231 
has used is not altogether borne out. He says the body changes its atoms 
continually, so that every man has an entirely new set of atoms in his body 
every seven years, and then he goes on to argue that since man, in 30, 40, or 
50 years, has had bodies composed of different atoms, while the soul has 
continued to exist without change, therefore the soul cannot be destroyed, 
but must have an existence elsewhere when the body perishes. Now that 
does not seem to me to be conclusive, because, though the atoms of which 
the body is formed change, yet when one set is taken away it is replaced 
by similar atoms.* It does, not, therefore, follow that the soul cannot 
undergo any change or suffer any diminution of life, so to speak, when it 
goes into perhaps a totally different form of organization. The argu- 
ments of Mr. McDougall are similar to many I have heard and read. You 
will recollect Plato’s statement that the soul is a simple uncompounded 
substance ; but whether that affects the proof or not is another question, 
and certainly it is one of those statements which we have not the slightest 
scientific grounds for making. Another objection which strikes me is this, 
and I do not state it as my own objection, but as one which has occurred to 
my mind, and on which perhaps Mr. McDougall in his reply may throw 
some light. The objection is this, that the arguments brought forward in 
support of the immortality of the soul of man would hold good of the 
immortality of the soul of the lower animals. Mr. McDougall talks of man’s 
various feelings, thoughts, and affections ; but, in a lower degree, similar 
things may be said of the lower animals. They have memory, and they 
can love and hate ; so that if such arguments are to hold good in man’s case, 
may they not also hold good in the case of the lower animals. I have seen 
this same objection urged with reference to the views of Bishop Butler and 
others, and I only advance it now in order that Mr. McDougall may deal 
with it when he comes to address us again. 
Mr. L. Dibden.— Butler says that that may be true of the lower animals. t 
Rev. J. W. Buckley. — The question depends very much upon this — 
whether or no we have any revelation upon the point. Will not somebody 
undertake to show that, whatever science may do with reference to the 
power of matter, we are driven to this conclusion, that we must have a 
revelation upon the subject. Let science do all that is in its power : still 
reason says that there is a Power immensely above matter ; and we are 
driven to the conclusion, that we must have a revelation. We may argue 
that we have that already ; but we must not assume it here. We believe it 
clearly and distinctly, without any doubt or hesitation ; but I should like to 
see a logical argument put forward which would show that, let science do 
what it will, there is a Supreme Power over all, and that that Supreme Power 
must be the subject of revelation to us before we can take cognizance of it. 
Mr. McDougall. — In replying to the discussion which has been raised 
* Still they' are changed. — Ed. 
t But Butler can scarce be said to admit it.— Ed. 
R 
VOL. X. 
