484 
Analyses of Books . 
[August, 
the result of organisation and dependent for its duration on the 
duration of conditions, or whether it be in itself capable of self- 
existence,” he leaves every man to his own opinion. Yet his 
own view is evidently against our continuance after death. He 
considers that “ modern research settles the point,” and quotes 
from Professor Owen the didlum that “ philosophy does not re- 
cognise an immortal entity, mental principle, or soul.” Amongst 
his arguments against the existence of a soul in man there is one, 
singularly feeble. He quotes from Darwin’s “ Descent of Man” 
the passage : — “ In a series of forms graduating insensibly from 
some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be im- 
possible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘ man’ ought 
to be used and he adds, “ until that is settled I presume we can- 
not fix on any definite point when man gets his soul.” But this 
argument implies that the lower animals have no souls — an 
assumption which has no better basis than the “ sic volo, sic 
jubeo ” of Mrs. Grundy. We hold that the very same evidence 
which is urged in behalf of the existence of a soul in man, and of 
his continuance hereafter applies to the lower animals also, and 
that the difficulties encountered in either case are precisely 
similar. 
It may seem strange that Mr. Bray, holding the opinions con- 
cerning the soul which he evidently does, should tell us that, 
“ mind is not a mode of adtion or motion, it is an entity itself; 
it is indestrudlible.” Again, “ I know that it is the orthodox 
opinion among men of science that thought cannot exist without 
brain, but thought is not a motion of the brain or a mere mode 
of adtion at all, and it must exist as force after the movement of 
the brain ceases, and if so the question is, what becomes of it ?” 
Concerning spiritual manifestations the author declares that 
he has “ seen more than Science at present credits.” Still he 
pronounces “ Spiritualism a nervous epidemic, based on powers 
of the mind at present unknown.” 
He is a zealous phrenologist, and to us at least he seems to 
attach a much greater importance to the now obsolescent doc- 
trines of Gall and his followers than they would merit even if 
demonstrably true. To do him justice, however, Mr. Bray with- 
draws one of the assertions of the generality of phrenologists 
which 'has proved a fatal objection to their system. They speak 
in their classifications of certain faculties or sentiments, such as 
veneration, benevolence, &c., peculiar to man. The observant 
naturalist clearly traces the workings of these faculties in the ape, 
the dog, the elephant, &c., and he therefore justly rejedts a 
system so glaringly at issue with fadts. But our author concedes 
the existence of these faculties in the lower animals. He 
writes : — “ It is impossible to affirm that brutes have no con- 
science or sense of right and wrong; or that they have no 
veneration, that is respedt or reverence, or no benevolence ; or 
that they do not reason.” Here there is between him and our- 
