74 
mind on the important subject of this paper. Scientific writers are never 
tired of using expressions of contempt for theology — witness, Professor 
Buxley. They tell us that science— real exact science — is the knowledge of 
the facts of observation, and then comes the point against which I wish to 
raise my protest. When they endeavour to define what they mean by facts 
of observation, they limit definition to the observation of facts and sensa- 
tions. N ow, if they define science as the knowledge of facts, and observation 
as the observation of sensations, they have the game in their own hands ; but 
against this I do most vehemently protest, and I would endorse the remark 
that has been made with so much justice this evening, that we cannot con- 
struct any system of knowledge. The knowledge of the observed facts of 
motion and dimension and sensation, implies a knowing agent. I defy any 
of these physical philosophers to go on without making that admission. As 
knowledge implies a knowing agent, you cannot construe sensations without 
the admission of the ego receiving the sensation. Now, I must ask myself a 
simple question, raised by what I have heard in the discussion in this paper, 
as to the ultimate effects of consciousness. There is a relation between the 
cognition of the ego which perceives and the sensation perceived. The 
answer given by my common sense is, that I must be conscious of my 
recipient power in order to receive. I am ready to say that all exact science 
is the science of observed things ; but when we speak of observations we 
should also include the observer. These are the primary elements of our 
knowledge. The accurate knowledge of ourselves is a priori the condition 
before our perceiving that which is outside ourselves. With regard to the 
doctrine of spontaneity, when Professor Tyndall calls my attention to an 
optical phenomenon, am I not immediately conscious that he is exercising 
spontaneity in the construction of his experiment and the selection of its 
means ? 1 know that I have spontaneity ; but then I know that light is 
refracted. Having recognised the subjective facts, the recognition of which 
is a priori essential to the recognition of the objective facts, we are 
led to take a similar view before enforcing the arguments of this paper. 
Does not universal experience teach us that the evolution of spirits is 
perpetually modifying the laws of physics ? Every originative motion, as far 
as our knowledge goes, is traceable to an act of spontaneity. ]Now r 
according to the spirit of inductive physical science, what is the probable 
conclusion ? Why, that the first motions also originated in a spiritual act 
of spontaneity. The soldier, for instance, hears, and possibly sees, the 
cannon- ball hurtling through the air. The question is asked, what propels it ? 
The physicist will say, the expansive power of a fiery gas. Well, what libe- 
rated that power? The spark applied to it. What applied the spark? 
The detonative power of the friction match. What produced that detonative 
power? The action of the lanyard spring. What liberated the lanyard 
spring ? A human finger. W hat moved that finger ? Would you say the 
word of command of the sergeant of the gun ? What moved the tongue to 
give the word of command ? The will of the sergeant. This is a very 
homely instance, but I hold it is a fair one, and if you reflect upon and 
