12 REV. A. R. WHATELY^ ON IMMORTALITY. 



consciousness, and lends itself to a denial of personal continuation 

 after death. So, on the other hand, I believe it could be shown 

 that the Christian religion not merely proclaims immortality, 

 but so adjusts the focus of self -consciousness as to bring about 

 its inward realization. We shall be able, I hope, to glance at 

 one aspect of this most interesting question before it is necessary 

 to close.* But the main point at present is that intellectual 

 coherence, not merely mystic apprehension, is necessary for the 

 stable and inward possession of an idea. The doctrine of 

 Immortality, if it is really to hold us, mnst take its necessary 

 place in the whole system of our thought. Then no one can 

 pretend that it is a mere feeling, even though its roots lie deeper 

 than the discursive intellect. Secondly, the intellect can rule 

 out imperfect theories. There are many philosophic conceptions 

 of personality which are untrue to the fullness of what we mean 

 when in ordinary intercourse we say, I," " he," or " you." 



Is this the condemnation of Philosophy ? Most assuredly 

 not. A popular error prevails, that Philosophy is essentially 

 abstract and seeks to transcend experience. In truth, its proper 

 aim is to interpret and to deepen experience. Any philosophy 

 that fails to do this, fails as a philosophy, and only Philosophy can 

 show it its mistakes. Empirical and would-be scientific 

 explanations of first principles offend in this way just as much 

 as Idealism. 



Pollowing up this second line of argument it may be well to 

 enquire why the significance of personality so readily escapes 

 reflection when we try to reflect upon it. We may divide the 

 theories of the soul into two main divisions, the empirical and 

 the idealistic. 



Now the word " empirical " would strictly include that direct 

 experience of a deathless selfhood which I have maintained to 

 be the positive basis upon which our belief in immortality 

 should rest. Professor Eoyce has said that Mysticism is 

 Empiricism carried to the furthest point. This is true, strictly 

 speaking, but it is just w^ien one carries a principle to its 

 furthest point that it becomes transformed. Empiricism ordin- 

 arily means, not the actual experience of the object we want 

 to understand, but inferences from, or combinations of, other 

 experiences. So the " empirical self " is not the self ex- 

 perienced as such, but the self as supposed to be made up of 

 a succession of psychic states. Hume treated these states as 



* See paragraph near top of p. 20. 



