side of the household can do more for virtue and morality than her legitimate influence within it,-a most preposterous fallacy. Let woman exert the power which is hers 'by endowment of heaven' in the training and strengthening of the moral sentiments, and her vote will be needless, as now it would be ineffectual in most cases.

Again, he tells us: "Municipal suffrage for tax-paying women has worked well for many years in England; and a general right of female suffrage has worked well for fourteen years in Wyoming." There are doubtless two sides, or two verdicts on this question-an outside and an inside view. We hear only, or chiefly, from the former, from parties interested to report success. Other and very different reports have also come. Besides, the experiment is too recent to develop as yet all its results, especially among a different class of population yet to come.

"Voting," we are informed, "would increase the intelligence of women, and be a powerful stimulus to female education." It is the opinion of some judicious persons,-educators and physicians included, that women in this age and country are receiving all the stimulus to education which they can safely bear; and that the kind and quality of intelligence that voting would promote, would not be in the line most needful or most useful to women. The principles of civil government are already taught, or should be, in all our schools and seminaries, but the newspaper discussions of party politics and rival candidates, which with the daily list of crimes and casualties, form the chief reading, if not education, of most male voters, are a wretched substitute for the intellectual and literary culture which many women do and all might attain, if no additional stimulus of political duties and ambitions were thrust upon them.

Again, he tells us: "It would enable women to protect their own industrial, social, moral and educational rights." It is here assumed that the rights of women are not and cannot be sufficiently protected by men; an assumption disproved by the recent history of legislation in behalf of women, and by the admission of Mr. Cook himself, who says: "The industrial, educational and social rights of women have been advanced

immensely in the last generation ;" and this without women's suffrage! There is not one legitimate right of woman sought to be secured or protected by her ballot, which cannot be more effectually secured by petition. Where then is the need of taking the law into her own hands and asserting her political independence?

"Limited municipal suffrage, he admits, "would be an experiment, and if this experiment should not work well, it could be discontinued." Such experiment, as all must see, is designed as an entering wedge to draw after it the whole reform and revolution. Suffrage once granted to any class would be difficult, if not impossible, to be withdrawn.

His supreme argument is the last. "The whisky rings and other corrupt classes fear nothing so much as municipal suffrage for women; and that points out the most effective weapon that can be used against them." They fear it because they look only at immediate possible results. But the true legislator is bound to look beyond these to the ultimate effect on society and the family, which have interests outweighing and outlasting even the cause of temperance legislation.

Two fundamental errors underlie this whole movement, the correction of which would forestall and answer all arguments for women's suffrage yet adduced. The first is an exaggerated idea of the power of the ballot and of legislation to remedy moral and social evils. These evils are deeper than the outward surface of life, which is all that the law can reach, and can be remedied only by moral and spiritual agencies. What the law cannot do both for individuals and for society, can be done and is done by Christianity with its slow working grace and truth. Moral sentiment is before legislation and must become a power in society before it can be embodied in law, or enforced by civil authority. And to form this sentiment, to exercise this moral and spiritual sway, is preeminently the work and privilege of woman. Here is her true sovereignty. The second error is a false conception of the nature and sphere and true glory of woman, and of what are called her political rights. This is connected with the false doctrine of individualism already mentioned, or the denial of the divine idea of the family and the State. The nature and constitution of

woman is before the modern doctrines respecting her, and will survive them and determine her place and duties in society, however for the time she may lose her true dignity and the respect which belongs to her by blindly striving against them. The family, too, is before civil government; and its constitutive idea, its organic unity, and its sacred interests, must not be sacrificed to it, or practically violated in blind obedience to a false theory of natural or individual rights.

ARTICLE IV.-TELEOLOGY, OLD AND NEW.

THE trend of our time is eminently materialistic. Its thought has been directed by those advances which are the glory of the age. Chemistry, electricity, and above all, biology, have revolutionized the older science. Such rapid progress could not fail to leave idealism and the purely mental sciences in the background. Philosophy, save that which is naturalistic, no longer achieves her former successes with the people. The cry is for museums and lecture courses. The great popular mind has become first attracted and then engrossed. More than to any other, this result is due to the investigation and writings of Charles Darwin.

Materialists there have been in every age, and in our own they have not failed to lay hold of the new science as a triumphant vindication of their philosophy. The boldness of the appropriation, the prestige of the claimants, the plausibility of their assertions carried the world by storm. Before the new truths were half realized, materialism cloaked the young science and henceforth seemed its natural robe. Commencing with the facts and inductions of science she passed, apparently without a break, to the inferences of philosophy, and landed the inquirer in the boggy syrtis of materialistic conclusions.

The chief claim of modern materialism is that recent science excludes from nature all possibility of the Christian's God. As part of this grand conclusion, teleology is swept from its ancient basis and the evidence by natural design to an intelligent, planning Creator is wholly wanting. That the friends of religion have regarded such claims as the teachings of science is much to be deplored. Science as well as religion needs vindication, and of theologians and men of science not a few have protested against the union of materialism with evolution. The aim of this paper is not to prove teleology or to defend organic evolution, but to examine the argument of design in the light of Development and determine to what extent, if at all, it is modified thereby. First is presented a résumé of Design, second, of Development, thirdly, the discussion.

THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN.

This is not, as usually stated, from design to a Designer. Let the evidence of design be established, and since design can exist only in intelligence, the conclusion to an intelligent Designer is immediate and irresistible. The work of the teleologist is to substantiate in nature the evidence of design. His is not the argument of the cosmologist to prove the exist ence of a First Cause from the universe as an effect. Nor is that part of teleology here discussed which reasons from the harmony and order of the universe as a whole, known as the argument from order. As here used, teleology refers to the skill and contrivance perceived in the adaptations of nature. Mr. Darwin speaks of "beautiful contrivances" and "marvelous adaptations." Dr. Romanes, an earnest advocate of the theory of development, says: "Innumerable cases of adaptation of organisms to their environment are the observed facts for which an explanation is required."

Design concerns not the origination of matter but its use, not the materials or parts, but their relations, which achieve an end that the parts without arrangement could not accomplish. Strictly, design is not in the arrangement or adaptation, but in the Intelligence back of them and of which they are the evidence. Design, then, consists in adaptations, which appear to be the result of foresight and intention. As design actually exists only in mind, which is not open to observation even in our fellow men, our only way to arrive at such a conclusion is through external phenomena, indicating purpose.

To account for adaptations, final as well as efficient causes are required. In adaptations there is no doubt of efficient cause, but there is more than this, the idea beforehand of the end to be attained. This existed before material means were invoked to realize that idea. Every phenomenon has its material, effi cient cause, its reason how, and in each combination and adaptation we seek these objective causes. But the mind is not satisfied in thus determining physical antecedents. In the human hand as an instrument, we are compelled to see more than physics and physiology. The reason how does not suffice to account for the eye. The larger factor remains unexplained