130 
mining power, holding in control all the hicidties. 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 Sauniarez 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. C. L. Engstrom points out that its chief office 
is directive, and not creative, pointing out a line to be taken, and not a cvvayu^ 
which moves along that line ; and ]\Ir. Eninore 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 w'e have made the 
prow of our ship to point. Now, a j)ower 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 wdio 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- 
j)rudence 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. 0. L. Engstrom 
then puts the climax on the metaphysical argument by showing that we reap 
as we have sown, we are changed into the shape of the motive we have 
chosen to rule us. 
We come next to the bearing of the question on theological truths. We 
all hold that although man is free, he has yet not strength, of himself, to 
choose the right and the holy. This inability seems to me explained by the 
