room, being perfectly unconscious that he had slept more than one night. Nothing, indeed, could make him believe that he had slept so long, till, upon going to the fields, he saw crops of barley and oats ready for the sickle, which he remembered were only sown when he last visited them."*

The result is similar when the suspension of the mental action is caused in any other way. It is related, for instance, of a British captain at the battle of the Nile, that he was giving an order from the quarter-deck of his vessel, when a shot struck him in the head, depriving him instantaneously of sense and speech. Living, however, he was taken home, and remained in this condition for the period of fifteen months in the Greenwich Hospital. At the end of that period, during which he had exhibited no signs of intelligence, an operation was performed on him by a skilful surgeon, that restored him at once to the exercise of his mental faculties. And it is stated, as the first result of this mental restoration, that he immediately rose in his bed, and completed the order which had been so abruptly interrupted so many months before.

In the Proceedings of the French Royal Academy of Sciences in 1719, there is also a statement illustrative of the subject under consideration, to the following effect.— There was in Lausanne a nobleman, who, as he was giving orders to a servant, suddenly lost his speech and all his senses. Different remedies were tried, but, for a very considerable time, without effect. For six months he appeared to be in a deep sleep, unconscious of everything. At the end of that period, however, resort having been had to certain surgical operations, he was suddenly restored to his speech and the exercise of his understanding. When he recovered, the servant to whom he had been giving orders happening to be in the room, he asked him if he had done what he had ordered him to, not being sensible that any interval, except perhaps a very short one, had elapsed during his illness.t

*The publication from which this statement is taken, and which contains others of similar import, refers to Frazer's Magazine as its authority. + The Academy received this statement from Crousaz, Mathematical Professor at Lausanne, and author of a Treatise on Logic, &c.—Per

185. Of time and its measurements, and of eternity. When duration is estimated or measured, we then call it Time. Such measurements, as every one is aware, are made by means of certain natural or artificial motions. The annual revolution of the sun (using language in accordance with the common apprehensions on the subject) marks off the portion of duration which we call a YEAR; the revolution of the moon marks off another portion, which we call a MONTH; the diurnal revolution of the sun gives us the period of a DAY; the movements of the hands over the face of a clock or watch give the diminished durations of hours and minutes. This is TIME, which differs from duration only in the circumstance of its being measured.

What we call Eternity is only a modified or imperfect time; or, rather, time not completed. We look back over the months, and days, and years of our former existence; we look forward and onward, and behold ages crowding on ages, and time springing from time. And in this way we are forcibly led to think of time unfinished, of time progressive but never completed; and to this complex notion we give the name of Eternity.

186. Marks or characteristics of time.

To this notice of the origin of the notion of time, it will not be improper to add, as it is one of great importance, some of its marks or characteristics.-(1.) Time (meaning by the term duration as existing in succession, and as susceptible of being measured) is strictly and properly predicable only of finite beings, and not of the Supreme Being. It is evident that, in its application to the human mind, time becomes a law or fixed condition of the mental action, a restriction placed upon it, a sort of veil, which would hide knowledge from us, were it not that it is drawn up gradually, and lets it in by degrees. But it is equally evident that there can be no law of this nature restricting the Divine Mind. Those multiplied facts and events, which are brought one after another

sons suddenly attacked by delirium and afterward restored, exhibit the same unconsciousness and ignorance of the intermediate lapse of time, See Abercrombie's Intellectual Philosophy, Section on Insanity,

before the minds of men, in consequence of their limited mental constitution, are spread out at once before the Divine Mind, as on a map. Whether past, present, or future, they are embraced and comprehended in a single glance. In this respect there is not the slightest analogy between the Supreme Mind and the minds of men.-(2.) Time is not susceptible of any visible or outward representation, as might be expected if its origin had been external instead of internal. It is true, we apply language to time, which would imply, if strictly interpreted, that it has extension or length. We speak of a long or short time, as if it were actually susceptible of material measurement. But this is owing partly to certain casual associations, and partly to the imperfection of language, and not to anything in the nature of time itself. (See the chapter on Casual Associations.)

