284. 
be to invalidate all history. We have no stronger assurance 
that Cesar invaded Britain than that God brought the 
Israelites out of Heypt and through the Red Sea. We have 
no better proof of the result of the Battle of Agincourt than 
we have of the overthrow of the Ammonites, Moabites, and 
the people of Mount Seir by their own swords. 
Thus, by a long series of carefully-recorded events, we find 
the reality of a divine rule of man is attested, and in our 
present condition we have abundant proof that it is neither 
relaxed nor restricted. We cannot remove our body from the 
operation of the physical laws of the Creator, nor can we take 
our soul out of the control of His moral law, or prevent a 
single action of our life from recording its moral verdict in 
our nature itself. T'o submit to this rule insures our highest 
good, because it is that of the Father of our spirits, who can 
have no purpose adverse to us, and because it enlists the 
authority, power, and wisdom of the Author and Ruler of the 
Universe for the accomplishment of our desires and the im- 
provement of our nature. But to resist and rebel is to oppose 
our highest interest, and can only result in degradation and 
ruin: ‘‘ Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the 
earth,” but ‘‘ woe unto him that striveth with his Maker.”’ 
THe CHArrMAN (Mr. W. N. Wesr).—Had the author of the paper been pre- 
sent instead of in the southern hemisphere, it would have been a great pleasure 
to have accorded him in person a vote of thanks for favouring us with so 
interesting a paper. We are indebted to Mr. Dent for his kindness in read- 
ing it, and shall now be happy to hear any remarks that may be offered.* 
Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. (in responding to a call), said, I feel that I am 
in the position of an advocate who has no case to argue against. I regard 
the paper as an extremely able one. What strikes me with respect to the 
papers read before this Institute as a rule is, that it does not seem desirable 
* A correspondent remarks as to page 253, line 4, “‘ Except so far as this, 
that if He gives existence to other beings it is only to be expected that He 
should give them means to attain the end He sets before them.” The author 
replies, “I entirely concur as to the existence of such responsibility, yet I 
am not discussing creation in the place in question, and think it would be 
irrelevant to introduce the limitation suggested.” To the same critic he 
replies that Max Muller, in Chips from a German Workshop, is his authority 
for stating that Abraham and Zoroaster were contemporary. This critic 
also refers to the beginning of the sixth paragraph from the end of the 
paper, and says, “ Not without limit, but rather within the limits of our 
free agency.” ‘To which the author replies, “I agree that our accountability 
is only within the limits of our free agency’; but does not our ‘free 
agency ’—or, as I prefer to call it simply, our agency—cover an entire 
action, responsibility included? I think it does, and therefore wrote ‘ with- 
out limit.” 
** The discussion was not taken on pages 269 to 281, 
