126 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



observations and conclusions, we 

 shall here quote portions of his 

 article. 



In one normal school the ques- 

 tion under discussion in the psy- 

 chology class was as to the nature 

 and authority of conscieiice, and the 

 question having been asked, Is con- 

 science an infallible guide ? the fol- 

 lowing answer was accepted as cor- 

 rect: ''In one sense conscience is 

 infallible and in another it is not. 

 Conscience is not infallible in judg- 

 ing what is the highest good; it is 

 infallible in affirming that we should 

 choose .in accordance with our sense 

 of obligation." According to this 

 definition, we have, over and above a 

 " sense of obligation " in moral mat- 

 ters, something which tells us we 

 should obey that sense. But if a 

 " sense of obligation " does not of it- 

 self imply a need for obedience, what 

 force is there in the words ? And 

 what could be more palpably redun- 

 dant in expression than to say that 

 conscience is that which makes us 

 feel that we must do what we feel 

 we must do f Yet such and no other 

 is the sense of the answer accepted 

 as correct. 



There was more to come, how- 

 ever. The fallibility of conscience 

 in indicating the right course to fol- 

 low having been admitted, and the 

 consequent diversity of human stand- 

 ards of conduct having been recog- 

 nized, the teacher asked whether 

 there was aiiy such thing as an ab- 

 solute standard. The class answered 

 " Yes," and being asked to say where 

 such a standard was to be found, 

 answered with great unanimity, "In 

 the Word of God. " Teacher :* " The 

 Word of God, then, makes a revela- 

 tion of God's will and gives us a 

 standard of absolute right ? " Class : 

 "Yes, sir." It might have been ex- 

 pected that at this point the question 

 would have been raised as to how it 

 was that human standards differed 



so greatly if there was one generally 

 accepted standard in the Word of 

 God; but obvious as this develop- 

 ment of the subject was, the discus- 

 sion broke off at this point save for an 

 objection raised by one of the pupils 

 to the effect that, if the Bible con- 

 tained the one true standard of right 

 conduct, nations that did not possess 

 it could not know what they ought to 

 do. This objection the teacher dis- 

 posed of by authoritatively stating 

 that we were in no uncertainty, and 

 that the other matter might rest. 



Now, if the object of this discus- 

 sion was in any degree to teach the 

 teachers of the future to think, we 

 can only say that they were not 

 fairly dealt with. Every one knows 

 that disputes in regard to questions of 

 duty constantly arise and sometimes 

 wax very sharp between parties who 

 equally recognize the authority of 

 the Bible. If there is one absolute 

 standard in the Bible, why should 

 there be so many conflicting human 

 standards, and why should the con- 

 science of those who accept the Bi- 

 ble frequently lead them astray as 

 seemed to be fully admitted in the 

 class ? When our slavery troubles 

 were at their height, was not the 

 Bible invoked with equal conviction 

 on both sides ? Did not difference 

 of opinion as to what the Bible 

 taught on the subject lead even to 

 the disruption of churches ? To-day 

 legal prohibition of the liquor traffic 

 is a leading issue; and the situation 

 is just the same as it was forty years 

 ago in regard to slavery. Some find 

 prohibition in the Bible; others find 

 a distinct recognition of the lawful- 

 ness of wine drinking. So with the 

 question of women's rights, the ques- 

 tion of capital punishment, and a 

 dozen others that might be named. 

 For every text which the advocates 

 of one theory can quote, their oppo- 

 nents are ready with one of seeming- 

 ly opposite import. These are facts 



