“It may easily be perceived that the _mind_ both sees and hears, and not those parts which are, so to speak, windows of the mind.” “Neither are we bodies; nor do I, while speaking this to thee, speak to thy body.” “Whatever is done by thy mind, is done by thee.” CICERO, Tusc. Disput. I. 20, 46 and 22, 52. “The mind of each man is the man; not that figure which may be pointed out with the finger.” CIC., de Rep. b. 6, s. 24.] [37] [Butler’s argument, if advanced for _proof_ would prove too much, not only as to brutes but as to man; for it would prove pre-existence. And this is really the tenet, (_i.e._ transmigration,) of those who arrive at the doctrine of immortality only by philosophy. Philosophy cannot establish the doctrine of a future state, nor can it afford any presumptions _against_ either a future or a pre-existent state. Nothing is gained by insisting that reason teaches the true doctrine of the soul; any more than there would be by insisting that by it we learned the doctrine of a trinity, or atonement. Philosophy does teach that He who can _create_, under infinite diversity of forms, can _sustain_ existence, in any mode he pleases. The reader who chooses to look further into the discussion as to the immortality of brutes, will find it spread out in POLIGNAC’S Anti-Lucretius, and still more in BAYLE’S Dictionary, under the articles PEREIRA, and RORARIUS. The topic is also discussed in DES CARTES on the Passions: BAXTER on The Nature of the Soul: HUME’S Essays, Essay 9: SEARCH’S Light of Nature: CHEYNE’S Philosophical Principles: WAGSTAFF on the Immortality of Brutes: EDWARDS’ Critical and Philosophical Exercitations: WATT’S Essays, Essay 9: COLLIBER’S Enquiry: LOCKE on the Understanding, b. 2, ch. ix.: DITTON on the Resurrection: WILLIS De Anima Brutæ.] [38] [It is as absurd to suppose that a brain thinks, as that an eye sees, or a finger feels. The eye no more sees, than the telescope or spectacles. If the _nerve_ be paralyzed, there is no vision, though the eye be perfect. A few words spoken or read, may at once deprive of sight, or knock a person down. The mind sometimes survives the body. Swift, utterly helpless from palsy, retained his faculties. In some, the body survives the mind. MORGAGNI, HALLER, BONNET, and others, have proved that there is no part of the brain, not even the pineal gland, which has not been found destroyed by disease, where there had been no hallucination of mind, nor any suspicion of such disease, during life.] [39] Pp. 84, 85. [40] [We are told by sceptics that “mind is the result of a curious and complicated organization.” A mere jumble of words! But were the mind material, there is no evidence that death would destroy it: for we do not see that death has any power over matter. The body remains the very same as it does in a swoon, till _chemical_ changes begin.]