REV. JAMES MARTINEAU AND BELFAST ADDRESS. 243 



as to him, not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed 

 like one of these. 



I have spoken above as if the assumption of a 

 soul would save Mr. Martineau from the inconsistency 

 of crediting pure matter with the astonishing building 

 power displayed in crystals and trees. This, however, 

 would not be the necessary result ; for it would remain 

 to be proved that the soul assumed is not itself matter. 

 When a boy I learnt from Dr. Watts that the souls of 

 conscious brutes are mere matter. And the man who 

 would claim for matter the human soul itself, would 

 find himself in very orthodox company. ' All that is 

 created,' says Fauste, a famous French bishop of the 

 fifth century, ' is matter. The soul occupies a place ; 

 it is enclosed in a body ; it quits the body at death, 

 and returns to it at the resurrection, as in the case of 

 Lazarus ; the distinction between Hell and Heaven, 

 between eternal pleasures and eternal pains, proves that, 

 even after death, souls occupy a place and are corporeal. 

 Grod only is incorporeal.' Tertullian, moreover, was 

 quite a physicist in the definiteness of his conceptions 

 regarding the soul. * The materiality of the soul,' he 

 says, ' is evident from the evangelists. A human soul 

 is there expressly pictured as suffering in hell ; it is 

 placed in the middle of a flame, its tongue feels a 

 cruel agony, and it implores a drop of water at the 

 hands of a happier soul. Wanting materiality,' adds 

 Tertullian, ' all this would be without meaning.' * 



1 The foregoing extracts, which M. Alglave recently brought to 

 light for the benefit of the Bishop of Orleans, are taken from the 

 sixth Lecture of the ' Cours d'Histoire Moderne ' of that most 

 orthodox of statesmen, M. Guizot. ' I could multiply,' continues M. 

 Guizot, 'these citations to infinity, and they prove that in the first 

 centuries of our era the materiality of the soul was an opinion not 

 only permitted, but dominant.' Dr. Moriarty, and the synod which 

 be recently addressed, obviously forget their own antecedents, 



