IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
1.25
,.» 112
M
IIP
1.8
U IIIIII.6
y}.
Va
/:
'/
/A
Photographic
Sciences
Corporation
33 WIST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, NY. M5S0
(716) 872-4503
iV
^
N>
Lv
^ '"''
o^
o^
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHIVI/iCIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Inatituta for Historical IMicroraproductions
Inatitut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa
1980
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The
tol
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checlced below.
□ Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
I I Covers damaged/
D
D
D
D
D
D
Couverture endommag^e
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e
□ Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
I I ColoureJ maps/
D
Cartes giographiques en couleur
Coloured Ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustration' en couleur
Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmees.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires;
L'institut a microf ilm6 le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mithode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.
I I Coloured pages/
D
Pages de couleur
Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes
Pages restored and/o(
Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes
Pages discoloured, stained or foxec
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es
Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes
Showthrough/
Transparence
Quality of prir
Qualiti indgale de I'impression
Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire
Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
I — I Pages damaged/
I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/
I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
I I Pages detached/
I 1 Showthrough/
I I Quality of print varies/
I I Includes supplementary material/
I — I Only edition available/
Th«
pot
of 1
filn
Ori
be]
the
sio
otii
firs
sio
or
Th(
shi
Tir
wh
Ma
dif
enl
be)
rig
reQ
me
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmees d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.
10X
14X
18X
7
22X
26X
30X
12X
16X
20X
24X
28X
32X
:ail8
du
>difier
une
nage
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
National Library of Canada
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:
Bibliothdque nationale du Canada
Les imsges suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimie sont filmAs en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — *> signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6tre
filmis A des taux de reduction diff^rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.
rrata
:o
pelure,
id
□
32X
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
...an
3ECOND LECTURE
ON
■if
BY
The Right Rev., The Lord Hishop of Ontario.
|i.» »i'i ».yp'
§*.=
ri
-\
MB
ma
A SECOND LECTURE
I '
ON
AGNOSTICISM
BY THE
LORD BISHOP OF ONTARIO
/
Delivered in Christ Church, Ottawa, Feb. 24th,
1884.
Printed by Request.
PUBLISHED BY J. DURIE & SON,
Ottawa.
t
■"»';.if¥^%,ii.jjM.
AGNOSTICISM
LECTURE II.
4-.,
LECTURE of mine on Agnosticism has
been criticised in a pamphlet styled
A Defence of Modern Thought. On perus-
ing it I was unable to find out what the
modern thought is which the writer is de-
fending. He agrees with me that "Ag-
nostic" is an unfortunate name for those like himself
who believe that the existence of God is a problem
that does not admit of* solution. Agnosticism, in
that sense, is not modern. It has existed in all ages*
Neither is the hypothesis of Evolution, to which I
attributed the recent popularity of Agnosticism,
modern. It is as old as Democritus and Lucretius.
I accounted for the rather sudden outburst of all
that is implied by Agnosticism by saying that Evo-
lution led to Materialism, and Materialism to
Agnosticism, some men believing Darwinism a de-
liverance from the necessity of a Creator, though
Darwin himself postulated a Creator to begin his
hypothesis.
I am glad to find that my critic agrees with me
in my suspicion that Agnostic ethics are not of a
kind to inspire some men with the '* courage neces-
sary to take up a decided position." We can
scarcely bring ourselves to admire the principles of
men who, while holding to Agnostic belief, act
as though expediency justified hypocrisy, and there-
fore advise conformity to the usages ofreligion.
God and Immortality, say they, are rationally un-
tenable, but we cannot do without them. They are
necessary for the present till the world is better
educated. Religious beliefs are useful ; Mr. Herbert
Spencer says, " We cannot avoid the inference that
they are needful accompaniments of human life."
They should have the "widest possible toleration " ;
and again, " As certainly as a barbarous race needs
a harsh terrestrial rule, and habiwually shows attach-
ment to a despotism capable of the necessary rigour,
so certainly does such a race need a belief that is
similarly harsh, and habitually shows attachment
to such a belief." * That is to say, the false is
necessary for the elucidation of the true. You
cannot get men to act as they should, without
deceiving them. We have heard a good deal about
the unworthy tricks of Divines in dressing up phan-
toms in order to frighten mankind and keep them
under priestly influence, but now we have one of the
most eminent Philosophers of the day, himself no
friend to Revelation, informing us that it is the only
way to deal with men whose mental development is
* First Principlea, pp. 119- 122.
