[33] "The Physical Basis of Mind." Page 441.
[34] The late Bishop of Carlisle illustrates the independence of the Ego, by an allusion to moral feelings. "A murderer," he says, "is convicted twenty years after the offence had been committed, or he gives himself up after so many years, because his memory and his conscience make his life miserable. He has no doubt as to the fact that the person who did the deed of darkness years ago, is the same person as he who feels the pangs of remorse to-day. Every material particle in his body may have changed since then, but there is a continuity in his spiritual being out of which he cannot be argued, even if any ingenious sophist should attempt the task."—Nineteenth Century, March, 1880, p. 510.
[35] To those who may wish to pursue this subject further, I recommend a perusal of an essay on "Materialistic Physiology," in the Journal of Psychological Medicine for April, 1877. In this article, the writer, Dr. Winn, seems to share my views as to the paramount importance of boldly facing this matter, when he says:—
"The unphilosophical and extravagant dogma, that matter can think, is now so loudly and confidently asserted, and so widely spread by a numerous class of medical men and physiologists, both in this country and abroad, that the time has arrived when a doctrine so fallacious, and so fraught with danger to the best interests of society, should be fairly and carefully scrutinised. It is not by mere assertion, or the use of obscure and pedantic language, that such a theory can be established; and if it can be shown that the arguments on which it is based are shallow and speculative, words can scarcely be found too strong to censure the recklessness and folly of those who promulgate views so subversive of all morality and religion.
"The physicists have utterly failed to establish their position. They were asked to prove by inductive reasoning the truth of their theory, that the universe is the mere outcome of molecular force, and their defence has been clearly proved to be of the most evasive and inconclusive character.
"The doctrines of the modern school of materialistic physiology are permeating all classes of society, and it is these doctrines, based on the assumption that mind is a mere function of the brain—an assumption that, if true, would reduce man to the level of the beasts that perish—that we are offered as a substitute for the belief in the immateriality of the mind."
The essay from which the above quotations are taken is full of sound and logical reasoning, and the writer's position is not supported by mere theoretical statements, but by arguments drawn from well-accredited facts in anatomy and physiology.
[36] I strongly deprecate, as lamentably wrong and needless, the violent language sometimes used by writers on both sides of this great controversy of the origin of man. If the odium theologicum may have inspired some of the opponents of evolution, it is undeniable that there is strong evidence of an odium antitheologicum amongst not a few of the supporters of this doctrine, who indulge in abusive epithets, launching into personalities of a most objectionable kind; for instance, we are informed that "orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought; it learns not, neither can it forget." Now I protest against the attempt to obscure argument by appeals to the passions and to prejudice. Science and Theology should not be regarded as two opposing citadels, frowning defiance upon each other, but their votaries should look upon each other as co-labourers in the cause of truth, and they should welcome light and knowledge from whatever quarter it may come, being fully convinced that all systems and theories irreconcilable with truth, are built upon the sand, and must ultimately be swept away.
[37] One of our popular novelists, Sir Walter Besant, has philosophically said, "there is between the condition of Man and the Brute an interdependence which cannot but be recognised by every physician. So greatly has this connection affected some of the modern physicians, as to cause doubt in their minds whether there be any life at all hereafter; or if when the pulse ceases to beat, the whole man should become a dead and senseless lump of clay. In this they confuse the immortal soul with the perishable instruments of brain and body, through which in life it manifests its being and betrays its true nature, whether of good or evil."—Faith and Freedom.
[38] Cases like this would seem to illustrate the truth of the statement of that great philosopher, Sir Thomas Browne, when he says, "Thus it is observed that men sometimes, upon the hour of their departure, do speak and reason about themselves. For then the soul, being more freed from the ligaments of the body, begins to reason like herself, and to discourse in a strain above mortality."—Religio Medici, p. 208.