of states of consciousness?

Put a series of states

of consciousness as cause and the evolving universe as effect, and then endeavor to see the last as flowing from the first. It is possible to imagine in some dim kind of way a series of states of consciousness serving as antecedent to any one of the movements I see going on, for my own states of consciousness are often indirectly the antecedents to such movements. But how if I attempt to think of such a series as antecedent to all actions throughout the universe, to the motions of the multitudinous stars through space, to the revolutions of all their planets around them, to the gyration of all these planets on their axes, to the infinitely multiplied physical processes going on in each of these suns and planets? I cannot even think of a series of states of consciousness as causing the relatively-small group of actions going on over the earth's surface; I cannot even think of it as antecedent to all the winds and dissolving clouds they bear, to the currents of all the rivers and the grinding action of all the glaciers; still less can I think of it as antecedent to the infinity of processes simultaneously going on in all the plants that cover the globe, from tropical palms down to polar lichens, and in all the animals that roam among them, and the insects that buzz about them. Even to a single small set of these multitudinous terrestrial changes, I cannot conceive as antecedent a series of states of consciousness-cannot, for instance, think

:

of it as causing the hundred thousand breakers that are at this instant curling over the shores of England. How, then, is it possible for me to conceive an originating Mind,' which I must represent to myself as a series of states of consciousness, being antecedent to the infinity of changes simultaneously going on in worlds too numerous to count, dispersed throughout a space which baffles imagination?”*

If the doctrine of an "originating Mind" prove to be one half as absurd as the doctrine of this paragraph, it ought to be given up at once. Note first the definition of mind as a "series of states of consciousness." I verily believe with Mr. Spencer, that such a mind could not originate either the universe or any thing else; but the definition looks to me very much like a "symbolic idea of the illegitimate order." A state must be the state of something. Consciousness implies a being who is conscious; motion implies something moved; and so a state implies a being which is in that state. Mind is neither a state nor a series of states, but a being which experiences these states. I do not hesitate a moment to class Mr. Spencer's definition with the "pseud-ideas." I grant that in many things the Divine Mind must be altogether different from ours. We gain our knowlall is self-contained.

edge from without; with Him

Our art is but the faintest copy of what is original From our own experience we can gain no

with Him.

* "Popular Science Monthly," July, 1872.

clew to very many phases of the Creative Mind. His ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts. We can predicate nothing of the Divine Reason save the purest intellection. But the fundamental conception of mind is that of a self-determining intelligence; and whenever we meet with a free intelligence, we call it a mind. It may differ in many ways from us, but in the underlying freedom and knowledge we find a common measure.

Now can such a mind, free and intelligent, be the cause of all things? Mr. Spencer thinks not; for though it is abundantly credible that linear forces in their blind play should have produced the great harmony of the universe, a mind, he thinks, would become confused and giddy. I defy any one to get out of Mr. Spencer's argument, apart from the nonsense about the "series of states," any thing more than the suggestion that an infinite mind would have more on hand than it could attend to. He speaks of the infinity of processes going on upon our earth, multiplies it by the number of the stars, and asks if it is credible that one mind should originate and control all this.

Nay, let us obey Mr. Spencer, and think upon the multitudinous changes which are forever going on. Let us begin with the small series of changes which take place on a day in June, when

"Every clod feels a stir of might,

An instinct within it, that reaches and towers,

And groping blindly above it, for light,

"Climbs to a soul in grass and flowers,"

and remember that all these changes are along lines of order and of beauty. Think of the universal warring of tremendous forces which is forever going on, and remember that out of this strife is born, not chaos, void and formless, but a creation of law and harmony. Bear in mind, too, that this creation is filled with the most marvelous mechanisms, with the most exquisite contrivances, and with forms of the rarest beauty. Remember, also, that the existence. of these forms for even a minute depends upon the nicest balance of destructive forces. Abysses of chaos yawn on every side, and yet creation holds on its way. Nature's keys need but to be jarred to turn the tune into unutterable discord, and yet the harmony is preserved. Bring hither your glasses, and see that from atomic recess to the farthest depth there is naught but "toil coöperant to an end." All these systems move to music; all these atoms march in tune. Listen until you catch the strain, and then say whether it is credible that a blind force should originate and maintain all this. Mr. Spencer thinks it is. There is no difficulty in supposing a mechanical force to have done it all; but the hypothesis of a Creative Mind, which animates nature and realizes His thought in all its phenomena, is too incredible to be entertained for a moment; because, forsooth, such a mind would have too much to attend to. Surely science must be asleep, and philosophy at its lowest ebb, when such sheer nonsense as this is allowed to

usurp, unchallenged, a prominent place in either. Do you speak of the stars? "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names; by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power, not one faileth." Does the infinity "Hast thou not

of orderly change astonish you? known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding." The absurd definition of mind is miserable enough as an argument; but the assertion that a mind would be unequal to the situation, is positively ludicrous.

One active force in nature, the scientists say; and psychology gives them the choice of making that force nothing, or else the activity of an ever-living Will. Yet possibly some may feel that this doctrine is at variance with known scientific facts. How can

we reconcile this doctrine with the fixedness of nature's laws? The answer is, "With Him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Why may not Will adopt for purposes of its own a fixed mode of working? Why may not the steady law be made the expression of the constant thought?

But is not gravitation an impersonal force? Surely, since all the splendid achievements of astronomy are based upon this conception, we must suppose it to represent a fact.