existing at all, are perfectly synonymous: therefore without a mode, existence is utterly impossible.

"These observations evidently demonstrate, that there can be nothing unto which the term existence will apply in an abstracted sense, but, that unto every thing to which it can correctly be annexed, and it can be this to whatever possesses positive existence, other words are indispensably essential to constitute sense. We must, Sir, then, at the commencement of our argument, banish at once the preposterous hypothesis that leads some to suppose, that EXISTENCE is an unexplicable something independent and abstract in itself-it is nothing of the kind-the word is expressive of the STATE of that to which it is applied: but, in an abstract sense, it is a word without meaning.

"But these are only preliminary matters which might have been dispensed with, yet, they prepare the mind for a full reception of an argument, which strikes at the foundation of the system in hand: and introduces a more important consideration, into which we must now enter. On pursuing the above train of thoughts; and proceeding on the same principle, it is requisite now to observe, that according to the above employment of the term existence, namely, that it is only a word which is EXPRESSIVE OF THE STATE OF THAT TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED, it possesses a two-fold application, first, to those things which possess no SUBSTANCE whatever, and, secondly, to every thing which possesses SUBSTANCE, or an ESSENTIAL QUALITY which necessitates it To OCCUPY SPACE, Under the first of these, to which the above term may, or rather is correctly applied, are truth and falsehood, and many other things of a similar description: these possess no substance;-they occupy no space, nevertheless, they exist, and the term existence is to them correctly applied. Under the second application we class, every thing which can possibly occupy space, as whatever can do this, is of necessity a substance.

"From this we proceed to another important consideration, namely, that every substance requires support. And this is the grand point-this is the foundation of that, Sir, which will mutilate your system-bear down your sophistry-repel with irresistible energy all your bombastical assertions, and totally demolish the chimerical edifice you have erected on the certainty of matter being eternal. Thus upon the basis, that every substance requires support, we may assert, then, that which is eternal ever was supported-that which eternally supported it, is, and ever was the ground of its existence, and if an eternal one, it was an infinite one also, and if infinite, matter never existed through its influence, because

In another place Mr Humphrey has denied that the words eternal and infinite are synonymous. He would be a powerful reasoner if he once came to reason upon the principles of materialism and made himself well acquainted with the properties of matter, all his ideas of necessity apply strictly to matter as the one Infinite. But matter is a Devil to him, and he wants to set up a God a little above it in power.-R. CARLILE.

matter is not infinite; and if it never did this, it is not eternal-aud here your system falls.

Hem-hem-ha-you are ready to exclaim-but where are the proofs of this? this demand is just, Sir,-I will advance them. But I must first observe, that in order philosophically to substantiate the above foundation; namely, that every substance requires support, it is indispensably requisite for us to direct our reflections to a variety of contingent circumstances, with which the subject is inseparably interwoven. Thus, when we devote our exertions to a recondite investigation of the term existence, as being a word expressive of the state, or condition, of some substance unto which it is applied, our thoughts, are from this essentially conducted to a consideration of that STATE itself; but the moment our attention is attracted to it, a complicated scene of connected subjects immediately present themselves; the principal part of which, is foreign to the case in hand; and the only proposition which, on deep penetration can be discovered of importance to us, is-that a STATE IS TO TIME, exactly what substance is to space: that is to say, as every thing to which the term substance can be correctly applied, must of an absolute necessity occupy space: just upon the same principle, and of the same absolute necessity, must every thing to which the term STATE will apply, OCCUPY TIME. But perhaps some will consider, that even this peculiarity of that state which the term existence expresses, or signifies, is of but small moment in our present dispute; but this is not the case, its importance, as the basis of the decision of the subject before us, is unequalled; and if it be not now beheld as such by every reader, it will be before he comprehends the subject before him: however, I have now apprised him of its importance, and having done this, I proceed to argue upon it.

"A concise developement of the ideas of a state which occupies time, appears to me now essential. In the first instance, the state here specified, is the condition of every thing that possesses being, as every object under sensitive and mental investigation is of necessity in a STATE of existence; and the meaning of this state occupying time is, that it CONTINUES from one moment to another: or, from the commencement of a period, whether extensive or contracted, to its termination.

