REV. A. K. WHATELY, D.D., ON IMMORTALITY. 17 



I maintain that the Christian self-consciousness has — to use a 

 term which I fear may arouse prejudice — a strictly metaphysical 

 significance — that this mistaking of mere psychic continuity for 

 vital continuity arises from the failure to make our Christian 

 consciousness central and determinative. All we who believe 

 that thought is the servant of experience, must see that we do 

 not betray our highest experiences by judging them in the light 

 of lower categories of thought, formed to work on lower ranges 

 of life. 



It is only possible to deal very rapidly with a great rival 

 standpoint, essentially rationalistic in the strict sense of the 

 term, I mean the constructive monistic Idealism, associated with 

 names of Green, tlie two Cairds, Bosanquet, and others. I 

 will take, as typical. Dr. Bosanquet's recent Gifford Lectures on 

 " The Principle of Individuality and A^alue." It may be possible 

 to criticize its main position in such a manner that we may be 

 able to grasp more hrmly the positive view which I am main- 

 taining, and secure our possession of a standard which may 

 disclose the one-sidedness of other systems, partly though not 

 wholly dissimilar, which we cannot now pass in review. 



The modern Constructive Idealist ardently vindicates those 

 very principles which his system is supposed to deny. Individ- 

 uality, Treedom, the objectivity of nature, the real existence of 

 things, the finality of distinctions : all this is declared to be 

 embraced in the mighty sweep of his Absolute, and there 

 preserved — transmuted but not obliterated. Personally, I hold 

 that the prima facie view of his Absolute is the truer to logic : 

 that these pivotal ideas, so vital both in Eeligion and in Common 

 Sense, are robbed of their very essence in the monist's attempt 

 to exalt them : — " Freedom . . . dying while they shout her 

 name." 



But the special idea that concerns us here is that of Individ- 

 uality. This is just that central unit of reflection that has always 

 been asserted against Monism : but what are we to say when we 

 find writers like Eoyce and Bosanquet proclaiming it as the 

 very core of their system ? What ,if the Absolute is just 

 precisely the " Individual of Individuals " ? But this need not 

 silence us. We can enquire whether Individuality has not 

 proved safe for the absolutist to handle, only because its fangs 

 have first been drawn. 



I lay stress on this because if we can vindicate the true idea 

 of the individual, I am sure that the question of immortality 

 has been practically settled. If we are units of reality, 



c 



