tepresented as excluding a deity. Tins ^n^\oti\»s Y\^ten*- in. the doctrine of evolution, but only eK&gta&tttiftA .£ VibAcVi proceed from atheistic pre-supposimtetem^ . to suppose that God may work as readily Uotvs. It "wV*j?^ as tVirough special creation. Besides, tYttoug\v Cno^ dispenses with teleology, content

« »;,»Vv * mechanical explanation of the ummg hunsett vjwcv r

- _„ , great mass of historical evidence, which

verse, ignores a. &

goes to shovj \.Yiat the end of the natural order is the moral order. To illustrate: The last few centuries, which have witnessed a vast growth of industry and commerce, have also witnessed a remarkable religious development. Man has ministered as much to his spiritual as to his temporal wants, his knowledge of the industrial arts has been supplemented by a better knowledge of himself and the application of that knowledge to moral ends. The degree of man's control over self now approximates to his control over nature, and theistic dogma, to which is largely due the credit for this achievement, bids fair to extend with civilization until it embraces the whole world.

While materialism at one pole of thought would reduce everything to a mechanics of atoms, idealism at the opposite pole would bring all phenomena under a dynamics of mind. Idealism takes two forms. The weakness of the first is in. its denial of the reliability of perceptions. That perceptions are reliable indices of the external world is proven by the practical use made of them in the guidance of life. Action following on idealistic principles would soon bring destruction to the organ ism. Empirical idealism also fails to account for other egos or centres of mental forces.

The second form or absolute idealism regards the physical world as a function of consciousness, the distinction between mind and matter being due to a mental conflict of impulse. Naturally a theory which sees the only reality in the evolution of an eternal idea tends to produce a skepticism which brings upon it the stout and successful opposition of natural realismFrom the point of view of history the efforts to reach a unity by explaining matter in terms of mind have proven as weak in the face of criticism as the effort to reduce mind to a by-product of matter. It may be said in passing, however, that even monism rigorously analyzed may admit of theistic interpretation as shown by the editor of The Globe in his article on "Cosmotheism" and that attempts have been made by philosophers, notably Berkeley and his followers, to reconcile theism and idealism by making the opposition of the latter to materialism, a prop to the former. Berkeley did this by assigning to the external its reality in the mind of God only. Men's ideas were not gained through sensation, but were phantasms passing through the mind at the behest of God. By making man a passive actor in the drama of existence and by emphasizing the immanence of God, this philosophy comes closer to pantheism than orthodox theism. Matter cannot be proven to be merely a mental state, nor on the other hand can an idea be proven merely an association of sense —experience elements as the materialists would have it. Under these circumstances the common sense view of theism, recognizing mind and matter as independent entities or rather as closed parallel circuits working in harmony, will commend itself to most as combining the strongest claims of both schools in a theory which at the same time leaves scope for the action of a supreme spiritual director. The problem of whether his directing is done from within the world or without, or from both within and without, raises the question of God's relation to the world. Theism, as usual occupying the middle ground, maintains that God is immanent and yet transcendent. That God is the creator and nature the creature and yet "In Him we live and move and have our being." Deism emphasizes the transcendence of God at the expense of his immanence. It looks at the world as a grand mechanism run by natural forces according to natural law. The giant artificer standr apart from it, the relation between them being wholly an external one. This kind of a deity can never satisfy the faith and longing of man. What were a God who only gave the world a push from without or let it spin around his fingers like a top?

The pantheistic temperament goes off on another tack and emphasizes the immanence of God so much as to make him equivalent to all existence, good, bad or indifferent. God is not the Infinite, but is brought down to finite limits, or so many of his qualities are abstracted as to leave him a mere organizing and regulative principle working and moulding from within. So far as the ethical consequences to be derived from deism or c^T^e^' ^ese systems might well be identical ^atewat^ 0,<A\t\STn to wViich they are akin. The pracwi(k (3a Vsrea> °.&c,C Uv° systems with atheism eliminates them <\<*v\wvno\vk The religious interests of mankind and

from the tWy imply are involved in the issue of the

. _ »Vie^sm orv trie one hand and atheism on the contact between «w . .„,„,... other. The \<Jtt©ot> °* tne future will be Christianity or nothing, according to tbe prevalence of the teleological or meehani cal view. It is ^ notable fact that people falling away from Christianity, instead of affiliating with another sect, usually lapse into atheism.

Now the doctrine, history and status of the two rival system r of thought are known quantities and consequently sufficient data is given to determine which philosophy shall or should be universally adopted and applied concretely to the solution of social and political problems.

