that its denial would be more unreasonable than the denial, for instance, of the persistence of force. Science speaks decisively only of the things within the realm of experience; it does not speak of what, under laws unknown to us, may yet come to pass. Whether a miracle will ever happen is outside of all human experience and, therefore, not a question of science; whether a miracle has happened, is within the realm of experience, and therefore, a proper question of science. In answer to the question whether or not a miracle has ever happened, the scientific world undoubtedly replies that no evidence in support of a miracle has ever been adduced which is not with more reason rejected than accepted. In other words, the scientific mind can explain the alleged miracles on natural grounds with much less difficulty than it can believe in the mutability of God, or, which is the same, the variability of the laws of nature. Nor does the value of the Christian Church depend on the resurrection of Christ from the dead, or on the reality of any other miracle. Should you say that St. Paul asserts the contrary, I would ask how do you know St. Paul asserted what he is said to have asserted? and, if in truth he did assert what he is said to have asserted, how do you know he was not mistaken?

Whether or not one accepts the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead, he will not deny that in Christ there was seen the fruit of countless years of sowing and cultivating, the realisation of human hopes, the embodiment of human visions. As a well of water in a dry land, so was he refreshing to his age, and so shall he be to every age. Standing forth a light in mental darkness, a mind burning

with love for purity and truth, a soul beating in unison with God, he was indeed a living soul in a dead world; among those who had long since been buried, a resurrection from the dead; and in this sense may it be truly said we all believe in a resurrected life. Thus while for myself I have never denied, nor do I now deny, the bodily resurrection of Christ; I am yet glad to say that my faith in the Christian religion does not depend on imaginary quantities, or supposable factors; I have faith in it because it is natural, true to nature, true to reason, true to man,— the highest expression of the soul's development in all those things to which religion relates.

But with reference to miracles, science says: 66 'We have given a few exceptional instances attested by evidence not of a character to warrant belief in any facts in the smallest The miracles of the New Testa

degree improbable . . ment have no claim whatever to the character of historical facts and are wholly invalid as evidence. The evidence for miracles when dispassionately examined is altogether insufficient to establish even an ordinary event."

If, as we find, the proof for the resurrection of Christ from the dead is thus declared insufficient by so many competent authorities to establish it beyond doubt, we must be pardoned for not attempting to prove the immortality of the soul by referring to the many other alleged resurrections mentioned by Plato, Pliny, Papias, St. Augustine, and others.

We now pass on to the examination of the next thing adduced in proof of the immortality of the soul, —

(II): THE APPEARANCE OF GHOSTS:

That the spirits of the dead return to visit their old abodes, has been almost a universal belief; and to-day the same belief prevails among the masses. There are, however, some exceptions to this general belief. For example, the Arafuras do not believe either in ghosts or a future state. I think no one will doubt the truth of this assertion, that if the appearance even of one person who had died or whose body had been destroyed, could be substantiated; there could no longer exist any doubt of the soul's immortality, in the breast of him to whom such proof was given. But notwithstanding the many ghost-stories I have heard, I am sorry to say I have never known a person profess to have seen a ghost, whose judgment I could rely on in the matter. The persons who have most professed to have seen, and to be most intimate with, ghosts, are ministers or priests; but owing to their credulity, superstition, and selfinterest, their testimony is altogether unsatisfactory, and inadmissible. A person with a scientific turn of mind, is never troubled with ghosts, nor does he find much difficulty in accounting for the many alleged ghost-appearances on natural grounds. As a person becomes more and more educated, he has less and less faith in ghosts, and finally assumes the position of the scientific world, which does not admit that the appearance of a spirit from the dead, has in any case ever been satisfactorily substantiated. We cannot, therefore, adduce in proof of the immortality of the soul the alleged, but unsubstantiated, appearances of ghosts.

(III): SPIRIT-RAPPINGS:

If the professions of spiritualists, the pretensions of spiritualism, could be proved, it would of course follow that there is another world where those who have departed this life, continue to dwell. I would to God I could give you any conclusive proof of the pretensions of spiritualism; but I am obliged to say I cannot. I have sought such proof for myself; but the more I have sought such proof, the further have I found myself from the object of my search. I am unable to have any belief on this subject different from that of the scientific world in general. While I believe there are sufficient grounds for accepting those principles of spiritualism which are common to every creed which teaches the immortality of the soul, I yet concur in the opinion of the scientific world that we have no satisfactory proof whatever for the peculiar teachings of spiritualism; and therefore I assert that the unsubstantiated claims of spiritualism cannot be adduced in proof of the immortality of the soul. After this brief examination of the alleged resurrections, ghost-appearances, spirit-rappings, etc., we are forced to admit that in these allegations we find no conclusive proof to the contrary that the creed of the Arafuras, which asserts that after you are dead that is the end of you, is not after-all the truth. Death, therefore, now as always. stands the one insurmountable barrier to any certain knowledge of the existence of the soul after death. Says Mill: "There is, therefore, no assurance whatever of a life after death. But to any one who feels it conducive either to his

a possibility, there is no hindrance to his indulging that hope." (Essays on Religion).

(b): THE NATURE OF MAN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE ANIMAL-WORLD

IN GENERAL:

I: PHYSIOLOGICAL:

Man is a member of the sub-genus vertebrata, a division of animals having a more or less developed spinal column; and of the class mammalia, animals distinguished by the fact that they suckle their young; and of the sub-class monodelphia, animals distinguished by the fact that the females of this sub-class have but one uterus. This sub-class, under which man falls, is divided by Huxley into eleven orders according to the features of the placenta:

(1): The Primates,

(2): The Insectivora,

(3): The Cheiroptera,

(4): The Rodentia, (5): The Carnivora,

(6): The Proboscidæ, (7): The Hyracoidæ,

(8): The Ungulata,

(9): The Cetacea, (10): The Sirenia,

(11): The Edetata.

The Primates, under which man falls, are divided by the

same eminent authority into three sub-orders:

(1): The Anthropidæ,

(2) The Simiadæ,