. Consequently, God does not operate, and does not exist.

This view of the soul is contrary to the natural apprehension of mankind, and our own individual consciousness. Every person believes, and is conscious, that he exists, that he is something, and that he perceives, thinks, reasons, loves, hates, wills, and executes his will. He is as intuitively certain that he exists, and that he is an agent, performing certain actions, as he is of any proposition whatever, and that he is the same being to-day, that he was yesterday. But this could not be so,

if the soul be merely a succession of ideas and exercises; for were it so, every idea and exercise would seem to constitute a distinct soul.

Man is the subject of properties or attributes. This, all will admit. But we cannot conceive of properties or attributes, as existing independently of some substance, essence, or substratum, in which they inhere. Who can conceive of a thought without a being to think, of a consciousness without a being to be conscious, of an exercise without a subject of that exercise? If this theory be true of man, why not of God? And is God ६ mere succession of ideas, or thoughts and exercises!

If this theory be true, man has no personal identity. A thought or an exercise is a mere event, which exists, and then ceases to exist. Every thought or exercise is a new, distinct, and different event. Consequently, if the soul be a mere succession of thoughts and exercises, the soul changes with every new thought and exercise, and becomes a new and different soul. It has, therefore, no continued existence, except during the time of each of its thoughts and exercises. Where, then, is its continued personal identity? Should it be said, that consciousness is identity, it may be replied, that consciousness is not identity itself, but only evidence of identity.

If the theory, now under consideration, be true, then there is nothing in the soul of man, which can be punished or rewarded. It is agreeable to common sense and the Bible, that the subject of guilt only, can and will be punished, and that the subject of virtue only, can and will be rewarded. But how can thoughts and exercises be subjects of virtue or vice? Virtue and vice, in the nature of things, cannot be imputable to mere thoughts and exercises, independent of the subject of them. Besides, as thoughts and exercises are momentary, they will have perished before judgment will have been passed, and sentence awarded. Consequently, upon this reasoning, all that is said in the Bible of trial, reward and punishment, is mere trifling.

This theory of the soul militates against the doctrine of motives. A motive is that which moves, inclines, or induces to action, and is addressed to a being capable of being influenced. The being to be influenced must exist at the time, in which the motive is presented, in order to produce an effect. How then can thoughts and exercises be influenced by motives before they exist, or afterwards as they instantly perish, and are not, in their nature, subject to modification? There is on this scheme, therefore, no possibility of their being affected by them. But God, who made the soul, and is acquainted with its nature and capabilities, presents motives to men, and according to the manner, in which they are affected by them, he justifies or condemns.

The Scriptures represent man as an agent,-something, distinct from his perceptions, affections, volitions, and actions. He is always addressed as such, by his Creator and Redeemer, and by all the inspired wri

ters.

From the above considerations, it follows, that the soul is not a succession of thoughts or ideas and exercises.

III. The other theory respecting the soul is, that it is a spiritual substance, intelligent, sensitive, voluntary, conscious, and capable of moral feelings and actions.

That this theory is the true one, may be argued from the fact, that one of the three theories is undoubtedly true; and, as the first two are not true, therefore the third must be true.

That the soul is not material, has been, it is believed, clearly proved in the discussion of the first theory. It possesses not a single property of matter, and, therefore, cannot be matter. Besides, let matter be modified into any form, or placed in any position, it will not possess a single property of the soul. All the wisdom and power of man have never been able to make matter think, or perform one operation of the soul. All beings may be considered as material or spiritual. We know of no other kind of being. If these beings should be connected, as they are in man, they do not become the same, by the conversion of the one into the other, or by the intermixture of the two natures. Each nature retains its distinct properties entire. The soul of man, then, is not matter, but spirit. It has been shown, that we cannot conceive of thoughts and exercises, without a being to think, and to put forth exercises. There can be no action without an actor or agent. The being who thinks and acts, must exist previously to his thoughts and actions. This is according to the common apprehension of all mankind, our own consciousness, the language used by all nations and people without exception, and the representations of the Bible. The immediate followers of Des Cartes, and those philosophers of the present day, who embrace his views, would seem to deny, that man has a soul distinct from its operations, for they appear to make thinking the essence of the soul. Besides, the adoption of this theory would lead to the denial of personal identity, of the doctrines of rewards and punishments, of the influence of motives, of the consciousness of our existence, and of the teachings of the Scriptures on this subject. Hence we infer, that the soul of man is a spiritual substance or substratum, in which faculties, which are distinct from their operations or exercises, inhere.