Theism holds that the world manifests in its works the action of a higher spirit whose nature is love. It infers from this premise the freedom of man, whom it holds to be a dualism of temporal body and immortal soul interacting harmoniously as a unity of form and matter, the body corresponding with the temporal and the soul with the spiritual world. By assigning the body a distinct sphere subordinate to the soul, it leaves no room properly conceived for Christian science, and by holding the soul to be direct from its maker, to whom if worthy it shall return, it avoids reincarnation. It sees in evil possible good and is optimistic, believing in a power that makes for righteousness. Holding that man is the master of condition', his knowledge the result of selective attention, and his choice free, it enjoins him to transform the spirit of the world and not be conformed to it.

The doctrine of moral responsibilitv from free will is the basi? of legal jurisprudence, and to give up that doctrine would lie to nullify the abstract principle of which the laws that safeguard life, liberty and property are deductions. Theism is essentially co-operative, not competitive, teaching that society should be a brotherhood of democracy with all free and equal, and it is safe to say that the millenium would arrive to-morrow if men lived out their lives as Christianity exhorts them to, and if the social equities which it upholds supplanted the private privileges which now exist.

The history of Christianity has been what such doctrines would lead us to expect. Christianity has been the backbone of civilization for nearly two thousand years, inspiring art, advancing learning, and protecting virtue. Masterpieces of poetry and painting have Christian heroism for their theme. It was a fount of inspiration for Angelo and Dante and Raphael and Milton. It transformed the barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire, adding to the Teutonic elements of personal freedom and individuality the Roman genius for legal administration. It raised the position of women and laborers from slavery and serfdom to freedom and equality. It preserved learning during the (so called) dark ages and through its missionaries spread it over the known world, placing the treasures of knowledge at the disposal of the poor. It sobered man in prosperity and cheered him in adversity. Its constant aim has been to raise him from fallen degeneracy to pristine purity.

Christian principles are still applicable for the betterment of conditions and offer an adequate means of solving present problems. The church must be allowed to occupy its sphere and do its duty as well as the state.

While man has broken down the barriers of time and space, forced the secrets of nature and mastered the problems of material production, the moral question of the proper distribution of this wealth is still unsettled and clamoring for attention. Christian views on the values of life are particularly applicable here. Holding that character is the end and wealth but a means, it teaches that the possession of wealth is a sacred trust to be administered for the elevation of mankind. It would settle this question then and fulfill its modern mission in doing so, not by urging coercive laws imposed from without to check the clamor of the masses for their rights, but by teaching all men, rich as well as poor, that the relations between capital and labor are to be ultimately decided by men's conception of duty to God and towards each other. It aims at a change of character in men through moral education, that will compel the practice of individual appropriation of labor's fruits to die out as duelling died out before the adverse force of public opinion. And through the action of this public opinion which it fosters will also come the economic equality of the future, supplement

j ^ Te^igiou.s and political equality which is%»AyA«i^ ¥>V the achievements of the past. And ^cac« tVt ^c to solve new problems, teach new duties

Omri»rifc!"«&».^». It will still allure to brighter worlds

atui tevea\ M« tv*'

and lead tlie. vwj • . - , ,

» ^ • c A „*TMe & OTVe tortri looks at man, society and proAtheistic doctiw=- > J K

gress as ttie \ague evolution and manifestation of an eternal idea moving towards a vanishing goal impelled by the purposiveness -within it, the external world being a shadow or partial realization of the idea at different stages in its development. Man under this system might be compared to an atom in an organism whose development he has no conscious part in. The theory is fatalistic, combating the freedom of man and the realism of nature. It is also too abstract to have much effect on individual life or social organization.

Materialism is also pessimistic, holding that man is the slave of conditions, his thought the energy of atomic vibration, his action determined entirely from without by the forces of environment, his end the dissolution of the material body. There i: no soul and the grave ends all, all the fears and the hopes and the longings.

Society in this system is an aggregation of warring elements or a pool table with the balls moving in the direrHnn uf the strongest force along the line of least resistance, whether it leads to good or evil. Competition is the great law of life and class struggles the cause of progress, though they may bring about reversion as well as evolution.

Atheism advocates a laissez-faire policy on the part of the Government that is dangerously close to anarchy: or, going to the other extreme, endorses a material socialism that would enlarge the powers of the state to such an extent as to blot out individual liberty and family integrity. It is constantly disturbing the proper balance between social order and individual freedom.

Atheism has never built up an organization nor founded an institution; on the contrary, the passage of a spirit of atheism through society is when it becomes concrete in action, usuallv attended with a train of consequences disastrous to the public peace and welfare. This was exemplified in the terrible hour of its triumph during the French Revolution, when law and