295 
was called psychical ; and then we come to something which was greater still, 
and that was spirit, or Buach — the immortal breath which must live for ever 
either in happiness or misery. The spirit was considered by the ancient 
philosophers as something invisible. This was shown when they made the 
Hebrew letter Teth and the Greek letter QrjTa stand for 9, which was 
the invisible number. Were Dr. Hitchman here, he would be able to 
explain whatever required explanation. 
Mr. James. — St. Paul has given a philosophical distinction from which we 
may fix i rvtvfia as one part of manhood, as another, and <ru>fxa as a 
third. I think we may take advantage of this distinction, although it has 
never been noticed by any other sacred writer. 
The Chairman. — I may say that this has been a very interesting discus- 
sion, and I am sure I am only expressing the general feeling when I state 
that it is to be regretted Sir Tilson Marsh speaks so seldom, for his remarks 
have been extremely interesting. There is only one point in reference to the 
question which has been raised that seems to me to have been overlooked by 
all the speakers, and it seems to some extent to reconcile the conflicting 
notions that have been expressed. In the account of the creation we are 
told that God breathed into man the breath of life, and as a consequence 
man became a living soul : there you have the two things intimately connected 
together. The discussion on this point has been well sustained, and I think 
it will form a very pregnant subject which may be treated specifically after- 
wards when we see the discussion in print. As regards the paper, I think 
that the author is wrong in attributing materialistic notions to anthropologists 
generally, and one of the things in his paper which astonished me most was 
that he should be running a- tilt at the anthropologists of London, Vienna, 
Paris, and Madrid, and the societies founded in connection with the London 
Society, more especially since he himself has founded an anthropological society 
in Liverpool. But the best proof that the anthropologists do not accept these 
notions, do not exclude religion from the data they take in arriving at con- 
clusions as to anthropological truth, is to be found in such evidence as is 
afforded by the book which I hold in my hand ; it was written by the late 
M. Boudin, who belonged to the Anthropological Society of Paris. The 
work begins by quoting Cicero, who very many centuries ago described 
man as a religious animal. But M. Boudin is in no way led astray by those 
false notions which confound all religions together. (Apparently Professor 
Huxley and some other of our modern anthropologists are exercising their 
ingenuity to confound them.) He actually argues that religion is not even an 
effect of the idiosyncrasies of a people, but that it is actually the cause of 
their rising-in other words— “ The religion of a people is the cause, and not 
the effect, of the civilization of the people or of its barbarism” — “ la religion 
d’un peuple est cause, non effet de sa civilisation ou de sa barbarie.” It is 
attempted by some anthropologists (it would be unfair to say that all anthro- 
pologists agree with these views) to make out that pantheism is peculiar to 
certain peoples, and that a belief in one God is peculiar to certain other 
races. This was refuted long ago, and by no less an authority than Voltaire, 
VOL. Y. Z 
