to the tribe and to the individual, which at last acts so spontaneously and rapidly in giving its verdict on anything, that we regard it as a special sense.  It would of course be possible to expend much time and many words in argument on this subject.  There is not, and never will be, any direct evidence as to the origin of conscience; and as that sense (like any other power of our mental nature) is capable of being educated, evoked, enlightened, and strengthened, and may also by neglect and contradiction deteriorate and wither away, there is ample room for allowing a certain part of the theory.[3] But many people who examine their own conscience will feel that the description certainly does not suit them; there are many things which conscience disapproves, of which no great evil consequences to themselves or any one else are felt.  Conscience is constantly condemning “the way that seemeth good unto a man.” Ultimately no doubt, there is real evil at the end of everything that conscience warns a man against; but not such as “inherited experience” is likely to recognize.  Is it, for instance, the experience of the mass of men, as men, that the “fleshly mind is death, but the spiritual mind is life and peace”?  Is not rather the world at large habitually putting money-making, position-making, and the care of the things of the body, of time, and of sense, in the first place; and is not the moral law perpetually warning us that the fashion of the world passes away, and that what seems gold is in reality tinsel?  As far as the condemnation that conscience passes on the broad evils which affect society—­“thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not lie,” or so forth—­no doubt it is supported by the transmitted sense of inconvenience; but who has told it of the evil of things that do not affect our social state? and who has changed the inconvenient, the painful, into the wrong?  It is one thing to instinctively avoid a theft or a falsehood, even if the first origin of such instinct were the fear of consequences or the love of approbation; it is quite another—­the inward condemnation of something which “the deceitfulness of sin” is able to excuse, and which the world at large would regard as permissible or at least venial.  Even if inherited use has its full play, there is still a something wanted before the one can be got into (or out of) the other.  Why, again, are savages prone to imagine natural phenomena to be caused or actuated by “spirits”?  Surely it is because there is consciously a spirit in man, and a Higher Power, even God, outside, who exists, though man in his ignorance has many false ideas regarding Him.