Having thus premised, and explained the terms employed, I proceed as follows. Wherever there is a continuance, there is essentially an action; and without an action the continuance of the state in question, is absolutely impossible. No other proof of this, can be requisite, than that which the word of necessity affords, seeing that TO CONTINUE' is a verb both active and neuter, and in both cases an action is essentially implied: and to suppose no action, where something is, nevertheless, continued, is erecting supposition against obvious matter of fact; and supposing something continued and not continued at one and the same point of time. I, therefore, from this, draw the following inference, that without an action continuance of existence is utterly impossible.

"And now, the most essential step to be taken is, to shew, that there can be no action without an actor: but, as I have enlarged on this point in a former part of this letter, I consider myself not necessitated to advance an elaborate demonstration of it here: the inference is absolute, and irrefragable, that without an actor every action is absolutely impossible; and from this, a substantial simplification of my last inference may be deduced, namely, that without an ACTOR, a continuance in existence is impracticable. And, be it particularly observed, this actor, without which all existence would be impossible, is, and must be,-the ground,-foundation, or the reason of the being of every substance which now possseses existence. "Here, then, is a full demonstration of that which I pledged myself to prove under this head, namely that every substance requires support;' and that it is absolutely impossible for any thing to exist without a cause, or reason, of that existence.' This demonstration, equally applies to every thing finite, or infinite,-eternal or not so; for in no possible case can there be existence unconnected to a state, or condition; and no state can possibly exist without occupying time;-whatever occupies time continues; there can be no continuance without an action; the can be no action without an actor; and this actor is the support,-the cause, the reason,-or foundation of the existence of every substance in being,-this is absolute, and can never fall.

6

"But, before I proceed farther in demonstration, I beg leave to exhort the reader to pay particular attention to the paragraph last read, with the arguments that support it; for, its contents may justly be considered as the entire basis, on which all my following arguments must be erected. The first, and the most important point in my whole train of reasoning is, to demonstrate clearly that WITHOUT A CAUSE, EXISTENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE, With this end accomplished, I can speedily bear down and annihilate the force of every argument advanced in opposition to my doctrine; and on this foundation once substantiated, I can erect that edifice, the invulnerable bulwarks of which will retard and render abortive all the exertions of its most determinate opponents. This being a point of such vast importance, attention to it invoked, is, at least, excusable.

TO MR. ABEL HELLAWELL, HUDDERSFIELD.

Sir, Dorchester Gaol, June 2, 1822. IF I could have thought that Mr. James Humphrey would have addressed me such a letter, as he has transmitted to me through you, I certainly should have never offered to insert any thing in "The Republican" for him. Doubtless, the fanatics would gladly fill my pages with abuse upon myself, if I were disposed to admit it freely, but whilst I am anxious to exhibit the strictest fairness and impar

tiality in any controversy with them, I think I have a right to expect, that I shall not be called upon to print mere abuse upon myself; not that I ever feel any thing of the kind, but it is due to the understandings of my readers that I do not encourage any thing of the kind. To convince Mr. Humphrey that I do not fear his powers of controversy, I give insertion to all he has now written for that purpose; but it is with the promise that I shall not insert any thing further from him. His answer about the subscription money, and his pretended offer to buy my opposition with five shillings, is particularly offensive; and if he thinks I could be induced to write him a sentence for his five shillings, I am only sorry that he should have so far mistaken his antagonist. Mark too, the contrast in his generosity: if I prove to his satisfaction that he is in error, he will give me five shillings every time there is a subscription for me at Huddersfield, which cannot be expected by me or any one else to be repeated, after the liberal manner in which I understand my friends have come forward a second time but if Mr. Humphrey should persist in his notion, that I have not answered him, though every one else should think otherwise, be purposes to purchase admission for a paragraph relating, "my name, contest, former challenges, and now complete overthrow, in several of our public papers, reviews and magazines: (each insertion probably costing him twenty shillings) that the Christian world may triumph, that their cause can yet be supported." At any rate he would rather pay largely for remaining in error it seems, than for being convinced of error. Ah! Sir, before you had applied to Mr. Humphrey for money, you should have recollected the fable, in "Fenning's Spelling Book," of the Roman Catholic Priest, his money, and his blessing. All Priests are alike; they are receivers and not givers. Empty prayers, thanksgivings, and blessings, they will give you for your money; but they will give you money for nothing but in exchange for the luxuries of life. I do not mean to say that this is the case of Mr. Humphrey; he may not yet be a stipendiary priest; but that he aims at it, is, I think, unquestionable.

