language, political economy, anthropology, might be added. Human physiology too cannot be left out. Indeed, half or more than half of the whole range of human thought falls under our definition, leaving another area, inferior in interest and importance, for the group of sciences which may be called physics. Plainly some limits would have to be self-imposed in a psychology written on our plan; and what these would be it is not easy to anticipate.

This view of the situation exposes us to an apparently formidable objection. "Your scheme," it may be said, "breaks down under its own weight. The magnitude of its scale makes it impracticable. A way that no one can follow cannot be the right way." I am not insensible to the force of this objection. The argument of this paper requires to be supported by the production of a psychology on the lines it indicates, in order to produce full conviction. But I think that the objection is not so formidable as it looks. Before our psychology has been worked out very far, the objection may disappear, and if not before, the epistemology, I think, would dispel it. One consideration from that source may be mentioned. It has often been pointed out that our thinking and our knowledge are not all on one plane, but are on different levels, in successive stages -the common-sense or pre-scientific stage; then "science" which raises this to a higher level; and after this, the reflective or philosophical stage. Between the second and third levels there is a great difference. "Science" takes much for granted. Philosophy refuses to pass anything uncriticised, delves down to the foundations, takes into account all the facts, and all the facts together as a whole and a unity; and, lastly, seeks and will be satisfied with nothing less than truth and certainty. Psychology seems to me to belong to the third and highest level; and therefore, to be compelled to start from the given certainties and to seek for a fuller comprehension of what is given. Its result and reward may be, not the acquisition of new information; but the clearer apprehension and firmer grasp of truth already within our reach but dimly and confusedly conceived.

15. Body and soul. If our psychology were completed only so far as to the end of the first two or three sections, subdivisions would come to light. We should have, in considering human interests, to distinguish between bodily and mental wants; in studying knowledge, the bodily organs of sense would have to be considered. I think that we can foresee the advantage which our method will have in studying these topics. Its essential character will forbid the abstraction of any part or

aspect of the self from the whole self taken in connection with its environment. It will not fall into the error of mistaking what only exists as a part of, or a mode of a given reality, for an element or phenomenon having a real existence by itself; and the consequent error of imagining the whole as consisting of a number or succession of such parts. Body and soul, for example, belong to the original datum, but as a duality in a given unity. The self is one being, not two beings; and this one being is not a body, neither is it a soul or spirit. A body without a soul is not a human self, but a corpse. A soul without a body is not a human self-but a ghost; and ghosts are not given facts. The given fact is the human self, one being consisting of soul and body, a duality in a unity. (To avoid possible misconception, permit me to point out that the cessation or annihilation of the self when the body dies is not given fact. The self may continue to exist, and to exist as a unity, and as a duality in unity after the dissolution of the earthly body. Whether it does continue or not is also not given fact; it lies beyond the range of immediate experience.) To return to the really given fact-this is the self as a unity, containing diversities called parts, powers, modes, faculties, or by other names. To study these diversities is our proper business, but it is not our business to explain how there can be such diversities in the unity. There is nothing unnatural and nothing irrational in this existence of diversities within unity. All reality, so far as we can see, is of this nature. Everywhere we find examples. The body is a unity, but in it the eyes are different from the ears; the heart and the blood are different from the brain and the nerves; there is nothing puzzling in this, nothing which detracts from the unity of the body. If we encountered eyes alone, floating in the air, not belonging to a body, but perfectly detached; nevertheless, true living eyes, able to see, that would be a puzzle. Similarly, the mind, soul, or spirit is a unity of successive times and successive experiences, of receptivity and activity, of endless diversities, in one living unity. The union of body and soul in one living self is not an exceptional fact, but in harmony with the whole universe. No difficulty, no perplexity is felt, until we make the mistake of regarding the body as a real thing by itself, and the soul as another real thing by itself. The puzzle then is to explain how the two diverse entities ever got united; and how, being united, they can act and react upon each other. But it is not within our power to take ourselves to pieces; therefore we are not required are not required to put ourselves together

again. When our psychology comes to consider body and soul, it will not be troubled in any way. On the contrary it will find this union of body and soul in one self quite congruous with the union of ourselves and the environments in one world. Its work will be to notice how perfectly this unity of body and soul fits into the unity of the universe. Destitute of a body, what could a human soul do or know in this world? How could it be aware of its environment? Without bodies, how could individual souls communicate their thoughts to each other? The given facts hold together and support each other, together constituting a system in which each member is essential to the whole.

