Section IV.

The Immateriality of Mind Proved from its Consciousness of Identity and Responsibility.

I. The soul, the rational man, cannot be the body, nor any part of it, as is proved from the identity which the mind is conscious of maintaining from the dawn of existence to life's final close. There is no room for dispute about the fact of this consciousness; it is the same in all, as all will admit. The man of three-score and ten years, can look back to the hour of childhood, and trace his history through every intervening period, and is conscious that he has preserved his identity through the whole, and is now the same person that he was at the commencement of life's journey. Consciousness is that notice which the mind, takes of its own operations and modes of existence. Now, allow for a moment, that the mind is material, that the body, or some part of it, is the mind, and see what can be made out of this consciousness of identity. In such case, it is matter, the body, or some part of it, that is conscious of its identity, which must involve the greatest absurdities.

1. Substitute the body, or that part of it which may be supposed to constitute the mind, for the term mind, and the absurdity will he seen at once. Consciousness is that notice which the body takes of its own operations and modes of existence. This, every one knows is not true-the body is not conscious. Suppose the brain to be the mind, and it will not be true. We cannot say, consciousness is that notice which the brain takes of its own operations and modes of existence. The brain is not the subject of this consciousness of identity; every man is conscious that it was the same mind that thought, loved, hated, rejoiced, and sorrowed in time past-that thinks, loves, hates, rejoices and sorrows now: but no man is or can be conscious that he has the same brains now that he had in time past. It is then clear, that the mind is something distinct from the brain, and every other part of the body, as no part of the body is conscious, or the subject of consciousness. We can say that consciousness is that notice which the mind takes of its own operations, and every man's internal convictions tell him it is so; but if we say that consciousness is that notice which the brain takes of its own operations, no man feels any internal conviction of the truth of what we affirm.

2. To make the brain, or any other part of the body, both the actor and the subject of this conscious identity is to make consciousness utter a falsehood. It is not true that the body preserves its identity; it is the perpetual subject of waste and renovation, keeping up a perpetual change of the particles of matter that compose every part of the body, even the brain itself. According to the admitted principles of physiology, a person at the age of seventy, must have changed every particle of matter composing his body, some ten times. The system is calculated for reception and discharge, and this is the operation perpetually going on through life. This may be seen by the unlettered reader who has never studied physiology. He knows that he must take food every day to supply the perpetual waste of his system-that what he eats forms blood, and flesh, and bones. This could not be necessary, were there not a perpetual waste. This is further proved from the fact that the moment we cease to receive a sufficient degree of nutriment, the body begins to waste and become thinner; as the saying is, it grows poor. A person may be nearly starved to death, or emaciated with sickness, until reduced to one quarter the usual weight, and then in a few weeks recover, and be as full and heavy as before. Does the body consist of the same particles of matter now that it did before Certainly not; the waste has been supplied with new matter, and yet the person is conscious of having preserved his identity through all these changes; he is certain that he that thinks and feels now, is he that thought and felt before these changes took place. This proves that the conscious mind, which preserves its identity amid all the changes of the body, is not the body; is a distinct substance from the body, remaining unchanged.

In reply to the above, it may be said that identity does not depend upon the presence of the same floating particles of matter, but upon the sameness of the organization, and that in this respect there is no change; that we end life with the same organization-the same animal machine with which we commence it. Admit this for the sake of the argument, and nothing is gained to the cause of the materialist.

1. The identity of the organization is preserved only as the identity of a watch is preserved, which, when seventy years old, has had every wheel and part supplied with new ones ten times. All the wheels have been used up and supplied ten times, but it is the same watch. Who does not see that this is trifling with our own consciousness; the mind is not conscious of any such identity as is here described, as will be seen from what follows.

2. The body is not the subject of conscious identity; this every rational person must know for himself, if he will reflect upon his own mental states. No man is or can be conscious that he has the same hands, feet or head, that he had ten years ago. He knows that they are the same from the impossibility of having changed them; but this is not consciousness. Could his hands, feet or head be exchanged while asleep for others looking just like them, consciousness would not detect the change; there would be the same consciousness of identity or continued self as before. This shows that it is not the identity of the body of which we are conscious. A man is conscious that he is the same thinking, morally responsible being now, that he was ten years ago; but he is not and cannot be conscious that he has even the same brains now that he had ten years ago. This proves that the conscious mind is something distinct from the body.

II. Nearly allied to this consciousness of identity, is consciousness of responsibility; in view of which conscience approves or condemns us for what we have done. It is the office of conscience to approve when we do right, and to condemn when we do wrong-if we can then determine upon what our conscious guilt falls, when conscience condemns us, we shall find the morally responsible man, whether it be the body, or the soul, as distinct from the body. Suppose a man to have committed murder twenty years ago, and no one will doubt that he has carried in his bosom, the canker worm of a guilty conscience; his consciousness tells him that it was he that committed the murder, and not another, while his conscience tells him that he is guilty in view of the offence. What then is guilty On what does the condemnation rest Does the murderer feel that it is his feet that are in fault, that his hands are to blame, that his brains are guilty Surely not; conscience never told a man that his brains were guilty in view of his wrong acts, and this simple fact proves that the brains do not constitute the intellectual and moral man; if they did, our conscience would condemn our brains when we do wrong. Let the conscience-smitten sinner philosophize upon the operations of his own mind, and he will come to a right conclusion on this subject.