The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-02-21
LOCAL MArrnxs.


REV. VIZ. McGurYET's LECruRx AT rHE
ArHxsxuM THURSDAY EvxNIEe, on "THE In.
MORTALITY OF THE souL."-The Lecturer re-
marked at the outset that the first subject Of
enquiry that evening was the question: "lf
man die, shall he live againf" He hoped to
be able to answer this question in the afirma-
tive and 80 overwhelming was the evidence OF
revealed religion in favor Of the souls immor-
tally, that many thought that natural religion
could bring nothing to prove the important
doctrine. He professed TO think tina, there
was very strong, perhaps he might say, con-
elusive proof, from the light of nature, Of the
Immortality of the soul. He would not be
dogmatical upon this point, but should leave
it to the judgment of his hearers to decide.
whether he could make good the proposition
by argument, and if he did not succeed in this
object he would still cling to the doctrine as
scribing his want of success in inducing its be-
lief to his manner of presenting thel subject
and not to the intrinsic merits of the subject,
ITSELF
The first proposition he should advance,
was, the universal sentiment of Immortality.
All research proved the truth of the assertion
that no savage tribe on the face of the earth
let alone civilized man, had even been without
the belief of an existence after death, in hunt
ing-grounds, by transmigration, &c. Just in
proportion as mind had developed itself in
man, and he had been able to make things un :
seen and spiritual take the place of things tenn
poral, had this sentiment grown in strength
until few, if any, could doubt it. He would
acknowledge there were exceptions of indi.
viduals who doubted the doctrine in phIo.o-
phic times, thus permitting philosophy to eat
out their brains. These, however, were strange
abnormal cases that were not to be taken
into consideration.
The next position which he would present
was, that humiliation did not destroy the soul.
There was no truth in the doctrine Of annihi-
lation, so far as We knew. Neither nature or
revelation sanctioned it. He would not say
that God had endowed matter as we'll as mind
with Immortality; but 1t was observable, as
far as we could see in the material world
around, that God had never destroyed utterly
what he had made.
The teachers of natural science united in
saying that nothing had been known to perish
utterly. Substances might undergo trans.
formations that were to US indistinct. and Or
CARNATIONS merely had been permitted to
perish. But all that ceased to exist when the
organizations persisted were the results-their
pecnliar resrritS periSbod NTH tban,
If vegetable life and the animal life were
the results of organization, they were destined
to perish with their organization; but if they
were not the result Of organization, if the prin-
ciple of life was distinct from their organiza.
ton, and the ground of it, then might the or
ganization perish rs often as one could con-
ceive; but that which was the occasion of its
life would not perish. Creation was differen
from construction, and there could be no evil
dehce adduced of the utter humiliation of the
created living soul that was separate from
matter.
His third position was, that death did not
destroy the soul. They must here recognize
the difference between mind and matter. Mind
and matter had no one thing in common every
quality in one was different from every proper
ty in the other. The chemist might analyze
the body, but nothing like a thought, or
beautiful sentiment, or discriminating train
of ideas between the good and the bad, could
be found in the bottom of his crucible. Mind
was a substance. though not of that character
which would be meant when the term was ap-
piled to matter. Mind had nothing in common
with matter, and could not be dissolved by
death. Death acted upon compounds. 1t could
dissolve combined organization, but could
have no influence on that which was not com.
bned or organized. 1t could not act upon the
thoughts or feelings. The question might be
asked, if they were So different, how could they
be unitedl All things were made double, and
could easily be brought into connection with
each other. We should bear in mind thai,
unity was not identity, and the action and re.
action of the mind npon the body showed the
great difference. Although united, they could
exist apart. Matter existed apart from intelli-
gence. There was no power of thinking in
metals or unorganized matter.
Now, if matter could exist, independent of
mind, why might not mind, which was the
greater, exist independent ofmatter, the lesser.
The lecturer then proceeded to illustrate his
position, that the loss of the matter of the body
did not affect the mind or soul: but, on the ON
trary, the mind became, in consequence, more
spirituaized and less earthly. He instance6
Milton, The blind poet, and Homer and Ossiap.
also poets, who were said TO be blind. Milton
BECAME more ideal after bis blindness, and his
poetry breathed The celestial fire. The mind
could work when the eye was dead, the ear
was deaf, and the tongue was dumb. The
mind, he believed, grew from its origin, and
expanded through all eternity, and when di.
vested of its cumbrous clay, acted with far
superior power and quickness. See, also. the
influence OF the will on the natural orgauiza.
~f L.