151 
leads to a denial of human immortality ? Our authors think not.” Now, of 
course, I am quite at one with them in not denying human immortality, but 
I say that, as far as science is concerned, the immortality of the soul affords 
no opportunity for investigation or experiment, properly so called, therefore 
a priori, it is impossible that the laws of science can either prove or dis- 
prove the immortality of the soul : and if this be so, we ought freely to 
admit that on scientific grounds we cannot deny the immortality of the 
soul, that being a matter to which the laws of science not only do not, but 
cannot apply. Therefore, instead of hailing this admission of the scientific 
possibility of the soul’s immortality as a present given by scientific men to 
religious peopld, I for one say that I do not like the present; it leads 
us wrong. That is the first defect ; then there comes another. I will 
not call it a defect, but a wrong argument, calculated to lead us astray. 
Our authors give us an interesting resume of old opinions as to im- 
mortality, and Dr. Irons represents them as saying — and as far as my 
memory goes he is quite correct— “As to some ‘ Unseen Universe ’ there 
has been almost a consensus of belief”; but that almost universal “con- 
sensus” has never, with one exception, been grounded on principles of 
physical science. In the case of Plato it was merely a philosophic guess, 
groimded on the probabilities of observation and philosophical research, 
and we all know that the highest conclusion Plato came to was that, after 
all, he was not quite certain whether there was immortality or not. In his 
case it was, as I have said, a mere philosophic guess. But in other cases 
it may have been a religious conviction, as it was in the case of Job, not 
grounded on investigation, but grounded either on intuition, or inspired 
perception. But these writers have not told us, and they could not do so, 
that in any one single instance in ancient times the belief in immor- 
tality was grounded on the application of the principles of science to the 
unseen world. The one exception, which I do not wish to dwell upon, is to 
be found in the philosophy of Swedenborg ; but I do not profess to under- 
stand that learned but obscure writer : as far however, as I do under- 
stand him, it seems to me that he reasons on material principles for a 
belief in immortality. I only mention this because in fairness I did not 
wish to say that there was no writer who grounded the hope of immortality 
on physical principles, for I think that Swedenborg did. I will here call 
attention to one more point. These writers take certain scientific terms, 
having certain technical meanings, and apply them to the unseen world 
and to the highest object in it, and then we are led to one of two alternatives, 
either God is not what we believe Him to be, or He has not done what 
He says He has done — I refer here to the arguments derived from the 
use of the words “infinite,” “absolute,” and “unconditioned,” which many 
apply to God. If you apply these terms in their strict technical meaning, 
you exclude God from the universe, from creation, from all relation to 
ourselves. If it were not that I am now dealing with a very grave subject, 
I should almost call it an argumentum absurdum. If it be true that God 
