infinite number of inferior and fubordinate perceptions? The Immaterialists have reafon to triumph, when they reduce their adverfaries to the neceflity of answering thefe queftions in the affirmative. On the other hand, when the Immaterialifts confidently affirm, that perception is the property of an immaterial fubftance, which will continue to fubfift after the diffolution of the prefent mortal and perishable frame, they seem to me to affirm what it is impoflible to proveto affirm what is unfupported, or rather contradicted, by the appearances of nature, and the deductions of reafon. Perception I believe to be a property fuperadded to matter, in a manner fomewhat analogous to gravity. The idea of innate perception, as well as of innate gravity, may be juftly exploded; but perception may neverthelefs be regarded as a property annexed to certain combinations of matter, by the Supreme Being, and as a property which will not fubfift feparate from thofe organical fyftems, to which it is, by Divine Power, for a certain period united. The plain dictate of reason, in this case is, that at death the duft returns to the earth again, and the spirit unto God who gave it.

The arguments deduced from the confideration of the moral attributes of God, though fcarcely amounting to probability, feem to me of more weight than this boafted demonstration. It must be owned, indeed, that the moral perfections of

the

the Divine Nature, and the doctrine of the immortality of the foul, cannot be employed as reciprocal proofs of each other. But I think that the phænomena of Nature, attentively confidered, strongly indicate the boundlefs extent of the moral as well as the natural perfections of the Deity. As the power and wifdom of God are infinite, there is a ftrong prefumption from analogy that his goodness is alfo infinite. We fee that the course of Providence is upon the whole favourable to virtue; we fee a connection established, though a very imperfect one, between virtue and happiness, vice and mifery, in the prefent life; and if there is fufficient reafon to admit that this connection refults from the eternal purpose of the Divine Will, what should prevent its final and complete accomplishment? If virtue is the object of the Divine complacency and approbation, it will certainly be ultimately rewarded with happiness, however unfavourable prefent appearances may be. "What shall separate us "from the love of God," exclaims the Apostle Paul, under the animating influence of this perfuafion, "Neither death nor life, nor angels, nor "principalities, nor powers, nor things prefent, "nor things to come."

I fhall only add, that the Scripture doctrine refpecting a future ftate, appears to me to be conformable to the fentiments of the Materialists, and those nominal Immaterialifts who reject the opinion of an intermediate confcious ftate between death and the refurrection. It is impoffible to

fuppofe,

suppose that the Resurrection, upon which so much ftrefs is placed in Scripture, as affording an immoveable foundation for "a moft bleffed and glo"rious hope," fhould refer merely to the refurrection of the body, which, according to the principles of the Immaterialists, ought rather to be deprecated as a real misfortune. At the fame time I acknowledge, that feveral paffages of the facred writings, separately confidered, feem not eafily reconcileable to this hypothefis. It cannot, however, be pretended, with any colour of plausibility, even by unbelievers, that there could be any real inconfiftency in the opinions of the firft Chriftians, refpecting a point of this nature; and therefore the feeming import of a few detached paffages, obviously inconfiftent with the general tenor of the apoftolic writings, need not prevent us from embracing, with a full affurance of faith, a doctrine fupported by plain, repeated and unequivocal declarations.

ESSAY XX.

OBSERVATIONS on GENIUS.

WHAT is Genius? A certain writer of re

fpectable abilities, who has treated this fubject according to the too general practise of his countrymen, with much parade of fyftematic investigation, has compofed a volume of five hundred pages, in anfwer to this enquiry; and if we may confide in the pofitive determination of Dr. Gerard, Genius is only another word for Invention: and having thus afcertained the import of the term, he tells us, what I fhould fuppofe few perfons are ignorant of, that Imagination is that power of the mind to which Invention must be principally referred; and, as if this was a doubtful point, he expatiates largely upon it, and establishes and enforces it, by all the powers of reafon and eloquence. Imagination, however, being at length demonstrated in all the forms of logic, to be that faculty which is the immediate fource of Invention, the learned Profeffor enters into a minute analysis of thofe general laws of affociation, which

produce

produce the feveral modifications of which the imagination is fufceptible. We are informed, with an air of myfterious gravity, that the imagination does not act at random in affociating ideas; but that there are certain qualities or relations of ideas, which fit them for being affociated; and the author, after Mr. Hume, refolves those relations into refemblance, contrariety, vicinity, co-existence, &c. and we are told that habit, and the paffions also, have an extensive influence on the affociating principle. We are next amufed with an account of the modifications of the affociating principles, and many other abftrufe metaphyfical difquifitions which feem to me very flightly connected with the main fubject, and which, in my opinion, have been much more happily and fatisfactorily difcuffed, though with much lefs oftentation of knowledge, by Locke, Hartley, and Hume. I fee not, for my own part, what light is thrown upon the question relative to the nature of Genius, by a long and tedious analysis of the faculty of affociation, which operates in perfect conformity to the fame general laws in all men, whether they are poffeffed or not of any extraordinary powers of imagination or Genius. But, to wave any farther obfervations on the mode in which the learned Profeffor has chosen to treat this fubject, I fhall content myself with objecting to the firft ftep taken by Dr. Gerard in the investigation of this question; I mean, to his definition of the

term.