our readers, we find our author engaged in exploding the notions of Atheists.

No question can be of greater interest than this: Whence am I, and all I see around me-in other words, is there a Creator? The Theist and the Atheist concur in believing that something must have existed from eternity. If ever there was a time when nothing was, nothing ever could have been. Something, therefore, must be selfexistent; this the Atheist affirms to be matter, the Theist mind a being intelligent and immaterial. Now, surely those persons, who, on metaphysical grounds, contend for the eternity of matter, should bear in mind, that, by at least two of the greatest metaphysicians that ever lived, Berkeley and Hume, the very existence of matter has been questioned. At least we may infer from this fact, that their hypothesis is not devoid of difficulties.

The doctrine of the eternity of matter may be thus confuted. Matter had motion, or it had not. If not, and there was nothing distinct from itself (that is, no Deity) to give it motion, it must have ever remained inert; but it is not inert, therefore matter is not eternal. Suppose, then, that matter was from all eternity in motion. But what is this, except taking for granted the very thing to be proved? And, in fact, every Atheistical hypothesis proceeds on the ungrounded assumption, that matter has in itself certain innate properties, to the agency of which the production of every thing is referred. This is not proved, and cannot be proved. Of the cause of the motions of the planets, the philosopher knows nothing. It is said to be by attraction; but this is to use words without ideas. If gravitation or attraction pretends to mean any thing but the fact, that the planets move in certain ways, and under certain definite laws, it makes pretensions which are without basis. But matter has motion now; why may it not have always had it? There is another way of putting this question, Why should it have always had motion? And those who build their hypothesis on the fact of its having so had motion, must adduce more than a why may it not? must prove, not that it may, but that it must have had motion from eternity: which is impossible. And when it is said that matter now has motion, it ought also to be considered whether this motion be active or passive, that is, proceeding from itself, or from another. If from another, that other is God. If from

Was a

itself, but who can prove that the motion that exists in matter is from itself? This also must be assumed, and thus the basis on which the Atheist rests, is an assumption itself, that there is no Deity-the very point at issue, and an assumption, that matter has active power. But, grant that matter has active motion, how, without intelligence, that is, without a Deity, could it have produced intelligence (as in man) and beings formed by intelligence (as in every living creature) formed by intelligence we say, for who ever saw matter produce a steam-engine or an eye? Shall we have recourse to chance, to explain the phenomena? What is chance but a word expressive of our ignorance? Are we, then, to believe, that bodies rolled together, without a presiding and intelligent mind? What are the facts; can they thus be accounted for? steam-engine ever thus formed? How, then, a plant, a world, a universe? If the velocity which our earth possesses had been materially greater or less than it is, the most disastrous consequences would have ensued; how could it happen that the exact velocity required for safety and happiness should be given it, if there was no intelligent mind? The planetary and cometary bodies are 500 in number. How is it, that the sun is the only body capable of giving light and heat? How is it, that he is so placed as to distribute light and heat in the best manner to all the rest, so that it is not needful that the other bodies of the system should in themselves possess them? How came the solar rays so small, that though their velocity is so great that they travel 90 millions of miles in 8 minutes, they fall even on the eye without injuring it? How is it, that the force of gravity just balances the force of projection, thus preventing the earth from rushing into space, and always, age after age, keeping it in the same path? How is it, that the irregularities which are found in the planetary motions, are constantly corrected? How is it, that the earth, the air, the light, are suited to man, and man to them? How have all these, and ten thousand other arrangements, the best possible in each case, been made without an arranging and designing mind? We speak not of one, but of thousands of things, ordered in the way most fitted for the life and enjoyment of beings such as we are. Is it likely, that so many arrangements should concur, if there were no mind to make them? But how could man be produced? Suppose that matter had

rolled into order, order is not life-order is not organization-order is not intellect. The Atheist may say, that the earth contained the seeds of animals, and these were nurtured into living beings. Where did he learn this? What is it but a groundless assumption? Experience is against it, for seeds are produced by animals, not by inert matter. Besides, how could matter originate mind, of which, as the Atheist contends, it is destitute. Is it not more rational to allow, that mind arranged and organized, as well as gave life and intellect to animals and man-mind, which now we see to be the only agent capable of producing any machine similar to the living body? Our experience is against the former, and with the latter supposition; and as far as we know (and we can speak no further one would think), mind is the only agent capable of originating the world and its inhabitants.

