A MODERX "SYMPOSIUM." 



23 



these spiritual energies to be merely results of 

 the bodily organization, as the excitation of an 

 electric, current is the result of the juxtaposition 

 of certain material substances. If a bodiless be- 

 ing is Nothing, there can be no such thing as an 

 intrinsic or independent spiritual life ; and it is 

 difficult for ordinary miuds to attach any distinct 

 meaning to the declaration that the soul is "a 

 conscious unity of being," if that being depends 

 on an organization which is unquestionably dis- 

 cerptible, and of which (as Butler remarks) large 

 parts may be lost without affecting this conscious- 

 ness of personality. 



Now this is, after all, the only point worth 

 fighting about. Mr. Hutton has already said 

 with perfect truth that by " the soul " we mean 

 that " which lies at the bottom of the sense of 

 personal identity — the thread of the continuity 

 running through all our checkered life," and 

 which remains uubroken amid the constant flux 

 of change both in our material body, and in the 

 circumstances of our material life. This belief is 

 wholly independent of any "metaphysical hypoth- 

 esis" of modern "orthodoxy," whether it is, or 

 is not, rightly described as a "juggle of ideas," 

 and of any examination of the question (on which 

 Lord Blachford has touched) whether, if it seem 

 such to " those trained in positive habits of 

 thought," the fault lies in it or in them. I may 

 remark, in passing, that in this broad and simple 

 sense it certainly runs through the whole Bible, 

 and has much that is " akin to it in the Old Tes- 

 tament." For even in the darkest and most 

 shadowy ideas of the Sheol of the other world, 

 the belief in a true personal identity is taken ab- 

 solutely for granted ; and it is not a little curious 

 to notice how in the Book of Job the substitu- 

 tion for it of " an immortality in the race" (al- 

 though there not in the whole of humanity, but 

 simply in the tribe or family) is offered, and re- 

 jected as utterly insufficient to satisfy either the 

 speculation of the intellect or the moral demands 

 of the conscience. 1 Now it is not worth while to 

 protest against the caricature of this belief, as a 

 belief in "man plus a heterogeneous entity" 

 called the soul, which can be only intended as a 

 sarcasm. But we cannot acquiesce in any state- 

 ment which represents the belief in this imma- 

 terial and indivisible personality as resting simply 

 on the notion that it is needed to explain the 

 acts of the human organism. For, as a matter 

 of fact, those who believe in it conceive it to be 

 declared by a direct consciousness, the most 

 simple and ultimate of all acts of consciousness. 

 1 See Job xiv. 21,22. 



They hold this consciousness of a personal iden- 

 tity and individuality, unchanging amid mate- 

 rial change, to be embodied in all the language 

 and literature of man ; and they point to the 

 inconsistencies in the very words of those who 

 argue against it, as proofs that man cannot di- 

 vest himself of it. No doubt they believe that so 

 the acts of the organism are best explained, but 

 it is not on the necessity of such explanation that 

 they base their belief: and this fact separates 

 altogether their belief in the human soul, as an 

 immaterial entity, from those conceptions of a 

 soul, in animal, vegetable, even inorganic sub- 

 stances, with which Mr. Harrison insists on con- 

 founding it. Of the true character of animal 

 nature we know nothing (although we may con- 

 jecture much), just because we have not in regard 

 to it the direct consciousness which we have in 

 regard of our own nature. Accordingly, we need 

 not trouble our argument for a soul in man with 

 any speculation as to a true soul in the brute 

 creatures. 



In what relation this personality stands to the 

 particles which at any moment compose the body, 

 and which are certainly in a continual state of 

 flux, or to the law of structure which in living 

 beings, by some power to us unknown, assimilates 

 these particles, is a totally different question. I 

 fear that Mr. Harrison will be displeased with me 

 if I call it " a mystery." But, whatever future 

 advances of science may do for us in the matter — 

 and I hope they may do much — I am afraid I 

 must still say that this relation is a mystery, which 

 has been at different times imperfectly repre- 

 sented, both by formal theories and by metaphors, 

 all of which by the very nature of language are 

 connected with original physical conceptions. 

 Let it be granted freely that the progress of 

 modern physiological science has rendered ob- 

 solete the old idea that the various organs of 

 the body stand to the true personal being in a 

 purely instrumental relation, such us (for ex- 

 ample) is described by Butler in his "Analogy," 

 in the celebrated chapter on " The Future Life." 

 The power of physical influences acting upon the 

 body to affect the energies of thought and will 

 is unquestionable. The belief that the action of 

 all these energies is associated with the molecu- 

 lar change is, to say the least, highly probable. 

 And I may remark that Christianity has no quar- 

 rel with these discoveries of modern science ; for 

 its doctrine is that for the perfection of man's be- 

 ing a bodily organization is necessary, and that 

 the " intermediate state "is a state of suspense 

 and imperfection, out of which, at the word of 



