199 
and will test it by the Apostles’ Creed. “ Conceived by the Holy Ghost,” is part 
of its statement and is the foundation of Christianity. The Duke of Somerset 
has “ dealt with this ” part of the Creed by “ reason alone,” and rejected it, and 
my words in this paper, “ faith is not the product of reason,” are true enough 
here. But if so, Mr. Row’s views of reason, as a final arbiter in matters of 
religion, are proved to be untenable, and, I think, destructive of Christian 
dogma. 
Psyche, &c. — Mr. Graham says, truly enough, that God is represented as 
having Psyche. But he is also represented as having “ hands,” &c. I never 
meant that terms expressive of man’s nature were not applied to God, but 
that “Nephesh is never, like Neshamah and Ruach, applied to God” as His 
proper designation. Anthropomorphic representations of God abound in both 
Testaments ; but this is not the question. Again in saying that “the Church” 
adopted certain phrases, Mr. Graham objects “it is not the Church that gives 
us the Bible, but God.” I think the Church was called out in the person of 
Abraham with the set purpose of giving us the Bible. The Bible came to us 
through the Church most certainly. I had fully answered by anticipation 
what Mr. Graham says about the translation of Psyche, but, at the sug- 
gestion of the late Mr. Reddie, it was omitted, with matter deemed to be 
too theological. I will not ask to have reinstated any of this, but say 
that I am fully convinced that the passages referred to, when fairly ex- 
amined, do not militate against any position I have laid down. 
The Mortality of Psyche. — Mr. Titcomb thinks my views in regard to the 
soul dying need protesting against. They were held by several in the 
Primitive Church. It is a position that I lay no stress upon. I simply 
adopt it as the teaching, so far as I understand it, of the Holy Scriptures. 
No parable can be adduced to prove the contrary of the many plain passages 
I have referred to. Nor do I see any other “proofs ” that Mr. Titcomb has 
adduced, though he speaks as if there were such. There may be feeling with- 
out an “ ethical capacity ” most certainly, after death, as we know from the 
lower animals there is before death. Dives had feeling, after death, but not, 
I think, an “ ethical capacity ” for improvement. Our Lord, says St. Peter, 
went and preached to the spirits in prison, and, in answer to Mr. Titcomb’s 
question, if they had not an ethical capacity, how could preaching be “ of any 
use” to them? I reply, that supposing preaching to mean the declaration 
of pardon, what need of an ethical capacity for this to have effect ? In 
section 27 I say, though probation is over and improvement impossible, 
man may be pardoned; this is another and a different question,” which I 
express no opinion upon. The text “ What shall it profit a man, &c.,” is 
dealt with in section 11. Life here and life after the resurrection are 
contrasted. Both imply Psyche of course. The intermediate state is there 
passed over. Mr. Titcomb should have noticed my reasons for saying this. 
I say the intermediate state passed over in this passage does not imply the 
existence of Psyche, and I fail to see any attempt to answer this position. 
Mr. Titcomb quotes this text, but does not refer to my use of it, and the 
reasons given for not taking his view. 
R 2 
