no theory of evolution can be accepted as established until it put itself in harmony with the fact of the existence of genius.

XII. THE MORAL SENSE.

THE existence of the moral sense in man is as acknowledged a phenomenon as the existence of the vertebral column in his body. Humanity is universally conscious of a distinction between right and wrong. This moral sense creates the demand for an ethical system, which shall be suited to all times and places in which humanity can exist. For the origin of this moral sense evolution has no explanation, and it can find in nature no "data for ethics" against which the moral sense of mankind does not rebel. The attempt of Mr. Darwin to explain the former, and of Mr. Spencer to produce the latter, have been such philosophic failures as to be almost ludicrous. The platform of evolution is wholly mechanical, and, therefore, necessarily excludes the idea of morality. Nothing can be mechanical and moral at the same time.

What is done mechanically is not a

deed for which the machine can be responsible. That which a man does voluntarily, that deed of his which was not produced through him by any antecedent, or external, or irresistible cause, that which has its causation wholly in his unforced volition, is that for which he can be held responsible. Now there is the possibility of the performance of such a voluntary action or there is not. If any of the existing theories of evolution. be true, there is no such possibility, but every human being has the consciousness of such possibility, and so it has come to pass that every existing hypothesis of evolution, however it may have succeeded in making an image on the mirror of the intellect, has failed to make the moral sense of men perceive that it has existence as a moral reality. Even Mr. Darwin admits that "freewill is a mystery insoluble to the naturalist."

Moreover, there is in mankind a feeling that morality is both universal and immortal. It is not for one clime, or one planet, one generation, or one race, and it is not dependent on anything that can perish. It gathers its prodigious power from the belief in man

that it is not tribal nor ethnic, that it is not municipal nor national, that it is not ancient nor modern, that it has always been so and will always be so. The imperishability of heroic righteousness is the faith in which have been performed all those deeds which have made way for liberty and civilization, and have rendered the doers glorious in the sight of succeeding generations. But if evolution be true, there is no such thing. Whatever by ingenious arrangement can be made to take on the semblance of moral goodness is to perish. Evolution teaches, according to Mr. Leslie Stephen, that all progress is mechanical, that progress is a stage of evolution, that evolution means a continuous process of adjustment, that this signifies that the existing adjustment is imperfect, that the moment the adjustment be comes perfect man will have reached the highest arc of the curve, " "after which he could only expect descent." Professor Goldwin Smith (Contemporary Review) called attention to the fact that the late Professor Clifford distinctly looked forward to a catastrophe in which man and all his works

will perish, and that Mr. Herbert Spencer believes the same. Now, if all a man's acts, which seem to him to have in them a moral quality, have no further reach nor longer endurance than those which are merely involuntary, like his heart-beats, or those which are manifestly morally colorless, as the length to which he lets his hair or nails grow, if all that we associate with goodness, self-sacrifice, heroism, has no greater heritage in the future than the most indifferent acts performable by an animal, all being alike the products of mere machine, then there can be no Basis of Morality, and, of course, no data for a Science of Ethics. The idea of an evolutionist talking of "Data of Ethics" involves a ridiculous absurdity.

Mr. Darwin admits that "free-will is a mystery insoluble to the naturalists," and Professor Tyndall says that the chasm be.. tween the brain action and consciousness is impassable, that

here is the rock on which materialism must split whenever it pretends to be a complete philosophy of the human mind.*

* See Munger's Freedom of Faith, pp. 226, 227.

DOES not a theory of evolution which places its account of the universe wholly in matter with its potencies necessarily involve the eternity of matter? * In addition to all the burdens to be carried by every other theory of evolution, this theory assumes other loads. One is this: Eternity of matter is as difficult to conceive, as well as to prove, as is the eternity of mind. Mind is the product of matter. Matter is the product of mind. Here are two statements, both of which cannot be true. The question arises which theory will most easily account for the greater number of phenomena? If it cannot be assumed that by proving either we can displace the other, if both be equally beyond demonstration, we must take that which gives the easier explanation of the universe. The theory that Mind preceded Matter certainly does this.

But, for the argument's sake, suppose mat

* Tyndall says: "The law of conservation rigidly excludes both creation and annihilation" (Annual of Scientific Discovery, 1864, p. 79).