16. Free will.-Again, our psychology will be untroubled by that insoluble problem-the relation of free will to determinism. The facts of volition, duty, and responsibility are solid certainties of the self-they are not imaginations or inferences, but immediate realities. It is as impossible to doubt these facts as it is impossible to doubt the facts of gravitation in physics. Determinism is a theory belonging to another region of thought the attempt of the human intellect to comprehend the universe as a whole. We may feel the fascination which this theory has for the religious belief that God governs all, and for the philosophical imagination of a universe absolutely ruled by law and causation, but we need not be disquieted. No theory can undermine the certainty of given facts; while on the other hand it is easy to recognise the inability of the human mind to know everything.

17. Conclusion.-Whether there are two or more right ways in psychology is a question which must be postponed. An immense amount of useful work has been done by psychologists who have begun by analysis of consciousness, and have endeavoured to explain the self as a compound of simple elements, somewhat after the manner of physical science. Unhappily, in some cases, the result has been a doubt whether there is any self. Münsterberg in his Psychology and Life, and more fully, in his Grundzüge der Psychologie, has made an attack upon these "objective" psychologies, no reply to which, so far as I know, has appeared. I mention this to show that I am not alone in feeling that a new departure in psychology is necessary. Meantime I would fain hope that the arguments of this essay, now submitted to your judgments, will convince some of you that the method I have advocated is worth trying. It has the merit of keeping close to practical life. It does not promise to explain what the self is; but it recognises that the self

is becoming, is in process of evolution. This too is an immediate certainty. The self is becoming good or bad, wise or foolish,. happy or miserable. Why do we want to understand ourselves? Surely that we may become good, wise, happy. The kind of knowledge most necessary for us is regulative knowledge-and, perhaps, for us, no other kind is possible.

DISCUSSION.

The thanks of the meeting were voted to the author of the paper, and a discussion followed.

Dr. SCHOFIELD considered that the author by his suggestion puts us on a very high intellectual platform. He thought that the radical defect of the present psychology was its tendency to limit mind to consciousness. It was this narrow concept which limits. "the psychological mind" to less than half its real extent, that called forth Prof. James' scathing description of its present condition. He says that it is a study of raw facts; a wrangle about opinions, but has not a single law; that it is in the condition of physics before Galileo, or chemistry before Lavoisier.

Colonel ALVES said: It is well-known that as regards the moral character that the exercises of the soul very speedily make a great reformation in character. That is unlike mental or physical talents.. For instance, a person without talents for music or painting would never make much progress.

I do not know what the practical result of a paper like this is. What is the result? It seems to me that what we know in practical psychology is that we must first begin at both ends. There is only one thing that will reach deepest needs. It is wellknown and it is a new birth. There is no doubt many people live in very good stable houses that last their time, though the foundation is only on the sand, but once the superstructure has been ruined nothing can be rebuilt except on the solid foundation of the new birth. There is a necessity for building on that foundation, and those who work with our Christian teachers have very speedily agreed as to how the same physical element can be developed and trained when we are on a solid foundation. It is not much use

endeavouring to build up a superstructure on old foundations which have given way.

Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.-If psychology is what this paper seems to indicate, it appears to me that it comprehends all philosophy, all metaphysics, all science, the whole universe, the human self and its environment. If this be so, then there is no such thing as psychology, and we have simply to drop the word and go on with our study of the other branches of science as we do now. But there is a limitation generally understood within the wider subject of metaphysics that comes under the title of psychology. As I understand it, the term psychology is intended more especially to refer to the human soul or spirit in its own personal consciousness and in its experiences as known and taught by that consciousness. There are some sentences in the paper which need correction, and others which I think the writer could hardly have meant at all. The author says, "the mind, soul, or spirit is a unity of successive times." What can a unity of successive times mean? There is an entity which is conscious of successive times, but the times are not a portion of that entity. Then he adds, "and successive experiences." But still that entity is not a series of successive experiences, but something that passes through successive experiences. Nor is it a unity "of receptivity and activity" and "of endless diversities." Receptivity and activity may be contemplated by themselves in an abstract way, but psychology is supposed to deal with the conscious substance which displays these phenomena. He tells us also, that "no difficulty, no perplexity, is felt until we make the mistake of regarding the body as a real thing by itself, and the soul as another real thing by itself." But surely if there is a body it is a real thing, and by and by it will be a real thing by itself, and when that soul will have left, it is a real thing and will also be a real thing by itself. What is that real thing? It is the business of psychology to tell us something about it, and something about its moral relations to its fellow souls around it, and to that Divine Creator under whose laws it has been made and whose laws it must obey.