i88o.] 
( 665 ) 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
*** The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements of fadts or 
opinions expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
of their respective authors. 
AN ANTI-MATERIALIST ARGUMENT. 
To the Editor of The Journal of Science . 
Sir, — P resuming that you do not objedt to a brief and temperate 
criticism on views advanced in your Journal, I venture to offer a 
remark on a passage in your September number. The Bishop 
of Carlisle is quoted as saying that a murderer “ has no doubt 
as to the fadt that the person who did the deed of darkness years 
ago is the same person as he who feels the pangs of remorse to- 
day. Every material part.cle in his body may have changed 
since then, but there is a continuity in his spiritual being out of 
which he cannot be argued.” Your contributor apparently agrees 
with the Bishop, for he adds : — “ In so far as this consideration 
is an evidence against what is commonly known as Materialism, 
I appreciate its value.” 
This argument, it seems, assumes that any impression made 
on a system of ever-changing material particles cannot be per- 
manent ; and that the continuity of consciousness and memory 
proves the existence of an underlying spiritual — at least non- 
material — being. 
But we find that impressions made upon our bodies, in spite 
of the continuous change of matter, may yet become permanent, 
the new particles being deposited in the old mould. To take an 
instance : — I have on my left wrist a small scar, the result of a 
mishap in my schoolboy days. Upwards of thirty years have 
since gone by, and every atom in my wrist has doubtless been 
replaced more than once. Still the scar remains ; as old matter 
is withdrawn new matter takes its place and formation. 
If the experience of our lives leaves impressions of any kind 
upon the brain, — though I by no means maintain that such im- 
pressions are scars, — why may not permanence be obtained in 
an analogous manner ? — I am, &c., 
A Lucretian. 