'^m^^^'^
imperfect, t My critic seems to agree with Mr.
Spencer's ethical teaching ; for he says, "There are
many lines of argument which can be used to prove
how natural and how serviceable in many w&ys is, or
has been, the thought of God as the Universal
Father, the source of all good and of all law" ; and
again, " Let the mind therefore, we say, weave
freely for itself such conceptions as for the moment
are serviceable, and let it be free to modify them with
the growth of knowledge, and the increasing defini-
tiveness of thought." Truly a melancholy basis of
ethics in the nineteenth century !
But my critic is so dissatisfied with the name of
Agnostic that he advises all earnest men who think
more of their beliefs than their unbeliefs to disown
it. He seems to forget that the name is not a nick-
name given by opponents, but by a sincere friend
and champion of Agnosticism, Professor Huxley,
who borrowed it from a heathen altar at Athens, the
inscription on which was, "To the Unknown God" —
^AfV(b<ntp 6e(fj.
And here I must observe that my critic ought to
have known that it is beneath the dignity of a
scientific writer to impute motives, particularly
that of "manoeuvring," and of using a "controver-
sial artifice of an unfair kind." I am accused
of standing forth simply as the champion of the
two great doctrines of God and Immortality, but
that in reality I am the champion of much more.
"The manoeuvre is first to make a formidable demon-
stration as champion of two cardinal doctrines
t Transactions of Vic. Inst, Vol. 17, p. 119.
H
which in themselves arouse little opposition even
when they do not command assent, and then to
apply the results of the proceeding to the benefit of
those parts of the system which had been kept in
the background" ; and it is said to my discredit,
that " what I have at heart is that men may believe
as I do." I wonder what my critic has at heart
when he writes a pamphlet ; but whatever I had at
heart, I certainly had no such design as that im-
puted to me, as I was not so foolish as to believe
that the two tenets, God and Immortality, led
necessarily up to that '* elaborate theological system
of which I am exponent." He says that I "do not
profess that these doctrines can stand by themselves
apart from a belief in revelation." Of course I did
not profess that they could, because all the world
knows that they can. I admit that it is much easier
to make a theist a Christian, than to make an atheist
one. But I did not forget that a large proportion
of the human race, such as Jews and Mahomme-
dans, believe in God and Immortality, and yet
cannot be led on to accept Christianity.
In fact, so little was the ** elaborate system of
which I am exponent" present to my mind, that I
argued as if Christianity were not in existence.
Well then, why does rny critic, knowing this as well
as I do, attribute to me sinister motives ? Simply
that he might have a pretext for introducing into his
pamphlet a sneer at miracles and " Hebrew legends
of a most monstrous kind." That this was his
object is evident, because I alluded to miracles only
once, and that was to suggest that they may have
I
been in accordance with natural laws, though they
proved superhuman knowledge of those laws. As
to the "monstrous Hebrew legends," I dealt with
but one of them, — "In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth." But because I did not
treat of others, is this one not to be discussed or
believed ? In my treatment of it, any reference to
the other "legends" he mentions, so far from being
" in order," would have been as much out ol place
as a defence of the Crusades.
My critic quite misapprehends my object when
he says, that " in arguing against the doctrine of
Evolution, I labour to establish the opposite doc-
trine of the creation and government of the world
by miracle." I was labouring for nothing of the
kind. While I do believe in the creation and gov-
ernment of the world by God, my main object v/as
to show that Evolution was as yet a mere hypothe
sis — I might have said a scientific romance — and I
considered that it was useful to make this known,
because men were building too much upon it, —
putting it, in fact, in the place of a Creator. Mira-
acle as such did not e- gage my thoughts at all, be-
cause I regard Evolution quite as great a miracle
as Creation. So far as miracle is concerned, the
legend might as well have read thus : " In the
beginning God evolved the heaven and the earth."
I can no more imagine an evolution without an
Evolver, than I can a creation without a Creator.
My object was to remind my hearers that what
multitudes were taking for granted was untrue, or
at least unproved.
