10 



to denounce these opinions as mere cc immate- 

 " rial abstractions/* you should consider that 

 they are at least venerable from their anti- 

 quity, and popular from their general reception 

 amongst mankind. To do you justice, indeed, 

 I find that you have admitted this to be the 

 fact. You endeavour to qualify the above sen- 

 tence by stating it as only delivered in a physio* 

 logical meaning, and that the " theological 

 " doctrine of the soul, and its separate exis- 

 " tence, has nothing to do with this physiolo- 

 <c gical question, but rests on a species of proof 

 <c altogether different. " And you afterwards 

 very candidly admit " that the doctrine of the 

 c immortality of the soul, and a future state of 

 " rewards and punishments, was fully recog- 

 " nized in all the religions of the ancient world," 

 &c. p. 8, 9, &c. 



I do not pretend, Sir, to reconcile this sen- 

 tence with the general principles which are ad- 

 vanced in your Lectures; but, after a very at- 

 tentive perusal of them, I am impressed with 

 the conviction, that their general tendency goes 

 to destroy this belief of the soul's immortality ; 

 and that I am not mistaken in this opinion, I 

 shall beg leave to refer to your own expressions. 



In p. 60, you inform us that " life is merely 

 " the active state of the animal structure; that 

 " it denotes what is apparent to our senses, and 

 " cannot be applied to the offspring of meta- 

 f ' c physics or immaterial abstractions." You 

 then declare that the anima means nothing more 



