know anything definite about these matters; we can only believe." What then has philosophy to say about the possibility of the Christian doctrine? Can we conceive that two personalities, or what appear to be such, can become one, or can be one from the beginning, through identity of purpose, thought and will,—that is to say, through community of spiritual attitude?

II. On the subject of Personality, indeed, philosophy has had much to say, though it has hardly succeeded even yet in saying anything definite. The meaning of Personality, in truth, has been the problem on which philosophy has subsisted from the very commencement. The relation of the One to the Many and to the All was the centre from which all Greek philosophical discussion radiated, the relations of the Limited to the Unlimited and of Form to Matter being only corollaries thereto. Oriental speculation, with its dreams of metempsychosis, emanation and absorption, has been occupied with nothing else, though Personality and even individuality it has long since surrendered. In Modern Europe, in spite of the invasion of what was once thought the domain of pure philosophy by psychology and biology, the question of the Absolute, so hotly debated in Germany a century ago, and since then with hardly less vigour in England, still holds the key of the position to be won; and the question of the Absolute is nothing but the question of Personality; of the nature of our consciousness, and its relation to the Universe and to the origin of the Universe, if any origin it can be said to have.

It is obvious that we cannot attempt an adequate discussion of this vast subject here, although every philosophical investigation must lead to its margin. On the other hand, it is equally impossible, especially

for us, to treat it as if it did not exist. As a matter of fact, though the views held on the question at different times are practically innumerable, there are only three types of answer which have any serious claim to be considered at present. What is Personality? The first answer is that which we gather in the main from Transcendentalism. Most people hold that our personality is our feeling of separateness, in thought and action and initiative, from other people. But this feeling, like all our other feelings, is a part of our consciousness in general. Transcendentalism holds that the consciousness of each individual is a fragment of a Universal Consciousness, a Spiritual Principle, which is eternal. There can only be, for all thinking things, one Consciousness, just as there can only be, for all living things, one Life. Even our own thought is freed from the limitations of time and space; it can move backwards or forwards in either as it likes; how much more the Universal Thought? This Universal Thought, this Spiritual Principle, is the only existence that can properly be called real; for all material things exist only for thought; and all forms and modes of thought are but fragments of the Universal Thought. Hence, Personality, it would seem, cannot properly be called real; it cannot be predicated of the Absolute; and as a consciousness of distinctness, it must be swallowed up in the Universal Consciousness, in which all separate existence is swept away.

If this were true, Personality would at once retire to a position of very secondary importance; and, in addition to this, our whole view, not only of religion, but also of ethics, as a consideration of the facts of moral life which leads directly to the need of reconciliation for the divisions caused by wrong-doing, becomes

untenable. How can there be either reconciliation or division or even wrong-doing, if we are to agree that "all are but parts of one stupendous whole"? If we are to have no permanent and no independent existence of our own, even right and wrong will become only fleeting shadows. In the next place, if Personality is thus to be pushed aside, we cannot help suspecting that there is something wrong somewhere. We cannot get rid of Personality from our own consciousness; all our consciousness is consciousness of Personality; whatever else we are conscious of, we are always conscious of that; can it be a mere phase of thought, "staining the bright radiance of eternity"? The fault of what we have called the Transcendentalist view is that it has taken mental life in its lowest instead of in its highest terms. This Absolute Consciousness is, for most people, during the greater part of their lives, an abstraction and even an unreality. We cannot usefully consider consciousness without considering the content of consciousness. Consciousness does not, and we may even say cannot, exist apart from emotion, reason, and will: and the Absolute Consciousness, the Spiritual Principle, must be that in which these three elements of mental activity exist absolutely. But these three elements, inseparable from consciousness, are also inseparable from any valid conception of Personality. What is our Personality but the way in which we love and hate, think and desire-our "admiration, hope, and love"? The Spiritual Principle must be the Universal Personality, and instead of saying that our consciousness is an individualized fragment of the Absolute Consciousness, it would seem truer to say that our personalities must be gathered up into the Supreme Personality.

Next, let us consider what we might term "the Common Sense" view of Personality. Personality is that which gives us distinctness from our fellows and makes us remain distinct. I am not you and I never can be you, and to talk about an Absolute Personality in which both you and I might be merged is unmeaning. For the essence of Personality on this view is limitation; and to overstep such limitations in the "merging" of two separate persons is to overstep Personality altogether. To this conclusion the consciousness of the plain man is held to bear witness. He is as sure that he is himself and not someone else, as he is that his will is free and his own. Now, if we had to choose between this view and that of Transcendentalism we could hardly avoid being led to the side of Common Sense. Personality, as something separate and distinct, we all know. The "Absolute Consciousness can never seem anything but strange and unreal. But if we insist on this distinctness we shall be just as unable as before to regard any one personality as becoming "one with" another; and reconciliation, even if it survives in a negative sense, as the removal of the cause of suspicion and hatred, can have no positive existence as the union or even the approximation of two sundered persons.

But it is not only our argument to which this view runs counter. Previous chapters have shown us that if it is true at all it can only be true in a very restricted sense. Ours are not "hermit spirits," and we must admit that if consciousness proves that Richard is not William, experience shows that Richard and William may react very remarkably on one another, and may come very near to identification with one another in various important respects. The fault of the "common.

sense

view is that it confuses Individuality with Personality. Something there is which keeps us distinct and prevents us being lost in others, but this is not Personality. The three essentials of our personal life, emotion, thought and will, are the magnetic forces that draw us together.

III. This brings us to the third view, which is as much a contrast to the other two as they are to each other. This view regards Personality as inclusive and not exclusive; and this in a double sense: first, as the total of a man's powers, the sum of his mental and spiritual activities, as that which, in short, embraces the whole round of his conscious life; and secondly, as that which diffuses rather than isolates itself; draws other personalities to itself, and itself enters into them; its mark is not limitation, but expansion. First, to identify a man's personality with the whole of his conscious life rather than with some one part of it which we may call consciousness, must surely be correct. As we advance further in our knowledge of a man's character, his emotions, his plans, his will, we do not advance past the knowledge of his personality, but towards it. Conscious life is one and indivisible; we may talk about our wishes, our dislikes, and our hopes, as if each were separate, for the sake of distinctness in language; but in every mental act, each so-called "faculty" of the mind takes part in the unity of the whole. When the circle moves, each segment must move with it; and when one limb suffers, the whole body must suffer at the same time. To know and understand any one function of a man's mind or spirit, we must become acquainted with all the rest, for each acts and reacts upon every other; and if we know all, it is hardly worth while to pay special attention to one. To speak