ation
inseparably connected with it, to bridge the grave. Emotion, volition,
thought itself, are functions of the brain. When the brain is impaired,
they are impaired. When the brain is not, they are not. Everything
ceases with the dissolution of the material fabric; muscular activity
and mental activity perish alike. With the pronounced positive
statements on this point from many departments of modern Science we are
all familiar. The fatal verdict is recorded by a hundred hands and with
scarcely a shadow of qualification. "Unprejudiced philosophy is
compelled to reject the idea of an individual immortality and of a
personal continuance after death. With the decay and dissolution of its
material substratum, through which alone it has acquired a conscious
existence and become a person, and upon which it was dependent, the
spirit must cease to exist."[72] To the same effect Vogt: "Physiology
decides definitely and categorically against individual immortality, as
against any special existence of the soul. The soul does not enter the
f[oe]tus like the evil spirit into persons possessed, but is a product
of the development of the brain, just as muscular activity is a product
of muscular development, and secretion a product of glandular
development." After a careful review of the position of recent Science
with regard to the whole doctrine, Mr. Graham sums up thus: "Such is the
argument of Science, seemingly decisive against a future life. As we
listen to her array of syllogisms, our hearts die within us. The hopes
of men, placed in one scale to be weighed, seem to fly up against the
massive weight of her evidence, placed in the other. It seems as if all
our arguments were vain and unsubstantial, as if our future
expectations were the foolish dreams of children, as if there could not
be any other possible verdict arrived at upon the evidence brought
forward."[73]

Can we go on in the teeth of so real an obstruction? Has not our own
weapon turned against us, Science abolishing with authoritative hand the
very truth we are asking it to define?

What the philosopher has to throw into the other scale can be easily
indicated. Generally speaking, he demurs to the dogmatism of the
conclusion. That mind and brain react, that the mental and the
physiological processes are related, and very intimately related, is
beyond controversy. But how they are related, he submits, is still
altogether unknown. The correlation of mind and brain d