Some persons talk of a principle of order, as the cause of all things. But did a principle of order ever produce a book, by operating on the twenty-six letters of the alphabet? Do we ever find sovereigns thus formed out of the gold in the bowels of the earth? Has any one ever met with a watch made by a principle of order? And we have to ask, what is meant by this term? A principle means, 1st, a beginning; 2d, a general truth; 3d, a cause or motive of action. Which of these meanings are we to take? The first two seem to be ill suited; let us try the third-a principle of order, then, will be a cause or motive of order, so that the order in the world results from the cause of order. A very true proposition; but, alas! it leaves unanswered what (whether mind or matter) this cause of order is: that is, it leaves the question where it found it. Let us now proceed to inquire, if there are not conclusive proofs in the phenomena of nature, that they must be the productions of an intelligent author. Whereever we find order existing, we infer an intelligent cause. If we discover the first five letters of the alphabet lying on a table in order, say in the form of a word, we should without hesitation conclude, that they were thus placed by some person acquainted with their usual arrangement, because we should, without ascertaining the precise chance (119 to 1), intuitively perceive that the possibilities of a different order are many, and that there were, therefore, numerous chances against their being thrown into this order by accident. But if we found all the letters of the

English alphabet lying in their proper order, we should pronounce it an utter impossibility, that the order should have arisen from any thing else than design, the chance against it being 403, 291461, 126605, 635583, 999999 to 1. And if we discovered that not only in this instance, but in, numberless other instances, the letters were placed in order, the conviction would be irresistible, that intelligence had been employed in these arrangements. Here is a matter not of mere opinion, but of mathematical calculation; and our conclusion is, that whenever we find order and regularity obtaining uniformly, or in a great majority of instances, where the possibilities of disorder and confusion are indefinitely numerous, we necessarily conclude, and cannot but believe, that intelligence was the cause.

There is another unquestionable truth; it is this:Wherever we find numerous concurrences of means various and complicated, tending to certain issues, we are justified in inferring an intelligent cause. These furnish

conclusive evidence of design, and design implies the existence of intelligence. In illustration of the force of this position, we may state the argument in favour of Theism, offered by an unlettered Greenlander to a Danish Missionary. "It is true," said he, "that we were ignorant heathens, and knew little of God till you came. But you must not imagine that no Greenlander thinks of these things. A kajak (a boat) with all its tackle and implements, cannot exist but by the labour of man; and one who does not understand would spoil it. But the meanest bird requires more skill to make it, than the best kajak, and no man can make a bird. There is still more skill required to make a man; by whom, then, was he made? He proceeded from his parents; they from their parents. But some must have been the first parents; whence did they proceed? Common report says, that they grew out of the earth; if so, why do not men still grow out of the earth? And whence came the earth itself?—the sun, the moon, and the stars? Certainly there must be some Being who made all these things-a Being more wise than the wisest man."* The reasoning is simple and forcible; the conclusion natural and rational. This is the language which nature speaks, and to all it is intelligible-leading

* Crantz's History of Greenland.

us most easily from her works, to their great and almighty Author.

In illustration of our first statement, myriads of instances might be adduced. There is not a faculty in the human mind, not an organ in our body, not a bone, not a nerve, not a muscle, there is not even a bird's feather, an insect's wing, or a blade of common grass, which does not, in the most expressive language, declare that the hand which formed them is divine. Look at the heaven and the heaven of heavens, with the innumerable host thereof: all is order and beauty. Motions are there proceeding in the best possible manner; in reference to some of which, it is seventeen thousand millions to one that they should have been as they are, and not different. How could this pos sibly be the result of accident? Especially absurd does the notion become, when not in one, but in a myriad of cases, the best state of things that could be, out of millions of possible states, is the one we actually find. How differently might our globe have been constituted, and in what a number of particulars! In the present arrangement, we enjoy ten thousand comforts; in any other, they would all have been impaired or lost. And for our comfort and well-being, what an infinitude of things-both on the earth and in the heavens in the sun, moon, and stars -in the air and in the sunbeam must all harmoniously concur, they do so, and we are happy! But who can believe that this is the work of chance? Who can resist the conclusion, that intelligence has ordained, and still preserves, the beautiful and accordant system? In the animals on its surface, we behold structures the most admirable; and in every structure, arrangements and contrivances, from which art, in its most advanced state, may learn and is daily learning something. How often do we see the same issue brought about by different means, precisely because, in the circumstances, different means were required. In fact, the world is full of life; and wherever there is life, there are found order and contrivance. If the cases in which they were found were few, we might for a moment doubt the validity of our conclusion; but they are all but literally infinite-they are quite innumerable. Can the conclusion' be resisted? A mind is necessary to construct a telescope is not mind necessary to construct also its pattern? We are fully convinced, that no one can resist the implied conclusion-can doubt of