observations and conclusions, we shall here quote portions of his article.
In one normal school the question under discussion in the psychology class was as to the nature and authority of conscience, and the question having been asked, Is conscience an infallible guide? the following answer was accepted as correct: "In one sense conscience is infallible and in another it is not. Conscience is not infallible in judging 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 matters, something which tells us we should obey that sense. But if a "sense of obligation" does not of itself imply a need for obedience, what force is there in the words? And what could be more palpably redundant in expression than to say that conscience is that which makes us feel that we must do what we feel we must do? Yet such and no other is the sense of the answer accepted as correct.
There was more to come, however. The fallibility of conscience in indicating the right course to follow having been admitted, and the consequent diversity of human standards of conduct having been recognized, the teacher asked whether there was any such thing as an absolute 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 revelation of God's will and gives us a standard of absolute right?" Class: "Yes, sir." It might have been expected 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 development of the subject was, the discussion broke off at this point save for an objection raised by one of the pupils to the effect that, if the Bible contained 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 disposed of by authoritatively stating that we were in no uncertainty, and that the other matter might rest.
Now, if the object of this discussion 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 conscience of those who accept the Bible 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 lawfulness of wine drinking. So with the question of women's rights, the question of capital punishment, and a dozen others that might be named. For every text which the advocates of one theory can quote, their opponents are ready with one of seemingly opposite import. These are facts
