ON IMMOETALITY: COUNTERTHESIS. 193 



indefinite, uncertain, unsubstantial, and little consoling 

 at the best. And this may be true to an extent ; still, it 

 is not to the point. The question is not what we should 

 like in the future, but what may possibly lie before us, 

 what is the range of possibilities, and amongst these if 

 there be any ground of reason, any likelihood that one 

 thing rather than another should befall us. It may be 

 said, too, that the doctrine is the old one of transmigra- 

 tion of Buddha and Pythagoras. Yes ; in some respects, 

 but not in all; for the transmigration here suggested 

 may not only be into another consciousness, but also 

 into something unconscious a state to be carefully dis- 

 tinguished, however, from the utter non-being and 

 imaginary annihilation of the materialist. But, on the 

 whole, the doctrine is as little palatable as consoling, it 

 will be said. Nevertheless, it contains a truth omitted 

 alike in the dogmatism of science and in the dogmatism 

 of theology. The existence here suggested is possible, 

 likely, certain, while the annihilation of science is not 

 possible ; and the more express and definite pictures of 

 theology will never be realized, there being seemingly no 

 provision made for them in the economy of things. As 

 to the prospect before us being unpalatable, it must be 

 repeated that unpleasant existence may be possible here- 

 after as now; but there are also chances of something 

 better than the present, and our hopes lie in this 

 direction. Rationality and justice will 'rule there as 

 here, and likely in higher degree ; nay, even good- 

 ness, here evidently at work though shrouded, and 

 evidently progressing though hindered, may be mani- 

 fested in more unstinted measure; and fortified with 

 these reflections, we may still front the future which 

 none can avoid, with less fears than our fathers, and if 

 not, on the other hand, with their firm faith and 



o 



