the universal fatherhood of God can we infer from the parable of the Prodigal Son. Are we not most clearly given to understand that the father had a fatherly love for his boy even while he was away in the haunts of sin. Yet more, is it not a significant fact that in the gospel of John, which is recognized as setting forth the profoundest conceptions which the Bible contains of the relations between the human soul and God, the judicial functions of God are alluded to only five or six times, while God is spoken of as a father more than a hundred times, and Christ and his followers are alluded to as sons of God many times besides. May not this fact reasonably confirm us in the conviction that the filial spirit in which modern theology regards God, comes nearer to the highest truth than the prostrate and terrified attitude which the medieval theology maintained before the awful Judge. I say the medieval theology; for the earliest theology of the church seems to be more in affinity with the modern spirit. It is well to remember that the Apostle's Creed begins, I believe in God the Father Almighty, and the Lord's prayer begins not with an invocation to a remote and majestic Sovereign, but with the words, Our Father which art in heaven.

And yet the conception of God as a Father must certainly not be suffered to displace our conception of Him as King and Judge. The two conceptions are not incompatible. On the contrary in every coherent system of theology they must be interfused. Here as elsewhere the solution of surface difficulties and the harmonizing of apparent contradictions will be found in the life and words of Him who is the truth. For concurrent with Jesus' doctrine of the Fatherhood of God goes his doctrine of the Kingdom of God. Each is the complement of the other. Because God is our Father He becomes also our Ruler and our Judge. The Old Testament writers commonly beheld Him as One upon a throne of judgment, but now and again they caught glimpses of Him as a Father. In the New Testament for the first time He is revealed principally as a Father but His royal and judicial function is not allowed to sink out of sight. Still he orders by His supreme will the affairs of the universe. This difference between the earlier and the later conception appears however. To the vision of the

prophets more frequently the kingdom of righteousness was to be established by force. In the utterances of Christ and his apostles this strain does not indeed altogether disappear. But the sons of thunder who would fain call down fire from heaven in imitation of Elijah are rebuked with the words, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives but to save them;" and the kingdom of righeousness is proclaimed as a kingdom whose law is love: a kingdom which is to grow and spread abroad by the continual adoption into it of subjects who are made subjects by becoming the obedient children of the father in heaven. "The manifestation of the Sons of God" is represented as the end of creation and the completion of the kingdom of heaven. When all men receive God as their father then and not till then will the universal kingdom be established.

The vital spring of personal religion is the deep conscious. ness that God is my Father. But my idea of God will be inevitably dwarfed and made either weak and sentimental or hard and severe unless I think of Him as sustaining that same relation also to all mankind. So that by very virtue of His universal Fatherhood, God appears as in the truest and loftiest sense a King and a Judge, exercising his power, wisdom and love in ordering all the relations which the members of the human race sustain toward one another and toward Himself. We belittle God unless we think of Him as King and Judge as well as Father. Calvinism has erred in following too closely in the footsteps of Judaism. Regarding God too exclusively as the monarch of the universe, it has tended to perpetuate the legal spirit in Christians rather than to foster that spirit of adoption which cries Abba, Father. The amazing moral force of Calvinism and its great blessings for mankind have sprung from its profoundly true and wise exaltation of the Almighty Ruler. The stormy times in which its teachings took mightiest hold upon the hearts of men needed a special emphasis laid upon the doctrine of the Sovereignty of a Righteous God. So, as we read the pages of history, we see how Calvinism has wrought in some of the noblest minds an intense humility, an utter dependence on God, a contempt for the things of earth, an ardent spirituality, a purity, self-abnegation and heroism such as hardly find a parallel.

But the difficulty with Calvinism, as such eulogists of it as Mr. Froude and Mr. Carlyle unconsciously to themselves suggest, is that it tends to set Power above Love as the Divine Instrument for subduing and controlling the hearts of men. As in the pagan drama of the Prometheus Bound, Force and Strength are made or rather seem to be made the heavenly messengers. Calvinism does not sufficiently place a Father upon the throne of the universe. So it often loses sight of the welfare of the individual in a coldly benevolent calculation of what the welfare of the largest number may require. Cromwell's massacre at Drogheda and Mr. Carlyle's elaborate vindication of it may illustrate what I mean. For good men's ideas of what is righteousness on earth are apt to color their ideas of what the divine righteousness may be.

