The object of the " Analogy " is not to prove the.truth of Revealed Religion, but tw rnnfirm it. by showing that there is no greater difficulty in the way of believing the Religion of Revelation, than in believing the Religion of Nature ; and, consequently, that no one who does not reject Natural Religion can consistently reject Revelation on the score of insufficient proof. Its argument is, " If, in spite of all difficulties, you believe the one, you must, in common fairness, and to be consistent, believe the other. If they come from the same God, there is an a-priori probability that they will each have the same or similar difficulties; and if, in spite of all its acknowledged difficulties, you are firmly persuaded of the truth of Natural Religion, you are bound to accept Revealed Religion, in spite of an equal amount of possible or actual objections that may be summoned up against it."The principle asserted in the Analogy is not new : Origen himself has observed, that " He who believes Scripture to have proceeded from the Author of Nature may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in the former as in the constitution of Nature." Bp. Butler carries out this principle by arguing that " He who denies the Scripture to be from God on account of these difficulties, may with equal justice deny that the world is the work of God ; and that if,»on the other hand, there is an Analogy between Natural and Revealed Religion, there is a strong presumption that they have the same author."Now it will at once be clear that in such reasonings as those contained in this work, we are not to expect demonstrative evidence. In this, as in the matters of every-day life, we must be content with prohable evidence; which differs from the former in that it admits of degrees *. It is by its very nature imperfect, * The essential distinction between Demonstrative and Probable evidence is one of matter; that of the former being certain, and that of the latter B

No abstract

Jjtraimal lkn%Whether we are to live in a future state, as it is the most important question which can possibly be asked, so it is the most intelligible one which can be expressed in language. Yet strange perplexities have been raised about the meaning of that identity or sameness of person, which is implied in the notion of our living now and hereafter, or in any two successive moments. And the solution of these difficulties hath been stranger than the difficulties themselves. For, personal identity has been explained so by some, as to render the inquiry concerning a future life of no consequence at all to us the persons who are making it. And though few men can be misled by such subtleties; yet it may be proper to consider them a little.When it is asked loherein personal identity consists, the answer should be the same, as if it were asked wherein consists similitude, or equality; that all attempts to define would but perplex, it. Yet there is no difficulty at all in ascertaining the idea. For as, upon two triangles being compared or viewed together, there arises to the mind the idea of similitude; or upon twice two and four, the idea of equality: so likewise, upon comparing the consciousness of one's self, or one's own existence, in any two moments, there as immediately arises to the mind the idea of personal identity. And as the two former comparisons not only give us the ideas of similitude and equality; but also show us that two triangles are alike, and twice two and four are equal: so the latter comparison not only gives us the idea of personal identity, but also shows us the identity of ourselves in those two moments; the present, suppose, and that immediately past; or the present, and that a month, a year, or twenty years past. In 27« 317

The manganese nitrate complex, [Mn(NO3)3](-), was generated via electrospray ionization and studied by tandem quadrupole mass spectrometry. The complex is assumed to decompose into [MnO(NO3)2](-) by elimination of NO2(•). The [MnO(NO3)2](-) product undergoes elimination of NO2(•) to yield [MnO2(NO3)](-), or elimination of NO(•) to yield [MnO3(NO3)](-). Both [MnO2(NO3)](-) and [MnO3(NO3)](-) yield [MnO4](-) via the transfer of oxygen atoms from the remaining nitrate ligand. The mechanism of permanganate formation is interesting because it can be generated through two competing pathways, and because the singlet ground state is spin-forbidden from the high-spin sextet [Mn(NO3)3](-) precursor. Theory and experiment suggest [MnO2(NO3)](-) is the major intermediate leading to formation of [MnO4](-). Theoretical studies show crossing from the high-spin to low-spin surface upon neutral oxygen atom transfer from the nitrate ligand in [MnO2(NO3)](-) allows formation of (1)[MnO4](-). Relative energy differences for the formation of (1)[MnO4](-) and (1)[MnO3](-) predicted by theory agree with experiment.

chap. ii. GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 95 CHAPTER II.THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD BY REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS.That which makes the question concerning a future life to be of so great importance to us, is our capacity of happiness and misery. And that which makes the consideration of it to be of so great importance to us, is the supposition of our happiness and misery hereafter depending upon our actions here. Indeed, without this, curiosity could not but sometimes bring a subject, in which we may be so highly interested, to our thoughts; especially upon the mortality of others, or the near prospect of our own. But reasonable men would not take any further thought about hereafter, than what should happen thus occasionally to rise in their minds, if it were certain that our future interest no way depended upon our present behavior; whereas, on the contrary, if there be ground, either from analogy or any thing else, to think it does, then there is reason also for the most active thought and solicitude, to secure that interest; to behave so aa that we may escape that misery, and obtain that happiness, in another life, which we not only suppose ourselves capable of, but which we apprehend also is put in our own power. And whether there be ground for this last apprehension, certainly would deserve to be most seriously considered, were there no other proof of a future life and interest, than that presumptive one, which the foregoing observations amount to.In the present state, all which we enjoy, and a great part of what we suffer, is put in our own power. Pleasure and pain are the consequences of our actions; and we are endued by the Author of our nature with capacities of foreseeing these consequences. We find by experience that he does not so much as preserve our lives, exclusive of our own care and attention, to provide ourselves with, and to make use of, that sustenance, by which he has appointed our lives shall be preserved; and without which, he has appointed, they shall not be preserved. In general we foresee, that the external things, which are the objects of our various passions, can neither be obtained nor enjoyed, without exerting ourselves in such and such manners: but by