long as the latter remains irresponsible. ENQ. Is this “child” the “personality”? THEO. It is. When, therefore, it is stated that the “personality” dies with the body it does not state all. The body, which was only the objective symbol of Mr. A. or Mrs. B., fades away with all its material Skandhas, which are the visible expressions thereof. But all that which constituted during life the _spiritual_ bundle of experiences, the noblest aspirations, undying affections, and _unselfish_ nature of Mr. A. or Mrs. B. clings for the time of the Devachanic period to the EGO, which is identified with the spiritual portion of that terrestrial Entity, now passed away out of sight. The ACTOR is so imbued with the _rôle_ just played by him that he dreams of it during the whole Devachanic night, which _vision_ continues till the hour strikes for him to return to the stage of life to enact another part. ENQ. But how is it that this doctrine, which you say is as old as thinking men, has found no room, say, in Christian theology? THEO. You are mistaken, it has; only theology has disfigured it out of all recognition, as it has many other doctrines. Theology calls the EGO the Angel that God gives us at the moment of our birth, _to take care of our Soul_. Instead of holding that “Angel” responsible for the transgressions of the poor helpless “Soul,” it is the latter which, according to theological logic, is punished for all the sins of both flesh and mind! It is the Soul, the immaterial _breath_ of God and his _alleged creation_, which, by some most amazing intellectual jugglery, is doomed to burn in a material hell without ever being consumed,[49] while the “Angel” escapes scot free after folding his white pinions and wetting them with a few tears. Aye, these are our “ministering Spirits,” the “messengers of mercy” who are sent, Bishop Mant tells us— “.... to fulfil Good for Salvation’s heirs, for us they still Grieve when we sin, rejoice when we repent;” Yet it becomes evident that if all the Bishops the world over were asked to define once for all what they mean by _Soul_ and its functions, they would be as unable to do so as to show us any shadow of logic in the orthodox belief! THE DOCTRINE IS TAUGHT IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. ENQ. To this the adherents to this belief might answer, that if even the orthodox dogma does promise the impenitent sinner and materialist a bad time of it in a rather too realistic Inferno, it gives them, on the other hand, a chance for repentance to the last minute. Nor do they teach annihilation, or loss of personality, which is all the same. THEO. If the Church teaches nothing of the kind, on the other hand, Jesus does; and that is something to those, at least, who place Christ higher than Christianity.