which have reached this very moment of our lives. The empiricist strives to save evolution, while letting slip the individual by granting a kind of immortality to the race. The effort is not merely vain, it has precisely the opposite moral effect from that intended. The race is made up of individuals, and its fortunes cannot be separated from their fortunes. If each withers away prematurely with unripe fruits, the breadth of the race only broadens the misfortune. Not one plant simply, but the whole garden is bitten by frost. The race can not improve save as individual life becomes more hopeful, more masterful; and this life can not find the needed spiritual incentives in the pallid light of the tomb, nor maintain the springy step of progress under the unalleviated burdens of the body. Or if it could do this, the argument for immortality would gain ground at every stage of growth. The moral censure of hiding this grand life in the grave would become unendurable. If the rational fruits of the world are to be ripened they must be ripened in another life. Such a life is the out-door garden of this our conservatory. Who, either in his thought or feeling, can say there is no other air, no higher heavens, in which these plants can blossom; nothing save this stifled air and this glass within reach of my hand! Nor is the protest less profoundly rational, less deeply based in our constitution, because it is deeply emotional.

(3) The moral law is an unsuitable law for the guidance of a simply mortal life. It is one of self-sacrifice, it is one of protracted struggle, one of constant concession of pleasure to duty, of the present