33 



agreed that the ego is an entity, the subject of its various states, which states, 

 for convenience, we classify into intellect, emotions, desires, conscience, and 

 will. Two (Dr. Irons and Canon Saumarez Smith) point out very justly 

 that the ego, as the centre and seat of personality, is the active and deter- 

 mining power, holding in control all the faculties. Lord O'Neill, Preben- 

 dary Row, and others, show that to deny the existence of this ego is to deny 

 the central fact of consciousness, on which consciousness all our knowledge 

 founds. We all again agree that this ego has various desires, which clash 

 one with another, and one (Rev. F. N. Oxenham) points out that Mr. 

 Spencer's reasoning is justified, if there are only desires in us. But then we 

 all assert that there is a power in us which rides above and controls the 

 desires. Canon Saumarez Smith shows that it is the consciousness of this 

 power which most distinctly calls up the sense of personality. Examining the 

 nature of this power, the Rev. 0. L. Engstrom points out that its chief office 

 is directive, and not creative, pointing out a line to be taken, and not a Svvapic 

 which moves along that line ; and Mr. Enruore Jones fits it with this by 

 reminding us that when our will has indicated the direction to be taken, a 

 breath or afflatus sometimes comes upon us, which is like a wind swelling 

 out our sails, and bearing us on in the direction to which we have made the 

 prow of our ship to point. Now, a power which is directive is only an 

 executive ; it simply points out the way to be taken, and it needs the guidance 

 of other forces, if, indeed, it be guided by intelligence at all. This intelligence 

 we all assert. (Any one who says he is not intelligent probably speaks the 

 truth.) But we all agree that this directive power in us is free ; that it is 

 under the supreme control of the ego. But being free, and able to steer any 

 whither, it needs some object on which the eye can be fixed, which object, as 

 Dr. Fisher reminds us, is what we call the determining motive. The motive 

 chosen, he also says, is at once the outcome and index of the moral state. 

 Dr. Irons, again, reminds us that the motive is only an incitement to action ; 

 it does not move us, it is the ego that is the moving force. Motive is only 

 the object on which the ego has fixed, and it can no more move us than the 

 pole-star can move the sailor who steers by it. Asserting, as we all do, that 

 the ego has freedom of choice, Mr. W. Griffiths contributes valuable and 

 weighty arguments in support of the proposition. The system of juris- 

 prudence in all countries of the globe, he shows, implies it, and the distinc- 

 tion drawn between unintentional wrong, wrong committed by infants or 

 lunatics, and wrong committed by criminals, shows clearly that all human 

 jurisprudence makes intent or motive to be the essential factor in deciding 

 the moral quality of an action. Professor O'Dell then shows that the extent 

 of this freedom is unlimited, and that not even the tremendous penalty of 

 eternal destruction can supply motive sufficient to move the will of some. 

 We all agree that there is a power in us called conscience, which claims the 

 right to decide the motives which we choose to rule us, and that on disobeying 

 this power we incur the condemnation called guilt. The Rev. C. L. Engstrom 

 then puts the climax on the metaphysical argument by showing that we reap 



