Now, if the physiologist would prove to us which of these theories is the correct one-and I believe he cannot, for they seem to me all false alike-then we could listen with a degree of patience to his charges against those modern psychometries as taught by Dr Carus of Dresden, Lavater, and others. These theories may be false, but a number of them have still to be proved so, and I scarcely believe that the physiologist is the one to accomplish that task, his science being almost theoretical throughout; and it is a pity that his science is in that condition, because physiology is an indispensable branch of study to every psychologist who would deserve the name ;-indispensable, were it only to tell us how certain states of the body affect the mind, and, vice versa, how certain states of mind affect our bodily condition. But the nature of this connection and reciprocal influence is as yet hid in the unknown. Theories without number, no doubt, have been advanced. But what then? We know no more of the nature of the connection now than was known centuries ago. Professor Tyndal recently observed "that the connection of soul and body is as insoluble in its modern form as it was in the pre-scientific ages;" and I think so too. No doubt we have men who profess to have a knowledge of this subject; but profession is all they have-they never bequeath the knowledge to any one. Let it here be distinctly understood that I am not making light of physiology;-I only

object to the dogmatism of certain physiologists who speak of their science as if it were as susceptible of proof as a problem in Euclid. Physiology is the handmaiden of psychology, therefore both ought to be studied; and let our endeavour be to upraise both from the domain of theory to demonstrable fact—from mere conjecture to recognised truth. It may here be asked, what do physiologists say or conjecture regarding the connection of soul and body, mind and brain? There are, as we have already observed, three schools of physiologists, each of which would yield a different answer from the others. These schools are-first, the Materialistic, which asserts that the brain is the mind; the second, the popular school, asserts that the brain is the organ of the mind; and the third, which is the rising school, asserts that the mind is co-extensive with the nervous system, the brain being therefore only one of the organs of the mind. We will now examine these three schools at some length.

CHAPTER II.

"THE MATERIALIST THEORY OF MIND AND BRAIN REFUTED.

T

HE human brain, as most of you are aware, consists of three great divisions-the cerebrum, or brain proper; the cerebellum, or smaller brain; and the medulla oblongata. The surface of these is marked with convolutions, like folds of velvet. The various speculations which have been indulged in regarding the province of each of these divisions of the brain I shall examine anon. In the meantime, I shall confine myself to the materialist's theories.

Not many years ago it was held by this school that the larger a man's brain was he had the greater chance of becoming a scholar; and it was not until the accumulation of facts contradictory to this that the theory was held untenable-the heaviest brain on record being that of an idiot. Our theorist then asserted-gratuitously asserted-that mind depended upon the quality of the brain; and on being asked wherein the quality spoken

of lay, he made another equally unwarranted averment, which was, that the number and depth of the convolutions indicated the mental endowments of the individual. But this assertion has been abundantly disproved by M. Camille Dareste and others. Our theorist is not put out of court at this, so he makes another assertion equally groundless as those already made: he asserts that the quality of the mind is evinced by the amount of the grey matter of the brain. This assertion has likewise been disproved by an elaborate series of measurements conducted by M. Baillarger. Having been driven from these strongholds also, he takes up the general position that brain is our only mind, and that it is as much the function of the brain to think as it is of the stomach to digest, the glands to secrete, the muscles to move, &c. This, of course, is pure assumption; yet the late Professor Lawrence and nearly all the modern materialists accept it. Let us look at this for a moment. If you examine a man's stomach sometime after food has entered it, what do you see? Why, the result of digestion to be sure. Take out a man's brain, do you there see the result of thought? I think not. In the one case you have the visible results of digestion, in the other you have nothing. Why it has been asserted that we have the "same sort of evidence" for the one as we have for the other I cannot define. Plainly we have not the same evidence-equally plain it is that we have no evidence at all. These men further assert-for they

are rich in assertion-that thought is the vibration of the particles of the brain. To this Dr James M'Cann has replied "If thought be matter, it must be the result either of the matter in its essence as matter, or of the form in which the matter is arranged. Thought cannot be the result of matter as such, because, in point of fact, as you know, all matter cannot think. The platform on which I stand cannot think or feel. If, when the matter becomes brain, it thinks, it is a quality superadded to the matter; and if it be superadded to it as such, it belongs to every particle of it. Well, suppose one thought only to be in the mind; I now take away a particle of brain; either I take away a portion of the thought or I do not. If I do, then the one particle is thinking by itself, and organization is not necessary. If I do not, in that case I may subtract particle by particle, till only one cell be left, which will contain the entire thought, or be as useful as the complete brain." I doubt the materialist will not easily answer that argument. We have been told by materialists that they would believe in spirit did they know what was its essence; but they may, on the same grounds, give up their belief in matter, for they know as little of its essence as I know of the essence of spirit-perhaps less. In this life we know nothing of essences; all that we know is of properties, qualities, &c.—of matter and spirit. Materialists always call attention to the fact that diseases of the brain are often followed by epilepsy,