LETTER II. 



SIR, 



IN your introductory Lecture, you have 

 endeavoured to establish the doctrine of mate- 

 rialism in its grossest and most disgusting form, 

 as will be apparent from the following quota- 

 tion : fc Where then shall we find the proofs 

 " of the mind's independence on the bodily 

 " structure ? of that mind, which, like the cor- 

 " poreal form^ is infantile in the child, manly 

 " in the adult, sick and debilitated in disease, 

 " frenzied or melancholy in the madman, en- 

 " feebled in the decline of life, doting in decre- 

 ' pitude, and annihilated by death ?" p. 7- 



Before you had resolved to publish such opi- 

 nions, you should, at least, have inquired who 

 they are that believe in the independence of 

 the mind on the bodily structure? You are 

 fighting only against the followers of Berkeley : 

 the disciples neither of Locke nor Dr. Reid, 

 nor any other school in metaphysics that I am 

 acquainted with, believe in such arrant con- 

 tradictions. But, it is one thing, Sir, to believe 

 in the connexion of the mind with the body, 

 and another to assert their identity. This con- 

 nexion we call life; but the mind itself consti- 

 tutes the soul of man. However you may please 



