But our acts commonly influence the happiness or affect the rights of our fellow-men. Whenever we observe such an act, there arises in the mind a wholly new idea, unlike any which we have thus far examined; it is the idea of right or wrong. A particular quality in that action is immediately recognized. Perception gives us nothing but the external act; but by virtue of our constitution there is suggested to us a moral quality, something very different from the external action itself; and the cognition of this quality is always attended by certain subjective affections. These subjective affections are the most important of any of which we are susceptible. The faculty of the mind which gives rise to these objective cognitions and subjective affections is called conscience. It belongs to moral philosophy to treat of this subject at large.

I might mention various other instances of original suggestion, but the above will suffice to illustrate my meaning. It will, I think, be obvious, from what I have said, that, by virtue of this power, we possess a distinct and most important source of knowledge. The ideas which we derive in this manner are unlike those either of perception or consciousness, yet they are no less truly clear and definite, and really lie at the foundation of all our subsequent knowledge. They seem, more than any other of our ideas, to result from the exertion of the pure intellect. We know them to be true, without the intervention of any media. The intellect with which we are created vouches for their truth, and we cannot conceive them to be false.

If it be asked how we may improve this faculty, I answer that in a matter so simple, when our knowledge is intuitive, rules seem almost useless. A few suggestions may, however, not be wholly without advantage.

It must be obvious to every one, that our train of thought may follow in the line of our perceptions, or of our

suggestions. We may pass from perception to perception. without heeding the suggestions to which they give occasion; or, detaining every perception, we may follow out to their utmost extent the suggestions which spring from it. The former is the habit of the superficial, the latter of the reflective mind. The one cognizes only the facts which are visible on the surface; the other arrives at a knowledge of the hidden relations by which all that is seen is united together and directed. Millions of men, before Sir Isaac Newton, had seen an apple fall to the ground, but the sight awakened no suggestion; or, if it did, the suggestion was neither retained nor developed. He seized upon it at once, followed it to its results, and found that he had caught hold of the thread which could guide him through the labyrinth of the universe.

(If, then, we would cultivate the faculty of original suggestion, we must exercise it by patient thought. Suggestions will arise in our minds, if we will only heed them, and they will arise the more abundantly the more carefully we heed them. We should attend to our own intuitions, examine their character, determine their validity, and follow them to their results. We should have due respect for the teachings of our own individual intelligence. What other men have thought is valuable, but its chief value is, not to save us from the labor of thinking, but to enable us to think the better for ourselves., If, with patient earnestness, we thus follow out the suggestions of our own minds, we shall find them enriched and invigorated. Instead of drinking forever at the fountains of other men, the mind will thus discover a fountain within itself. "If," said Sir Isaac Newton, "I am in any respect different from other men, it is in the power of patient thought."

REFERENCES.

Origin of moral ideas- Locke, Book 2, chap. 2, secs. 1, 2; book 2, chap. 21, sec. 42; book 2, chap. 28, sec. 5.

Cousin, chap. 5.

Necessity of patient thought in cultivating original suggestion — Locke Book 4, chap. 3, sec. 22-30.

Abercrombie, Part 4, sec. 1.

CHAPTER IV.

ABSTRACTION.

In order the more definitely to understand the nature of Abstraction, let us review the ground which we have passed over, that we may the more distinctly perceive the point from which we are about to proceed.

We have seen that by perception we cognize external objects, and that by consciousness we cognize our internal energies. Our knowledge, however, derived from both of these sources, is individual and concrete. I perceive a tree; it is an individual tree. I perceive fifty trees; they are all individuals, differing in various respects from each other but each a distinct and unique object of perception. So, also, I am conscious of an act of memory, that is, of remembering a particular object. I am conscious of remembering another. Each act is numerically, and as I think of it, distinct from every other act. Our conceptions of these acts are of the same character as the acts themselves, and, with these powers alone, every idea would be as distinct from every other idea as the grains of sand on the sea-shore, without either cohesion or fusibility.

The same remark applies in substance to the ideas derived from original suggestion. Of these ideas some I know are general, and can be referred to no particular object. Such are the ideas of space, duration, infinity, and perhaps some others. These are cognized as universal and necessary as

soon as the mind begins to think; and, as they are at the beginning, so they remain forever, unsusceptible of either change or modification. Another class of our suggestive ideas is, however, of a different character. I perceive, for instance, a case of change, as the rolling of a ball, or the falling of a pin. The idea of cause and power at once suggests itself, but it is of the power requisite to produce this effect, and this only. It is the idea, not of causation in general, but of causation in this individual instance. Should I see another case of change, the same notion of causation would arise, but it would again be of an individual change, and would be wholly disconnected from that which I observed before. That is, every idea of causation would be indissolubly connected with the change by which it was occasioned, and thus our knowledge of causation would be nothing more than the remembrance of these several isolated and separate facts.

If, then, our intellectual powers were limited to those which we have already considered, it is easy to imagine what must be our condition. We could perceive individual objects, and be conscious of the exertion of individual energies, or of the putting forth of certain intellectual acts. Every object of perception would be distinct and disconnected, and equally so the conceptions which it originated. Our knowledge would be all of individuals, and every object must have its own proper name, or that which is equivalent to it. When we speak of different men, we call them John, James, William, meaning by each of these terms to designate an individual unlike every other in existence. Such would be our knowledge if we had no other faculties than those already examined.

But, if we look into our own minds, and observe the minds of other men, we find our condition to be the reverse of all this. Proper names, or those used to designate individuals,