awaken no response in the ordinary brain. It is only when by a repetition of these impressions the brain cell has been educated, that these before meaningless characters awaken thought. Is thought, then, simply a cell action which may or may not result in muscular expression; an action which originates truth precisely as a calculating machine evolves new combinations of figures?

Precisely so. But "whatever we define thought to be, this fact appears certain, that it is capable of external manifestation by conversion into the actual energy of motion, and only by this conversion." So much for the outward manifestation of thought, or "thought force." Its inward manifestation we will come to presently. On the passage just quoted we remark: (a) We are not so sure about that sheet of "Assyrian cuneiform characters." In our own case, and that of some others we have known, a most lively "emotion" or "response," say of curiosity at first sight, has been awakened on beholding them. And as regards those characters we know our brains are only "ordinary." Then we are impressed with the simplicity of the process of education. We sometimes speak of getting things in a "nut shell." But here the question lies in a much smaller compass-in a "brain cell." "It is only when, by a frequent repetition of these impressions, the brain cell has been educated, that these before meaningless characters awaken thought." Let educators take note of this charmingly simple result, revealed by "the searching gaze of science.”

(b) But whatever may be said, "this fact appears certain," that thought "is capable of external manifestation by conversion into the actual energy of motion, and only by this conversion." "This is certain." If thought is truly changed into motion, according to our view it is changed into nothing. In reading this backward two courses are open to us. Either it turns out that thought is nothing, or that something is turned into nothing, or, on the contrary, nothing into something. What else have we, indeed, if force is converted into motion, or motion is converted into force? If it is changed into the energy or force that causes motion, then it must be a form of force. Now what makes this appear "certain?" Would the reader believe there is no evidence of this "fact" save the fact itself? Thought is changed into the "energy of motion" because it is so changed.

Reduced to its simplest form, such is the way the argument reads. Besides this evidence there is none other, so far as we know. If we admit all the Professor says, we seem obliged to infer that thought is a form of force. We have always supposed thought to be an act of the mind, not its force or power. We have always made a distinction between thought and the mind that thinks, similar to that we make between running and the man that runs, or between motion and the force that causes it. Scientifically speaking, no mistake could be more fundamental than that of confusing thought and force. It is the same mistake as to confuse the act with the actor. "Such knowledge is too high for us." But to proceed.

But here the question arises, Can it (thought) be manifested inwardly without such a transformation of energy? or is the evolu tion of thought entirely independent of the matter of the brain? Experiments ingenious and reliable have answered this question.Barker, p. 21.

But before passing on to see what the experiments are, we must notice again the point is to convert physical force into "thought force." Also, we must remark, we are not shut up to any such pair of alternatives as are presented us in the question, "Is the evolution of thought entirely independent of the matter of the brain?" The alternatives are, either admit thought is entirely dependent on, or " entirely independent of, the matter of the brain." The following case would seem to be a parallel one: Either admit the planing is entirely dependent on, or entirely independent of, the jack plane. The man who shoves the plane and mind that uses the cell are alike, and with equal propriety, put out of the account.

But now for the "experiments, ingenious and reliable." A couple of small metal bars were taken. One of them was of bismuth, the other was of an alloy of antimony and zinc.

Preliminary trials having shown that any change in temperature within the skull was soonest manifested externally in that depression which exists just below the occipital protuberance, a pair of these little bars was fastened to the head at this point, and to neutralize the results of a general rise in temperature over the whole body, a second pair reversed in direction was attached to the leg or arm, so that if a like increase of heat came to both, the electricity developed by one would be neutralized by the other, FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXIV.-3

and no effect produced upon the needle unless only one was affected. By long practice it was ascertained that a state of mental torpor could be induced, lasting for hours, in which the needle remained stationary. But let a person knock at the door outside the room, or speak a single word, even though the experimenter remained absolutely passive, and the reception of the intelligence caused the needle to swing through twenty degrees. In explanation of this production of heat, the analogy of the muscle at once suggests itself. No conversion of energy is complete, and as the heat of muscular action represents force which has escaped conversion into motion, so the heat evolved during the reception of an idea is energy which has escaped conversion into thought from precisely the same cause.

