action, so that the strength of the influence in favor of one is exactly and in all respects equal to that of the other, it is impossible for him to choose between the two, or to prefer the one to the other. As, for instance, no man can have the least consciousness of ability to choose one golden eagle in preference to another, the two being in his mind exactly and in all respects alike. He may take the one or the other at random; or we may put the case hypothetically, and say he may take this if he chooses, or he may take that if he chooses. But he may deliberate and debate the question which he will choose or prefer to the other until the "crack of doom," and he can not decide it. Not until some additional motive or influence comes in on one side or the other, can he make the choice, and that influence or motive being added, the choice is already made, and the preference is inevitable. This we take to be the testimony of consciousness thus far.

It is admitted as a fact of consciousness, in the most restricted sense of the term, that there are influences tending to direct the choice or will of the mind, and that, in all ordinary cases, these influences or motives are unequal, else there could be no choice or will. Now, the further testimony of consciousness is that the choice or will invariably follows the strongest and the most potent of two opposing influences. By what law it so follows is of no consequence. Enough it is that it follows invariably. On the other hand, there is not in the mind of any man. a consciousness of indifference to all influences, or of a power over motives, which is able to choose a minor in preference to a major object. No man is conscious of holding such sway over all motives that he can choose to embrace a putrid corpse in preference to a living, loving friend. Instead of holding sway over motives, the testi

mony of consciousness is that motives hold sway over us, so that without a motive we can neither choose, or will, or act. The preponderating motive is always irresistible; that is to say, it is impossible for us to choose or will otherwise than in accordance with the prevailing belief and the most potent desire. The strongest desire and the most assured belief being given, the result is as certainly determined as the solution of any problem in mathematics. The whole matter is in a nutshell as follows: If we say that 5 is equal to 3 plus 2, then 3 is only equal to 5 minus 2, and no other result is possible without changing the terms of the proposition. So, if the power of the motive be 5, and that of the resistance actually exerted be 3, then the motive is equal to the resistance plus 2; and of course the resistance is only equal to the motive minus 2, and the choice follows as certainly as the greater exceeds the less. Nor is any other result possible without changing the terms of the proposition. To say that the motive might have been resisted if a sufficient power had been exercised, is only to say that a different result would have been reached if the motive had been only 3, and the resistance 5; for then the resistance would have been equal to the motive plus 2. But the truth is, it was minus 2, and the ex post facto hypothesis is reduced to zero by the fact that its terms were not given in the problem actually solved. Of course, the assumed consciousness that we might have chosen differently from our actual choice, in any given instance, IF certain conditions had been fulfilled, is a mere hypothesis that we should have solved the problem differently if the terms had been changed. Now, the truth is, the terms of the problem are usually changed as they appear in the retrospect. As the case actually stood, then and there, when the choice or will was made, it was strength of motive, 5; power of resistance, 3; or, motive

equal to resistance plus 2. But now we have resistance increased, or motive decreased, by experience and knowledge, and the case seems to us to stand: strength of motive, 3; resistance, 5; or, resistance equal to motive plus 2, and we think we might have resisted and chosen differently. And so we could if the conditions of the hypothesis had been made good. But they were not, and for that reason the choice could not have been otherwise than as it was. The sum of what we have said is briefly as follows: The appeal to consciousness, as final and decisive against our position, is not well taken, because—

I. It is an open question whether the facts of consciousness may, or may not, be redargued. The answer to that question depends substantially upon the previous question, whether consciousness is so defined as to embrace in the sphere of its vision the external along with the internal world. If it embraces the external world, its facts may, in certain cases, be redargued, and the conflict is argument against argument, and not argument against infallible authority. But if consciousness is so defined as to be restricted merely to what passes in our own minds, then it deals with effects, and not with causes; ignores God and his government, and can give no decision upon the question at issue.

2. Because the testimony of consciousness is not opposed to the doctrine that we have propounded. On the contrary, that the mind feels the influence of motive, that the choice or will follows the preponderating desire and the prevailing belief, and that action follows the will or choice by an invariable law of sequence and consequence; these are matters of consciousness with every man; and between these facts of consciousness and what we claim to be the revealed truth, that the will of the Creator is the law by which choice follows motive, and action follows

choice, there is no opposition whatever. And further, what is claimed as a consciousness of liberty of will, or freedom of action, is no more or less than an unconsciousness of restraint or hinderance, to prevent us from choosing according to desire and belief, or from acting according to our choice or will; and, therefore, there is no conscious- · ness of freedom or liberty that stands opposed to our position. So, then, we are never driven to the alternative of abandoning the position that God reigns in and over every choice and every act, or denying our consciousness. On the contrary, if we add to the facts of consciousness the revealed truth that the will of God is the law, and the only law, by virtue of which causes produce their effects, the result is inevitable: The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth every-where and always. Amen. Even so let it be.

15

CHAPTER XII.

THE PROCESS OF GOD IN THE UNIVERSE.

Life the Essence, and Movement the Formula of the Universe-Life Derived and not Original-God is Infinite Life-The Universe the Creature of GodGod, the Life of the World-Dr. Dick-Extract from his Writings—“ A Grand Organ"—God Present in the Universe-God Mindful of Man-Man Filled with the Life of God-Our Body a Curiously Wrought Machine— Praise and Blame-"Judge not that ye be not Judged - God Punishes Man Prospectively-The "Lex Talionis" Principle-God Chastens in Love.

HAVING for the time being disposed of the vexed question of free agency, so far as it is supposed to have a bearing upon the fact of the reign of God in all things, we turn to consider the process of the divine government as follows:

Life is the essence, and motion is the formula of the universe, and all its countless movements and activities are embraced in that formula. God is life, and motion is the first step in creation. And so God is the final cause of all movement, and without him there is no motion. There is not a leaf that flutters in the breeze, nor a mote that dances in the sunbeam, whose movement is not communicated, and whose ultimate cause is not in God. Back of all days, months, and years, there was no sun, moon, or stars; no earth, land, or sea; no man, beast, bird, fish, or insect. Darkness brooded over the deep void of boundless space, and there was no shape or form of any thing. But