(3.) Time, as it exists in our mental apprehension and in its relation to the intellect, is inseparable from events. Whatever event has taken place, whether it be some act of men or some occurrence in nature, although we are ignorant of the hour, the day, or the month, we cannot possibly conceive of it independently of time. This is a fixed, immutable, and ultimate condition of all our perceptions, so far as they regard events. That is to say, we cannot think of them, we cannot conceive of them as existing or taking place out of time.-(4.) Time, in its specific and appropriate nature, is indestructible, while the human soul remains the same it now does. It is not within the limits of human capability to contemplate events as the Supreme Being does, at once and simultaneously; but it can be done in succession alone; nor have we reason to suppose that it will ever be otherwise. It is true, the Angel shall at last appear, standing on the land and the sea, and shall swear that time shall be no longer; yet the time which the angel of the Apocalypse is destined thus to abolish, is only that which is measured by these stars, this moon, and the revolutions of this earth. As long as the human soul exists, in whatever part of the universe, there must at least be, not only duration, but duration as existing in succession, unless the nature of the soul be fundamentally changed.

187. The idea of space not of external origin.

Another of those notions, the origin of which we propose to consider under the head of Suggestion, is the idea of SPACE.-Perhaps it will be asked why we have disregarded in this instance the authority and example of Mr. Locke, who has ranked it with the notions of External origin, or, in his own phraseology, with those which come into the mind by the way of sensation. And certainly it might be expected that we should assent to that arrangement, if it could be definitely shown to us which of the senses it is to be ascribed to. But it is obvious that this cannot easily be done.

If it were of external origin, if it could properly be said to come into the mind by the way of sensation, we should be able to make such a reference of it. But let us inquire. It will evidently not be pretended that the notion of space is to be ascribed to the senses of taste, of smell, or of hearing. And can it be ascribed to the sense of touch? Is it a matter of feeling? A single consideration will suggest a satisfactory answer. It will certainly be acknowledged that we can have no knowledge by the sense of touch (with the single exception perhaps of the ideas of heat and cold, which are sometimes ascribed to it) of anything which does not present some resistance. The degree of resistance may greatly vary, but there will be always some. But no one will undertake to say that resistance is a quality of space, or enters in any way into his notion of it.

Nor are there less obvious objections to regarding it as a direct object of sight. The sense of sight gives us no direct knowledge of anything but of colours; all other visual perceptions are original in the sense of touch, and are made the property of the sight by transference. No one certainly ever speaks of space as red, or white, or of other colour, or conceives of it as such.

any

There is another consideration, adverse to ascribing the idea of space to the senses, applicable equally to the sight and the touch. Everything coming within the cognizance of those two senses (with the exception already alluded to) has form, limits, bounds, place, &c. But the idea to which we are now attending is utterly exclusive

1

of everything of this nature; it is not susceptible of circumscription and figure. So far from it, when we escape beyond the succession of circumscribed and insulated objects, we have but just entered within its empire. If we let the mind range forth beyond the forms immediately surrounding us, beyond the world itself, beyond all the systems of worlds in the universe; if we stand in our conception on the verge of the remotest star, and look downward and upward, it is then the idea of space rushes upon the mind with a power before unknown.-These considerations clearly lead to the conclusion that the notion of space is not susceptible of being ascribed directly to sensation in any of its forms, and is not, in the proper sense of the terms, of external origin. It may perhaps be maintained, that we shall find an adequate account of its origin if we combine the aid of abstraction with sensation. It is admitted, that by the sense of touch we have a knowledge of the extension of bodies, which includes, when it is contemplated under different views, length, breadth, height, &c. But still it does not appear how abstraction, applied to extension, or anything included in extension, can give us space. It is evident that the abstract notion which we form of the length of a body is different from the one in question. And if we abstract height or breadth, these also come short of giving us space. If we could abstract height, length, and breadth at once, and then combine them together, we should not even then have space, but, on the contrary, a solid body.

188. The idea of space has its origin in suggestion.

What then shall we say of the origin of the notion of space? When pressed on this point we have but one answer to give; it is the natural offspring of the mind; it is a creation of the soul, wholly inseparable from its elementary constitution and action; an intimation, coming from an interior and original impulse. The opinion of Cousin (not to mention that of others of a like import) closely approximates to this statement. After criticising upon Locke, as Mr. Stewart has done before him, and asserting the futility of pretending to derive this notion directly from the senses, he adds as follows: "Au contraire