428 
his present one. One feature in Mr. English’s paper is that it contains so 
much controvertible matter ; and I hope Dr. Irons and others will take up 
various of its points in subsequent essays. In a general paper of this kind, 
where the author is acting on the defensive against the attacks of others — 
and this Institute, as Dr. Irons has pointed out, is really a defensive Society, 
— the writer is not exactly able to take his own line always. It is not like 
writing an abstract paper on moral responsibility, such as we shall have from 
Dr. Irons shortly, and in which the subject is treated per se, partaking more 
of the nature of a formal abstract treatise. On the contrary, this paper is 
written, one may almost say, in reply to various public writers who have 
treated of the subjects quite as discursively as Mr. English has done. I must 
say so much in defence of the paper, which I think it would not have been 
at all right in us to have rejected ; indeed, for my own part, I should have 
been content to have taken the essay blindfold from Mr. English, because of 
the great value of his former paper on miracles, although I was his principal 
critic and opponent upon that occasion. — Now I come to the paper itself ; 
and here I am going to speak quite freely, as I am sure Mr. English 
will expect. He will have the right of sending us a written reply, as 
he is non-resident. He would have been present to-night if he could 
have come, but he was unable, from other engagements, to be with us. 
However, he sent us a very valuable written reply on a former occa- 
sion, and I have no doubt he will do so now. In dealing with the 
paper, I am led first to the remarks which are made on Professor Tyndall ; 
and here I think Mr. English, in his zeal for the very cause which Dr. Irons 
has advocated, has somewhat misapprehended Professor Tyndall’s meaning. He 
seems to consider that Professor Tyndall has said, that the connection between 
soul and body is not necessary. Now, I am quite sure Professor Tyndall 
does not think that, and, indeed, that is not what he has said. What Pro- 
fessor Tyndall says is : — “ Associated with this wonderful mechanism of the 
animal body, we have phenomena no less certain than those of physics ; be- 
tween which and this mechanism we discover no necessary connection. A 
man, for example, can say, I feel , I think, I love.” Professor Tyndall is not, 
then, speaking of the connection between soul and body, but of the connec- 
tion between certain actions of the mind or soul and the body, such as are 
expressed by the words, “ I feel,” “ I think.” Then Professor Tyndall goes 
on to ask, “ But how does consciousness infuse itself into the problem ? ” and 
Mr. English admits, in the words of the Professor, “ that the ‘ problem of the 
connection of body and soul is as insoluble in its modern phase as it was in 
the pre-historic ages.’ ” By “ insoluble,” I suppose, is meant “ insolvable,” — 
as a problem is not like sugar or salt — it cannot be melted, it must be solved. 
Professor Tyndall may know a great deal about the opinions which were 
entertained in the pre-historic ages, though I am not aware that there is any 
record of them (laughter) ; but, at all events, Mr. English does not make 
that a point of dispute. But Mr. English asks, “ Why is the connection 
between body and soul severed by pain in so short a time, if that connection 
is not necessary in the eyes of science ? ” and I only refer to this to show 
