294 
although I have read it through, I do not completely understand it The 
reasoning seems obscure, and some of the sentences are too long. There is 
one point which has been raised this evening, namely, as to whether the 
mind is capable of action independent of its physical structure. I should 
say, we want evidence that it is ; at any rate I have never been able to ascer- 
tain distinctly whether such is the case. At the same time I should think 
that the will is in some degree independent of it. The only argument can 
bring from my own experience is this. One night at Oxford I was reading 
the second chapter of the Sixth Book of Aristotle’s Ethics, and I fell asleep 
in my easy-chair, and I then did during my sleep what I could not do when 
awake — I went through and analyzed the whole passage. This is a fact 
however it may be accounted for, but it seems to me, that certam portions of 
the brain continue asleep while one is dreaming ; this may impart extra power 
to those portions which are awake. But taking the whole of our mental phe- 
nomena, it seems to me that they are exerted through the medium of the 
brain This brings me to what has been said about the • T1 “ ancients 
held that vitality was inherent in the aud I find in the New Testament 
that the ivxr) is spoken of as an immortal principle But I consider - that 
we cannot possibly arrive at any essential knowledge of the actual forms 
human consciousness by analyzing the mere terms vised by “®evelatron, 
which I do not think was intended to give us any idea of what the soul con- 
sists of, hut simply to make us wise unto salvation. . . f 
Mr. Fuenival.— I quite agree that man is of a dual nature, consisting o 
body and soul. With regard to the distinction between reason and ms met, 
I believe that reason in man is only a fuller development of what is found 
in the lower animals. We have a key to the distinction between soul and 
spirit in what our Lord says :-“That which is born of the flesh is flesh 
and that which is born of the spirit is spirit” (St. John m. 6), where spin 
• s somethin* altogether distinct from the soul. If, as I believe the spirit be 
an emanation, I ‘quite agree with the assertion that it cannot he capable of 
sanctification, because it must be perfect in itself ; it is the spirit that sanc- 
tifies the man, and prepares him for a purer and a happier state of bem - 
Dr Dekdt.— With all due respect to the gentleman who was kind enou 0 h 
to a*ree with me with regard to the endowment of the brain by the Deity 1 
think he totally misconceives the opinion of the anthropologists He has made 
the sweeping assertion that they do not believe in immortality at alt He 
has taken his evidence from Carl Vogt, and perhaps from Professor Huxley 
and those who hold extreme opinions; but the opinion of anthropology „s 
generally by no means goes so far. . 
Dr Thoen.-As an old friend of Dr. Hitcliman I must beg pardon for in- 
truding when so abstruse a question as the duality or tri-umty of man s nature 
—whether he he possessed of soul and body or of soul, body, and spm 
discussed ; but I cannot forget St. Paul’s words, already ^ “ 
tainly the body is of the dust. It was said when Cam ^ Abel, The 
voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. Her , 
first, the manifestation of body; then, secondly, the manifestation whic 
