stepping outside of her proper province, she undertakes to deal with purely mental problems. The very first thing she does, in carrying out that vain endeavour, is to remove the very problem itself and substitute another in its place. For sight she substitutes the eye; for intellect, the brain; for the will, sensory and motor nerves. Need we, then, be so very much alarmed when Science, with a voice a little too rudely loud and truculent, tries to frighten us by the assurance that she, after all her researches, knows nothing of God? The answer is obvious: "Who expects you to know anything about God when you manifestly know nothing about me?”

I might pursue the same line of argument in relation to the other absolutely necessary assumptions of science -viz. the trustworthiness of consciousness, and the veracity of memory, and the validity of logical processes. Without these assumptions not one single step can be taken in the direction of physical discovery-whether it be the discovery of the structure and habits of earthworms, or the discovery of the next appearance of a particular comet. Now, these are primary truths, admitted as such by science; unless science is to be self-confessed a mere pretentious cheat. And "primary truths"-I am quoting a work which it is impossible to study too carefully, and which is one of the most valuable contributions to modern philosophy—viz.: Dr. W. G. Ward's Philosophy of Theism (i. 5–6)— "primary truths consist of two classes-viz.: (1) primary premises, and (2) the validity of one or more inferring processes. We may add that the cognition of a primary truth as such is precisely what is called an 'intuition.' If these primary truths are guaranteed with certitude -but not otherwise-there is a stable foundation of

The

human knowledge in its entireness and totality. inquiry, then, to be instituted is this: Firstly, what characteristics must be possessed by those truths which the thinker may legitimately accept as primary? And secondly, on what ground does he know that the propositions are true which possess those characteristics? Or, to express the same thing in [other] words, firstly, what is the rule of certitude? and secondly, what is its motive? 1. Primary truths are those which the human intellect is necessitated by its constitution to accept with certitude, not as inferences from other truths, but on their own evidence; this is the rule of certitude; 2. These truths are known to be truths, because a created gift called the light of reason is possessed by the soul whereby every man, while exercising his cognitive faculties according to their intrinsic laws, is rendered infallibly certain that their avouchments correspond with objective truth; this is the motive of certitude."

I have neither space nor, unhappily, the ability to follow out the argument I have suggested in this sermon through all its ramifications. But in these dark and evil days, if we would strengthen our own faith and strengthen the faith, or prevent the apostasy, of others, we shall not, I think, much trouble ourselves with peddling arguments to prove the "scientific accuracy" of the book Genesis. We shall waste not an hour in trying to solve the difficulties of a piouslyminded ship-carpenter who cannot understand the description of the structure or see the sea-going sufficiency of Noah's Ark. The question to-day is not, How long did the creation of the world occupy? nor, How far did the Deluge extend? The question is this:

Is there a living God? Is there a human spirit? And if we would answer this question, I think we cannot do better than follow, at however humble a distance, the example of the illustrious author of The Analogy. He had to deal with gay and flippant sceptics, who, professing to believe in "Natural" Religion, rejected "Revealed." For them, and such as they, his argument was and is conclusive, needing no change in its general principles, and next to none even in its minutest details. It may well be doubted whether any of those whom he met at the Queen's receptions were serious enough to read his book; but it was written not for them only, but for all time. Our work, at least in form, is different from his. We have to deal with sceptics, often also idle and flippant, who reject both Natural and Revealed Religion, but profess to "believe in " science; and to accept those primary truths upon which science rests, and without which science must be forever impotent. Our task, then, it seems to me, is to show, "whether men will hear or whether they will forbear," that those primary truths will lead us much further than science; will compel us to accept religion and to believe in God. And when we believe in God, Butler will show us how inevitably we must accept His revelations. But alas! No danger can be more serious than the habit of regarding religion as an open question, needing at this time of day to be elaborately argued. Our only safeguard will be to get away as often as possible from that narrow region in which nothing is to be found but objects cognizable by the senses. We shall know far more of the human mind and of the capabilities of genius by studying Hamlet, than by dissecting brains. Let us associate with the noble

And,

men of all times, and imitate their noble deeds. after all, dealing so largely as we must with "the world and the things that are in the world," I am sure that we shall find our best, and only complete, protection in the practice of religion, in the word of God, in the Holy Sacraments, in the ever-repeated prayer of our earliest childhood, "Our Father which art in Heaven."

SELF-DELUSION.

But after certain days Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, which was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season I will call thee unto me. He hoped withal that money would be given him of Paul : wherefore also he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus: and desiring to gain favour with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.-Acts xxiv. 24-27.

The narrative of which these words are a part, and which we have already read together in the Second Lesson for this morning's service,* is an example of that marvellous power of self-deception which is one of the commonest, not to say one of the universal, frailties of human nature. We observe it every day of our lives in everybody with whom we are in the least degree intimate. It takes the most various, and sometimes the most grotesque, forms. It might not be considered surprising that a man should fail to perceive his most secret peculiarities or most venial sins. But we meet with people continually who are utterly blind to their most obvious absurdities. To take, for example, what may be regarded as a foible rather than a vice-what is more common than to find a man notorious for his egotism not only wholly unconscious

* Preached on the ninth Sunday after Trinity, 1886.