Now how does the Professor know that the presumed and hidden remainder, which is supposed to have escaped conversion into heat, was really converted "into thought?" How does he know, indeed, there is a remainder, not to speak of what is done with it? But perhaps these questions will be answered further on. He continues:

Moreover, these experiments have shown that ideas which affect the emotions produce most heat in their reception-a few moments' recitation to one's self of emotional poetry producing more effect than several hours of deep thought. Hence it is evident that the mechanism for the production of deep thought accomplishes this conversion of energy far more perfectly than that which produces simple emotion. But we may take a step further in this direction. A muscle, precisely as the law of correlation requires, develops less heat when doing work than when it contracts without doing it. Suppose, now, that besides the simple reception of an idea by the brain, the thought is expressed outwardly by some muscular sign. The conversion now takes two directions, and, in addition to the production of thought, a portion of the energy appears as nerve and muscle power; less, therefore, should appear as heat according to our law of correlation. Dr. Lombard's experiments have shown that the amount of heat developed by the recitation to one's self of emotional poetry, was in every case when that recitation was oral, that is, had a muscular expression. .. Nor do these facts rest on physiological evidence alone. Chemistry teaches that thought force, like muscle force, comes from food, and demonstrates that the force evolved by brain, like that produced by the muscle, comes not from the disintegration of its own tissue, but is the converted energy of burning carbon. Can we longer doubt, then, that the brain, too, is a machine for the conversion of energy ? Can we longer refuse to believe that even thought is in some mysterious way correlated to the other natural forces, and this even in the face of the fact that it has never been measured?

In this somewhat lengthy extract the evidence is summed up by the Professor of Physiological Chemistry in Yale College, that "demonstrates" that "thought force" "is the converted energy of burning carbon." Moreover, the brain "is a machine," for accomplishing this conversion. The evidence of this is so strong as to lead the Professor to ask with inquisitive surprise, "Can we longer refuse to believe?" etc. After such an array of "facts," is it possible that any one can be found who has "such an overwhelming bias," as Mr. Spencer would say, as to refuse to fall into line?

This evidence may be reduced to the simple head of animal heat produced during nervous action, the same apparently as we have seen during muscular action.* In certain states, or during certain acts, say of an emotional nature, more heat appears than during some others not so highly emotional, or attended by less muscular exercise. It seems then, we may notice in passing, we do not speak amiss when we say of an emotional nature, "it is warm."

That this production of heat during mental action, whether emotional or not, interesting fact as it is, indicates some relation, and probably one that is quite "intimate," between physical or chemical force and thought or emotion, there need be no question. But that these facts warrant us in assuming, least of all prove, a correlation between physical force and "thought force," whatever it may be, we fail entirely see. To assert a relation is one thing, to assert a correlation is quite another. We doubt not that "in some mysterious way" physical force and "thought force" are related. But that there is any evidence that warrants the conclusion that these forces are correlated in the sense claimed for them, we feel perfectly safe in denying. That heat, and perhaps other forms of energy or force, may be taken up and employed by the agent "mysterious agent"-whose instrument the brain is, that they may be raised to a higher plane, (not raise themselves,) be used and let down again, all "in some mysterious way," there can be no doubt. Under what conditions this can be done we propose to consider in a future essay. That there is a difficulty herenay, even a mystery-we freely admit; but that it is solved by the method of Professor Barker we deny.

• See our book-notice of Prof. Tyndall.-ED.

What fact has Professor Barker given that can be compared at all to those by which the mutual conversion of the physical and chemical forces is established? He simply reminds us of the nervous structure, and that food goes as blood into this structure called brain, that it is decomposed there, that some of the energy or force stored up in it is set free in the form of heat, but not enough to account for all the energy that must have been set free. This residuum of energy which has disappeared from our view it is presumed is converted into "thought force"-we say presumed, not proved-but how, we have nothing save conjecture to tell us. The very point we wait to see established is the unmistakable conversion, direct or indirect, of physical into mental force. This much has been promised us, and this alone will satisfy us. The mere dictum of no man or set of men is sufficient, however learned or scientific they may be. We await the proofs. The sole case that it seems to us can give even a coloring of probability to the view we are now examining is that set forth in the essay of Dr. Carpenter. It will form a topic of our next article.

That in the working of the brain, as the instrument of the mind, physical energy is in some way really necessary, and that it undergoes some kind of transformation, there need be no question. But that we must or can conclude, from any thing known, that heat, for example, is converted into the energy of mind, is simply preposterous, even on logical grounds.

ART. II.-THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN AND ITS LITERATURE.

Books Published by John Dickins, No. 50 North Second-street, near Arch-street, Philadelphia. For the Use of the Methodist Societies in the United States of America. 1795.

List of Publications of the Methodist Book Concern, April, 1871. New York: Carlton & Lanahan, Agents. Cincinnati, Chicago, and St. Louis: Hitchcock & Walden, Agents. San Francisco, California: E. Thomas, Agent.

ON our table lies a fac-simile, received from the hand of Dr. Carlton, of the first catalogue of books for the use of the Methodists in this country. It is a curiosity-a single leaf, six and a half inches long by three and three fourths wide. It contains a