possessor from any overt acts till an opportunity has been allowed for further consideration, during which period of suspended action the will may augment or diminish the force of motives which either impel to, or deter from, the commission of the contemplated act. This demand for "a stay of proceedings," formed originally upon a deliberate conviction that hasty action under unreasoning impulses is liable to prove unwise, becomes, by being frequently made, a confirmed habit, which in many instances greatly aids in ascertaining which way duty lies.

6. The power of confronting its possessor with the probable consequences of his act-consequences near and remote.

7. The power of impressing its possessor with a keen remembrance of the injurious results of acts performed under impulses unsanctioned by judgment.

8. The power of forcing its possessor to note his weaknesses, as well as the parts of his character which are strongly defended.

9. The power of intensifying the verdict of the moral sense, to the effect that the deliberate decisions of the will have been too often disregarded in the past, and should be obeyed henceforth.

10. The power of giving to certain feelings such a measure of intensity as shall render obedience to volitional decisions much easier.

Consequently, in a properly constituted human being, in good physical and mental condition, every activity is measurably under the control of the will, either directly or indirectly, at least every activity that is concerned, to any controlling extent, in his moral well-being, even the automatic machinery being so far subject to his control as to leave him responsible for the beliefs he entertains and for the course of conduct he pursues.

CHAPTER XXIV.

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE; NO CONFLICT.

To deem it possible that there may be a lack of harmony between an accurate knowledge of natural laws and a correct interpretation of a supernatural revelation is to assume that there may be more than one originating cause in the universe, or that the First Cause is chargeable with duplicity of purpose, if indeed He may not be guilty of designing to deceive His intelligent creatures. Reason affirms that more than one originating cause is inconceivable. In this opinion physicists and metaphysicians concur. Nor is human reason less emphatic in asserting that unity of design must characterize the works of nature, whatever may have been their origin; and must be a characteristic of the First Cause of all things, if a First Cause exists. Conflicting purposes imply imperfection. They must arise from lack of knowledge, or from feebleness of will; neither of which is conceivable in an Unconditioned Personality, to which, as a Primal Cause, reason is forced to refer all existences. And to imagine that the Ultimate of all ultimates could possibly design to deceive His intelligent creatures is to imagine that He could be less than the sum of all goodness-that the stream can rise higher than the fountain. Accordingly, he who has faith in a divine revelation (the existence of which is highly probable, if we conceive of God as having regard to the well-being of sentient

creatures) need have no apprehensions in reference to the progress of science. Scientific investigation cannot possibly obscure the light of revelation. Only philosophy falsely so called can produce this result, and its effects must be temporary in their nature. Theology has a province of its own, and a right to exact obedience to its laws. A supernatural revelation is not amenable to the laws of physics.

Nor is the scientist called upon to assume a hostile attitude towards the teachings of Scripture. These, properly interpreted, can by no possibility retard the progress of physical science. The student of nature may fear, and has cause to fear, that a false exegesis of Scripture may antagonize the established facts of science, though the effects of such antagonism must be transitory. Certainly he has no cause to apprehend any disastrous results from just interpretations of a divine revelation. As long as the scientist is left free to explain. everything that is graven on the accessible leaves of nature's great volume, he may safely accord to the theologian the liberty of explaining that which is contained in a written revelation. Why should either presume to invade the province of the other? Neither province is so restricted as to leave its citizens without broad fields awaiting more successful cultivation.

It is safe, therefore, to affirm that the two volumes, Nature and the Bible, must be in perfect harmony. Being expressions of the same will, no conflict is possible. Accordingly, when the interpretations given to either are in seeming antagonism with the teachings of the other, it is reasonable to conclude that either the theologian or the scientist is misreading the volume committed to his care. Nor is it possible to deny that each has frequently fallen into serious errors. Scientists have; and they

frankly admit it. Theologians have; and it would be folly for them to deny it. Whilst there may, perhaps, measure of impropriety in enumerating the mistaken inferences of scientists, there is nothing unbecoming in acknowledging that theologians have been indiscreet in hastily-often dogmatically-opposing the conclusions reached by scientific investigation. Unnecessary antagonism has been produced. In some instances it has become but too plainly evident that they who have undertaken a defence of Scripture are but poorly qualified for the task, seriously weakening a cause which they hoped to strengthen. Ardor is well: argument is better. Religious faith is grand: logical force must conquer the field ere faith can erect her majestic spire. Reasoning steeped in prejudice has no weight with the unbiased. It is a misfortune when, as has frequently happened, defenders of Scripture are compelled to accept conclusions which they once pronounced glaringly atheistic. It proves but too conclusively that they were under the guidance of strong prejudice. Such was the case with those theologians who regarded the doctrine of the earth's revolution upon its axis as inconsistent with the declarations of Scripture, and certainly heretical; with those who viewed the theory of gravitation as decidedly. atheistic in its tendencies, and Newton as giving comfort to the enemies of Scripture; with those who, ere a new interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis was forced upon the church, persisted in pronouncing the teachings of geology antagonistic to the Bible.

Mr. Spencer has well said, "Just as though unaware that its central position was impregnable, religion has obstinately held every outpost long after it was obviously indefensible." "Obliged to abandon one by one the superstitions it once tenaciously held, and daily finding its

cherished beliefs more and more shaken, religion shows a secret fear that all things may some day be explained; and thus itself betrays a lurking doubt whether that Incomprehensible Cause of which it is conscious, is really incomprehensible." *

There is reason to fear that this folly may repeat itself. Some there are, who seem to imagine that unless the antiquity of man can be compressed within the limits of Archbishop Usher's chronology, supernatural revelation is seriously imperiled; though, to prove that there is a scientific chronology in Scripture prior to the founding of Solomon's temple would require more learning than this age can command, and to retain faith in the unity of the human family while refusing to lengthen the period of human history is daily becoming more difficult -in the opinion of many is now an impossibility, more time being imperatively demanded for the production of differences which exist between the several races of men. Nor is it politic to ignore the fact, that though some are violently opposed to the doctrine of the transmutation of species-deeming it absolutely impossible that all organisms should have developed from a few parental forms, possibly from a single primordial germ,—it is illogical to characterize the theory as atheistic, since it is impossible to see why it should be regarded as a less noble conception of God to believe that he may have created one or two germs capable of evolving all living existences, than to believe that he created each species independently. If he chose to produce all plant-forms and all animal organisms by evolution from one primordial germ, assuredly no one is at liberty to consider His existence less real, His personality less marked, His will less powerful, His wisdom less perfect, His self-sufficiency * First Principles, p. 101.