THE BELFAST ADDKKSS. 165 



ing, if not profitable, to us all, to hear what he would 

 or could urge in opposition to the reasoning of the 

 Bishop. As a brief discussion of the point will enable 

 us to see the bearings of an important question, I will 

 here permit a disciple of Lucretius to try the strength 

 of the Bishop's position, and then allow the Bishop to 

 retaliate, with the view of rolling back, if he can, the 

 difficulty upon Lucretius. 



The argument might proceed in this fashion : 

 * Subjected to the test of mental presentation (Vor- 

 steilung), your views, most honoured prelate, would 

 offer to many minds a great, if not an insuperable, 

 difficulty. You speak of " living powers," " percipient 

 or perceiving powers," and " ourselves ; " but can you 

 form a mental picture of any of these, apart from the 

 organism through which it is supposed to act ? Test 

 yourself honestly, and see whether you possess any 

 faculty that would enable you to form such a conception. 

 The true self has a local habitation in each of us ; thus 

 localised, must it not possess a form ? If so, what 

 form? Have you ever for a moment realised it? 

 When a leg is amputated the body is divided into two 

 parts ; is the true self in both of them or in one ? 

 Thomas Aquinas might say in both ; but not you, for 

 you appeal to the consciousness associated with one of 

 the two parts, to prove that the other is foreign matter. 

 Is consciousness, then, a necessary element of the true 

 self ? If so, what do you say to. the case of the whole 

 body being deprived of consciousness ? If not, then on 

 what grounds do you deny any portion of the true self 

 to the severed limb? It seems very singular that 

 from the beginning to the end of your admirable book 

 (and no one admires its sober strength more than I do), 

 you never once mention the brain or nervous system. 

 You begin at one end of the body, and show that its 



