alike illustrations and proof of this. A few wise and good men, by keeping up the tone of society exert an influence for good that will pass into the very blood and bones of the next generation, and perhaps be perpetuated in the race forever.

23. Will as a Directing Agent.

However, after all that has been said, and all that can be fairly claimed for the will-force in the production of human efforts and human character, it is in most persons and in much of the lives of all persons but comparatively weak as a motive power.

But then, it is the engineer who rides on his machine and directs the forces that are incomparably stronger than himself, and thus guides them and controls the result as completely as though he were the force that draws the train or propels the machine. Or, in another figure, it is like the rudder of a ship, small in itself, yet able to control the course of the mass to which it is attached, and thus it is the guiding force which directs the course of the vessel, regardless, and to some extent in spite of, the current of the waters or the course of the wind.

In most cases, and especially in early life, it is just enough to turn the balance in one direction or the other. But the moment the balance has been turned or the course directed, the mass set in motion acquires a momentum, and the emotions become a moving force compared with which in point of strength, will is insignificant. Or rather-for all these are but figures and metaphors designed to suggest what perhaps cannot be literally and explicitly said-it seems as though when we, that is the will, by an act of volition, have set ourselves in motion in any direction, the emotions of whatever kind, not only co-operate in the same direction as propelling forces, but they actually seem to be transformed into will-or acts of volition-until even those which were at first, and before the act

of volition, of an opposite character and tending towards action in an opposite or a different direction, seems to have ceased to exist altogether or even been turned into means of friendly aid and co-operation.

This I say in reference to the ordinary current of events in life. But in all lives and especially in the lives of great men, there are moments when will seems to rise in strength, towers above, and dominates over, all else, and the man becomes majestic, if not terrible, in his energy. No one that sees him or hears his voice is disposed to trifle with him; all are disposed to submit, be guided and led by him until the whole mass seem to have but one thought and one will, and that thought and will are his own.

The time has gone by when we can deny that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that the size, form and structure of the brain itself are important elements in determining character; and to some extent they do undoubtedly predetermine the life of a man. But the mind, as Will, has and can always exert a controlling force-not perhaps in all emergencies, but in the general direction of the thought, and in the control of the actions, enough undoubtedly to constitute responsibility for all we do or become.

LECTURE XIII.

NATURE AND REALITY OF MIND.

We began with a consideration of the body as an organ of the mind; and, although we have gone a very little way into the details of its structure and functions, we have seen that it is a most delicate and most complicated piece of mechanism.

We have also considered somewhat at length and in detail, the phenomena of consciousness, which we have regarded and treated as manifestations of mind.

1. Mind and Body; One or Two ?

The question naturally arises in conclusion, What is the relation of the two? or are they both one? What causes thought? And what is it that thinks, remembers, reasons, purposes and effects its purposes in the observed life and actions of man ?

That objects in the world around us do so act upon us is a fact that admits of no doubt. The entire phenomena of reflex actions, which we have been considering, whether having its origin in the spinal cord, the ganglia of the sensorium or the hemispheres of the brain, is undoubtedly of this character. But when they reach the sensorium and the brain, what is it

that perceives and thinks and reasons? Can mere matter think? Doubtless the sensory ganglia and the brain itself, as I have all along been saying, are the instruments and organs of thought, and in one sense, regarded as instrumental causes, they may be said to perceive and think. As mere instruments one might speak of his pen as writing his letters, and in the same way of his brain as doing his thinking for him. The analogy is a close one, and the brain thinks in the same sense as the pen writes. But is there any other sense in whch it can be said to think?

2. Consciousness Analogous to Sense-Perception.

Consciousness sustains about the same relation to the mind itself that sense-perception does to the outward world. That we perceive is a fact of sense-perception; that we know that we perceive is a fact of consciousness, and is equivalent to the assertion that we are conscious of perceiving.

It has been customary of late for physiologists of a certain school to deny the fact of consciousness as a means of knowledge. Thus, Comte, Marteneau's Edition, Vol. I. p. 461, says, as for the fundamental principle of interior observation, it "would certainly be superfluous to add anything to what I have "said already about the absurdity of the supposition of a man's "seeing himself think." And Herbert Spencer says, First Principles, Appleton's Edition, p. 65, "It may be readily "shown that a cognition of self properly so called is absolute

ly negatived by the laws of thought." And this he attempts to prove on the ground of what he says all philosophers call "the fundamental condition of all consciousness, the antithe"sis of subject and object." "The mental act," continues the same author, "in which self is known, implies, like any "other mental act, a perceiving subject and a perceived object. "If the object perceived is self what is the subject that perceives "it, or if it be the true self that thinks, what other self is it "that is thought of?"

This "absurdity," however, is rather apparent than real. It arises, as I think, from the old and vicious habit of thinking of the mind in conformity with notions derived from the body and material things.

But even in nature we have cases in point.

"The eye sees

"itself." It is by reflection and reflected light it is true. But it sees itself, nevertheless; and if it did not, nothing could see it-we should have no knowledge of it except what one can gain by touch.

Again, if there is anything that thinks it must think of itself. If self thinks it must think of itself-among other things, otherwise reflection is impossible. If the mind does not think of itself, it would not be thought of-we should have no name for it, no question about it.

Even a man so little inclined to the psychological method as Huxley, says in one of his latest utterances, as already quoted, (Lecture I, § 5.) we know more of mind than we do of "body."

3. Where Mind First Appears.

It is not easy to decide precisely where, in the ascending order of life, we first find mind and mental phenomena as distinct from purely physiological manifestations of sensation and emotion. It is common to speak of animals as thinking, reasoning, willing, etc., and if these acts imply mind (and if they do not, nothing that man performs does imply it,) then those who ascribe these acts to animals, ascribe to them, by necessary implication, mind also.

But I doubt if we find proof of mind anywhere below man. Sensibility, of course, does not prove the presence and reality of mind; since this may exist after death even, and does exist in plants. It exists even in inorganic matter. Iron is susceptible or sensible to magnetism, and if we watch the motions of the magnetic needle, we are apt to be impressed with