Calvinism, like the Roman Empire and like the Roman hierarchy in the middle ages, has had its great and beneficent work to do for humanity-a work which, perhaps, could have been done by no other agency. But out of the current Protestant theology certain Calvinistic features which were deeply stamped upon Calvinism by the Roman Law may now, I think, in the Divine Providence be seen disappearing. It is probable that they have served their day and that their mission is accomplished. The Spirit who is the guide of the church of Christ into all truth, seems to be making a truth which Calvinism neglected to be the new center of theology. That truth is the Fatherhood of God as revealed to the world through the Sonship of Jesus Christ our Lord. The correlation of this truth with the great doctrine of Divine Sovereignty for which Calvinism witnessed, may be found in these words of the apostle Peter:

"And if ye call on the Father who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear."

In these words of the apostle John:

"If any man sin we have an advocate (not with the judge but) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

And finally in these words of our Saviour:

"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein."

ARTICLE III.-PHYSIOLOGY VS. PHILOSOPHY.*

In this exceedingly practical and luxurious age, when the movement of one's finger ends in San Francisco may be heard half around the globe; when we may determine the elemental structure of a star the rays of whose light have been millions. of years in reaching our earth, almost as surely as if it was near us; when the common people of a nation of 45,000,000 live in a daily luxury of food and home, which fifty years ago only the wealthy could have, and all by means of the wonderful advances made by science, it is not surprising that there exists in the very sound of its name a fascination which belongs to that of no other general term so often heard in these days.

On the other hand, when we remember how long and how patiently the brightest minds, the keenest intellects have been devoted to the study and elaboration of philosophy, and with what exceedingly meager results so far as practical advantage in the way of material wealth and physical comfort is concerned, we may not wonder that this name has, in these latter days, lost much of its former charm for minds which are eager to push forward in the grand struggle for wealth or fame. Indeed, there seems to be a kind of stigma attached to the term Metaphysics by the active, investigating minds of to-day; there is thought to be something so unreal, so unpractical in its study, as compared with that of science, that its claims and advantages in helping to elucidate some of the yet unsolved problems of life would appear to be in danger of being overlooked, if not forgotten. It is but fair, however, to remember that in the ages gone by, some of the grandest discoveries the human mind has ever made-discoveries by means of which science itself has been made possible and built up step by step, discoveries some of which have made known our relation to the universe of worlds outside our own, have come to us through the door of philosophy, and while science was in the cradle of infancy. It may not, therefore, be wholly unprofitable to

* Read before the New England Psychological Society, March 9th, 1880.

compare some of the more important claims of both science and philosophy, in helping to elucidate the still apparently unsettled problem of life and mind in their relation to body, in which as psychologists we have so large an interest.

In this proceeding I shall contrast to some extent the views of physiology with those of philosophy; intimating, also, as far as may be necessary to my purpose, points of agreement between the two.

I shall refer first to some of those which physiology presents as the results of recent investigations and prophecies of future revelations in her domain of science.*

First. Physiology views man as an animal, and an animal only. There exists no duality of his nature. It is a unitentire, and in no respect differs from that of other animals except in degree. She begins with Protoplasm as the basis of all forms of living matter and the Protozoa as the beginning of animated structures. These consist of simply a homogeneous, unindivualized mass. There are neither cells, blood-vessels, or nerves. They have neither stomach or lungs, and yet are sensible to external stimuli.

From these forms she passes up to those having the rudiments of a nervous system, viz: fibers connected with a cell; and as the structure becomes more complex these fibers with their cells increase in number until nerves and brains composed of white matter are formed.

In fishes appear the first rudiments of the cerebral hemispheres in the form of "a thin layer" of gray matter near the optic lobes, while in birds "they have so far increased in size as to push forward the optic lobe." In the mammalia, their size is still further increased, and in the monkey and finally in man they attain "their largest size, projecting over and beyond the cerebellum."

It is claimed that in all this ascent from the most rudimentary forms to those of the most complex nature, the office of the white matter and the sensory ganglia are the same, and

*In the following brief sketch of some of the views and claims of mental physiology, the writer has mainly followed the last edition of Maudsley. The views expressed, however, would probably not differ in any essential respect from those held by Tyndal, Huxley, Hæckel, and others of the modern school.