. "Inequality signifies inequality of
capacity," he explains; but the standard whereby we judge this
capacity "cannot be the standard of the moral law."

The laws which govern the biological evolution of man are
known, but those which govern his moral nature cannot be
known; the moral nature appertains to the Absolute, and
hence is not subject to the law of inequality!

As an exhibition of metaphysical wing-power, that is almost as
wonderful as the flight of Cardinal Newman when confronted with the
fact that his divinely guided church had burned men for teaching the
Copernican view of the universe; that infallible popes had again and
again condemned this heresy #ex cathedra#. Said the eloquent cardinal:

Scripture says that the sun moves and the earth is
stationary, and science that the earth moves and the sun is
comparatively at rest. How can we determine which of these
opposite statements is the very truth #till we know what
motion is#?

#Spook Hunting#

Do not imagine that it is only in Geneva that Christian professors
realize this peril from the loss of faith. It is never far from the
thoughts of any of them--for, of course, no man can look at the
present system and not wonder how the poor stand it, and more
especially #why# they stand it. There have been many thinking men who
have given up the miracle-business quite cheerfully, but have stood
appalled at the idea of letting the lower classes find out the truth.
You note that idea continually in the writings of Professor Goldwin
Smith, who was a free-thinker, but also a #bourgeois# publicist, with
a deep sense of responsibility to the money-masters of the world. He
was about as honest a man as the capitalist system can produce; he was
the #beau ideal# of the New York "Evening Post", which indicates his
point of view. He wrote:

It can hardly be doubted that hope of compensation in a
future state, for a short measure of happiness here, has
materially helped to reconcile the less favored members of
the community to the inequalities of the existing order of
things.

When I was a student in Columbia University, I took a course called
"Practical Ethics", under a professor by the name of Hyslop. The
course differed from most of the forty that I tried, in that it gave
evidence that the professor was accustomed to read the morning paper.
He had learned that American politics were rotten; his ide