262 A. T. SOHOPIELD, ESQ., M.D., ETC., ON 



adopt, as his own definition, the definition of Bastian, on page 252, 

 line 20 from the top, that mind inchides " all unconscious nerve 

 actions." If mind includes all unconscious nerve actions, why 

 should not it also include all unconscious moral actions and all 

 unconscious mental actions ? It would be, I think, very difficult 

 to draw the line. It is really to confuse psychology and physiology 

 to speak of conscious actions and unconscious actions, or conscious 

 movements, rather, as belonging to mind. The notion that mind 

 consists, wholly or partially, of a series of modifications is 

 essentially materialistic. Conscious impressions may, of course, 

 fade away and afterwards be revived. In such a case they are 

 supposed to exist in sub-consciousness, or dormant consciousness. 

 Undoubtedly, we are very familiar with that kind of phenomena. 

 They may be revived by recollection, may these pictures that have 

 faded, or by association of ideas ; but I cannot i-evive the colours 

 of a pictui-e which has not, first, been painted, and so nothing can 

 exist in sub-consciousness which has not fii-st existed in con- 

 sciousness. To confound thought with brain, and brain with 

 nerves, is as unphilosophical as to confound the engine driver with 

 his locomotive and the steam boiler with the wheels on which it 

 runs. If you make mind co-existent with life you obliterate the 

 soul of fundamental distinction, and alter, not advantageousl3% 

 established, definitions. In this age, especially, it seems important 

 to emphasise difference and distinction as well as resemblance. 

 There is too great a danger of attending only to the resemblance 

 of things and ignoring their differences. That all power belongs 

 to mind, or, as I would, rather say, spirit, is a concretion in which 

 I thoroughly concur with the author. Matter is itself uncon- 

 scious; but it is another thing to say lliat there is such a thing as 

 unconscious mind. Undoubtedly thei'o may be certain spiritual 

 actions of an unconscious charactei-, but that is not mental action. 

 Undoubtedly, there presides over all nature great iivtelligence 

 which we know as God. This action is conscious and purposive. • 

 " He doeth all things according to the counsel of His own will." 

 There is no unconsciousness about it; but, essentially, consciousness 

 directed to an cud. 



While I am unable to agree with the learned author of this 

 paper in what I cannot but regard as fallacious conclusions, I am, 

 at the same time, exceedingly sensible of the great ability and 

 originality for which we are indebted to him, and for tbe value and 