In consequence of the stile and the manner in which Mr. Humphrey has addressed me, I have inserted his letter exactly as he wrote it, that he may be told by some one, that before he begins to talk about logic, he should acquire something of the common orthography or grammar of our language. His two former letters I took some pains to correct, and to preserve his meaning; which is rather a disagreeable task for an opponent, but here, as this will be my last publication for him, I fear to prune or correct his spelling or his language, lest I expose myself to the charge of alteration. I can picture him to my mind as a very powerful preacher among the Methodists, and a man who feels more difficulty in painting his ideas upon paper than in delivering them orally. But this is more the defect of education than of natural ability. That Mr. Humphrey has a powerful mind is not to be questioned, but he is exercising it to a bad purpose, and has fallen into that quagmire of superstition that will prevent his improvement, and paralyze that ability, which if rightly ap

plied, would soon distinguish him from the crowd of mankind. He has called his first pamphlet a "Scientific Demonstration that Matter is not Eternal." On looking at the title I expected to find the work the production of some experimental chemist, as no man who is not acquainted with the science of chemistry can rightly presume to put forth any thing about scientific demonstrations of matter; and, to my surprise I found that the scientific demonstration ended with the title page, and that Mr. Humphrey's science did not extend beyond the spade, the hoe, the watering pot and his garden. However, I do not deny his capability of becoming a man of science, and I would earnestly advise him to turn his attention to the elements of chemistry and astronomy, and get some real knowledge of the powers and principles of matter before he writes any thing further under the title of "Scientific Demonstrations," and "Philosophical Researches."

The first point Mr. Humphrey calls for in this correspondence is a proof of the infinity of matter. To prove infinity by comparison cannot be done to prove it by analogy is possible, as far as the finite mind of man can form an idea of infinity. One argument for the infinity of matter is to be found in the fact, that, there is a greater difficulty attends the proving it infinite. If you can form an idea that it is finite, you must have some idea of a boundary; then place yourself upon that boundary and enquire what exists beyond it. You can conceive nothing that can be considered analogous to the idea of an absence of matter. The man, who has no idea of the gaseous principle of matter, may fancy that there is an absence of matter between all the planets, and that there may be a distance or a circle beyond which there are no planets; but the latter point is as improbable, from the immense number at such immense distances as the telescope brings to our view, as the former is demonstrably untrue. The light we receive from different planets forms a proof that there is a communication of the matter of one planet with that of another, to an extent that exceeds description, and which to the human mind is therefore infinite. The motions of the planets form another proof, that there is a flow of gaseous matter from one to the other, which is the impulse to certain motions. These are all so many proofs to the human mind that matter is infinite. I have here proved that space is matter; and I challenge Mr. Humphrey to disprove the idea or to shew one single argument against it. Time is nothing more than the periodical revolutions of those same planets; and if we abstract our ideas from this point, and feign ourselves and all about us without motion, we could form no idea of time. Matter therefore has the same relation to eternity as to infinity: the word infinity embraces the word eternity and all our ideas of matter relate to both alike. To say beyond space forms a contradiction in terms and ideas, and such is the case to use the expression beyond time; and this one simple idea forms a proof both of the infinity and eternity of matter, as well to the past as the future. As every point in matter forms the centre of space, so every moment in time is the midway between the past and the future. I know not what better proof can be found for any thing,