not forming a part of the divine scheme. At all
events, the result of this struggle, if struggle there be, is (so far as
we can observe) a system, complete and orderly, within the psychical
sphere as much as within the purely physical sphere. And in particular
the body is exactly fitted to the soul that is to inhabit it. We never
find the intellect of a Shakespeare in connexion with the facial angle of
a negro; bodies which resemble the bodies of their parents are connected
with souls between which a similar resemblance can be traced. If the
souls existed before birth, we must suppose those souls to be kept
waiting in a limbo of some kind till a body is prepared suitable for
their reception. We must suppose that among the waiting souls, one is
from time to time selected to be the offspring of such and such a
matrimonial union, so as to present (as it were) a colourable appearance
of being really the fruit of that union. Further, before birth the souls
must be steeped in the waters of Lethe, or something of the kind, so as
to rid them of all memory of their previous experiences. Such a
conception seems to {96} me to belong to the region of Mythology rather
than of sober philosophical thought. I do not deny that Mythology may
sometimes be a means of pictorially or symbolically envisaging truths to
which Philosophy vaguely points but which it cannot express in clearly
apprehensible detail. But such a Mythology as this seems to be
intellectually unmotived and unhelpful. It is not wanted to explain the
facts: there is nothing in our experience to suggest it, and much which
is _prima facie_ opposed to it. It really removes no single difficulty:
for one difficulty which it presents some appearance of removing, it
creates a dozen greater ones. It is a hypothesis which we shall do well
to dismiss as otiose.

(4) _Non-theistic Idealism_. Somewhat less unmotived, if we look upon it
from a merely intellectual point of view, is the theory of pre-existent
souls without a personal God. Many, if not most, of you probably possess
more or less acquaintance with the views of my friend, Dr. McTaggart. I
cannot here undertake a full exposition or criticism of one of the ablest
thinkers of our day--one of the very few English thinkers who is the
author of a truly original metaphysical system. I can only touch--and
that most inadequately--upon the particular side of it which directly
bears upon our present enquiry. Dr. McTagga