That this last theory is true, we argue from the nature of the properties of the soul. The essential properties of a being best define its es

sence or inward constitution; for they are inseparable from it, and are what they are, because the essence or substratum is what it is. The soul has properties, distinct and dissimilar, which define its essence or substratum, as do the properties of matter define its essence or substratum. We can have as clear an idea of the one as of the other, the essential properties of each being equally known, and the inward constitution or substratum of each being equally unknown. Indeed, our knowledge of spirit is by consciousness, which is infallible, but our knowledge of matter, is by the senses, which are not infallible. "Of all the truths we know," says Dugald Stewart, "the existence of mind is the most certain." The essential properties of the soul, then, being spiritual, we infer, that its basis, or substratum is spiritual.

That the third theory is true, we infer from the fact, that all nations, whether Jewish, Christian, or Pagan, have believed the soul of man to be a spiritual substance, distinct from the body. By this, it is not meant, that Pagan nations have formed a system, or science on this subject. They are too ignorant to do this. They may not be able to explain their own views precisely, but they believe, that, though the body is material, and, at death, moulders to dust; yet the thinking being is different, a spiritual substance, and still lives in another world. There may be exceptions; but these are too few to affect the general opinion, or faith. This universal belief is evidence, that the soul is spiritual, whether the belief arose at first from immediate revelation, which has been transmitted from generation to generation by tradition, or from reason, analogy, or any other source.

That this last theory is the true one, we argue from the Bible. The Scriptures represent the beings above man, God and angels, who are thinking existences, as spirits. And as God and angels, who are thinking beings, are spirits, so analogy leads us to conclude, that man, who is also a thinking being, is also a spirit.

The Scriptures expressly assert the doctrine, that the souls of men are spiritual. David, in addressing God, says, Into thine hand I commit my spirit. Just before crucifixion, the Savior, looking up to heaven, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Stephen, in his dying prayer, said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Solomon declares, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. By the spirit, here, is undoubtedly intended the thinking, conscious being. And can David and Solomon, inspired prophets, Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost, and Christ himself, be deceived on this subject? Certainly not.- -Many passages of Scripture might be adduced, which strongly imply this doc

trine, but we will not enlarge. The Bible calls those, who have departed this life, spirits, as spirits in prison, spirits of just men made perfect.

Thus common sense, reason, and the Bible teach, that the soul of man, which thinks and remembers, conceives and reasons, loves and hates, fears and hopes, surveys the past and looks forward to the future, is a spiritual substance, intelligent, sensitive, voluntary, conscious, and capable of moral feelings and actions. We may add, it is invisible, not discernible by our corporeal vision; uncompounded, not made up of parts, but simple; immortal, possessing no principles of death, for where there is no composition, there can be no dissolution.-See Priestley's Disq.; Locke's Ess.; Des Cartes' Princ.; Watts's Ess.; Upham's Ment. Philos.; Dwight's Theology; Doddridge's Lectures; Chambers' Univ. Dict.;” S. Clarke's Being and Attributes of God; Flavel's Treatise on the Soul; Butler's Analogy. To be continued.

HISTORY OF SCHOOL BOOKS IN NEW ENGLAND.

Though attention was paid to the education of children and youth in the early days of New England; yet the means of instruction, were limited. School-books were few in number and variety, and these were imperfectly prepared. For a considerable time after our forefathers came to this country, the New England Primer was, so far as is now known, the only elementary spelling and reading book in general use. One edition of it, published at Providence, R. I., in 1775, has in it the portrait of King George III., and another, published at Hartford, Ct., in 1777, has in it the portrait of Samuel Adams. These portraits were indicative of the political state of the country at the time. Children usually passed from the Lessons in the Primer to the Psalms of David and the New Testament. The Psalter used to be embellished with a cut of King David's harp. In the most advanced class in schools, the Bible was the reading book. The scholars were taught to spell from the lessons which they read. These, so far as we can learn, (and no little pains have been taken to ascertain,) were the only spelling and reading books used in Common Schools in New England, for nearly a century after its settlement.

One of the Legislative acts, passed by the Colonies respecting education, ordained, that all children and apprentices should be instructed so as to be "able to read the Scriptures, and other good and profitable