evolved, and every event, down to the least incident of our daily life, was therein rigidly and sufficiently determined, though no single act of intelligence or volition had ever wakened into life.

Materialistic writers lay great stress on the fact that decapitated frogs use their legs to rub off irritant acids from various parts of their body, and that in other animals when the spine has been severed, the lower limbs often respond to stimuli by appropriate movements, though all consciousness of the exciting impression must be absent. Such curious occurrences are undoubtedly worthy of interest and investigation, but we must ask reasonable men to cast their eyes back over the pages of history before they give in their belief to the dogma that the human mind is merely a concomitant aspect of necessary physical processes.14

"

14 Herbert states the argument with much force: It is clearly impossible for those most consistent authorities of science, who teach that consciousness is never the cause of physical change, to dispute that the actions, words, and gestures of every individual of the human race would have been exactly what they have been in the absence of mind; had mind been wanting, the same empires would have risen and fallen, the same battles would have been fought and won, the same literature, the same masterpieces of painting and music would have been produced, the same religious rites would have been performed, and the same indications of friendship and affection given. It is affirmed that the consequences just drawn are strictly necessary deductions from the materialistic conception of the universe consistently interpreted by physical science. Pushed to its proper logical issues, that conception leaves the universe without thought or feeling anywhere. Materialism must bear the burden of that incredible consequence." (Op. cit. p. 133.) The reader, however, should distinguish between Herbert's criticism of anti-spiritualist writers and his own positive doctrines. The latter are very unsatisfactory, and he often seems to confuse the proper teaching of physical science with inaccurate representations of it by materialistic authors.

4. Another absurd consequence of all forms of Materialism, already noticed in dealing with a previous question,15 can only be recalled to the student's recollection here. What precisely is the meaning of the statement that the human mind is merely an "aspect" or "phase" of a neural process, if the external world-including the nervous system-is itself nothing but a cluster of muscular feelings and ideas of such feelings? What exactly is the "subjective side" of a cerebral tremor, if, as Dr. Bain, Mill, and all consistent sensationalists affirm, the doctrine which supposes a "material world, in the first instance detached from perception, and, afterwards, coming into perception by operating upon the mind, involves a contradiction ? "16

99 66

5. Finally, the entire vocabulary used in the exposition of the theory, is an ingenious collection of nonsensical or sophistical terms. Hyphens, ambiguous ephithets, and cloudy metaphorical language are profusely employed in pretended explanations of facts of which no real account is given. What idea is really conveyed to the mind by such words as "double-aspect," "mind-stuff," "two-sided cause, subjective and objective sides of the same fact," "undivided twins," "double-faced unity"? We know what is meant by "stuff" when we talk of the materials out of which a table or a suit of clothes is made, but the word becomes absolutely unmeaning when spoken of an intellectual idea, like that of Being, or of the simple cognitive act of self-consciousness. "Double-aspect" signifies, or 15 Pp. 106, 107. 16 Dr. Bain, Mental Science, p. 198.

FF

ought to signify, two views or points of viewing what is known to be one and the same thing; but here we have two sets of facts or things "differing by a difference that transcends all other differences." Surely, then, to speak of the unextended mind and the material brain as "aspects" of the same fact, is merely a childish attempt to deceive ourselves with half-understood words.

Similarly, the terms, "objective side of a feeling " and "subjective side of a nervous current," when intended to be taken as a philosophical explanation, and not as mere metaphorical phrases expressive of ignorance, are a dishonest abuse of language. "The expression, 'a two-sided cause,' is one of those figures of speech which are the crutches of Metaphysics, and enable halting theories to make progress. We find the same difficulty in realizing in our mind the conception of a two-sided cause as we have in realizing a blue sound or a three-sided motion." 17 A cause is defined in Dr. Bain's own work, as "the entire aggregate of conditions or circumstances requisite to the production of the effect." 18 But if mental states form part of the aggregate of conditions required to effect a given movement, then mind is no longer a mere "aspect" of physical processes: it is a really efficient agent which occasionally "ruptures the nervous continuity," and Mr. Bain's doctrine, in company with all other forms of materialistic monism, at once falls to the ground. If mental states do not 17 Cf. M. Guthrie, On Mr. Spencer's Unification of Knowledge, p. 248. 18 Inductive Logic, p. 19.

co-operate in the production of changes, then they must not be described as part-causes or the "side" of a cause, without self-contradiction.

So much for the highest development of the anti-spiritualist creed in the hands of its ablest advocates at the present day. Its claims to acceptance are its simplicity, its intelligibility, its consistency; in a word, its scientific character. Avoiding the dualism inherent in every spiritualist theory, resting on the rock of experience, and assuming nothing without rigid proof, it professes to give an adequate and satisfactory account of both moral and physical worlds by means of a single principle. Reflexion on the considerations which we have here briefly indicated will, we believe, lead towards an accurate estimate of the extent to which its promises have been fulfilled. There may be difficulties attached to the doctrine of a spiritual principle distinct from the body. Our faculties are finite, and there will always remain in our present existence a large residue of unsolved problems. But when the true nature of the best and most popular alternative theory is clearly apprehended, when its real character is fairly grasped by the unprejudiced mind, we have little doubt as to what must be the decision.

Readings. Some very acute criticism of recent forms of Materialism is to be found in Herbert's Modern Realism Examined, §§ 7-13. and 16-19. M. Guthrie's work, On Mr. Spencer's Unification of Knowledge, c. iv. § 3, contains good remarks on the same subject. Cf. also Ladd, op. cit. Pt. III. c. iii. §§ 15-24, and c. iv. §§ 11-15, as well as the places referred to in last chapter. Chapter ix. of Mr. Mallock's work, Is Life Worth Living? exposes with much skill the consequences of the Positivist doctrine, and the inconsistency of its advocates.

CHAPTER XXIII.

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

So far we have proved in this Second Part of Psychology, that the human mind is a simple, spiritual, substantial principle. These truths, though of interest in themselves, derive their chief importance from their bearing on the question of a future life. It is clearly perceived that if the immateriality of the soul be once established, a scheme of future rewards and punishments is a corollary which cannot be refuted. Consequently, the most violent Psychology and the most desperate Logic are pressed into the service of Materialism. The great poet of the school, Lucretius, openly confessed that the aim of this philosophy is to relieve men from anxiety regarding their condition after death, and the more candid of modern disciples, such as Vogt and Büchner, scarcely conceal their agreement with this view.

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.-Immortality is that attribute in virtue of which a being is free from death. By death is understood the cessation of life in living things. Such cessation of life might conceivably be brought about by either of two causes,—