8
We live in an age of intellectual terrorism when
men are afraid and ashamed of being thought un-
scientific. Even religious people bow down too
much to the conjectures of science. Only utter the
words, "all scientific men are agreed," and people
will swallow almost anything. I therefore instanced
great scientists who did not believe that man
was evolved from the ape by natural selection, and
among them Sir C. Lyell. In doing so, I made a
mistake. I ought to have borne in mind that in a
Science like Geology, not yet fifty years old, scien-
tific Geologists are constantly revising or retracting
their theories, and I should therefore have quoted
from the last edition of Ly ell's worL. But my mis-
take has no bearing against my argument. Lyell does
not think that Darwin has proved his theory,but that
he has made it in the highest degree probable. He
regards Evolution simply as ** the best explanation
yet offered of the connection between man and ani-
mals." But probability even in the highest degree
is but probability still. It is not demonstration.
Lest however the weight of authority against
Evolution should be diminished by my inability to
claim Lyell on my side, let me substitute for him
the eminent professor Virchow of Berlin, who says,
" We cannot pronounce it to be a conquest of
science, that man descended from the ape or from
any other animal. We can only indicate it as an
hypothesis, however probable it may seem. Let us
hope the men of science in England will not fail to
examine this most serious question, — whether the
authority of science will not be better served if it
!
confines itself strictly to its own province, than if it
undertakes to master the whole view of nature by
the premature generalization of theoretical combi-
nations. We must really acknowledge that there is
a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower
stage in the development of man. I am bound to
declare that any positive advance which has been
roade in the province of prehistoric anthropology
has actually removed us further from the proof of
such connection, viz., with the rest of the animal
Kingdom."* I may add that the great Palaeon-
tologist, Professor Barande, agrees with Virchow.
Bearing in mind that my aim was to show that
Evolution was but an unproved hypothesis, let me
strengthen my appeal to authority still further. Dr.
Dawson, the learned Principal of McGill College,
writes : —
"I regard the doctrine of spontaneous evolution
of living beings, and of man especially, as equally
at variance with science, revelation, and common
sense. It belongs, in truth, to the region of those
illogical paradoxes which have ever haunted the
progress of knowledge, and have been dispelled only
by increasing light. For this reason I have always
refused to recognize the dreams of materialistic
evolution as of any scientific significance, or indeed
as belonging to science at all." t
One more authority, — the great Agassiz. His
words are : — "The theory is a scientific blunder,
untrue in its facts, unscientific in its methods, and
ruinous in its tendency." X
* Leisure Hour, ;1878, p. 334.
t Ibid.
t Transactions Vic. Inst., Vol. 16, p. 220.
10
Here I desire to correct a mistake of my critic,
in asserting that "Huxley would not claim more for
the theory than Darwin or Lyell." He has for-
gotten that Huxley, in his lectures in New York in
1876, asserted "the demonstrative evidence of Evolu-
tion," In his third lecture, he maintained that "the
doctrine of Evolution at the present time rests upon
exactly as secure a foundation as the Copernican
theory of the motions of the heavenly bodies did at
the time of its promulgation." This is certainly
more than Darwin or Lyell would assert, as any
reader of their works knows full well.
I must now refer to the accusation against me of
misrepresenting Huxley as well as Lyell, because I
said that materialistic evolution was discredited by
him. I fail to see how I have done so. Huxley
made two statements : the first was, that he had
"a philosophic faith in the probability of spontaneous
generation" ; and the second was, that "Biogenesis,
or life through the action of life, i. e., the contra-
dictory of spontaneous generation, was victorious
along the whole line at the present day." * Now
I cannot see how any man can believe in the proba-
bility of a fact, and at the same time admit that all
experiment and induction are against it. Faith,
however "philosophical," in a probability against
universal experience and experiment, is not the
inductive science of Lord Bacon, but rather un-
philosophical credulity. I feel therefore warranted
* The law of Biogenesis is justly regarded by Professor Huxley as the
great principle underlying all the phenomena of organized existence.
Vide "Unseen Universe," p. 229.
II
in saying that materialistic evolution is discredited
(not only in the sense of being disbelieved because
unproved, but) as having been brought into disrepute
by Huxley's inconsistency of statement, as well as
by Sir W. Thompson's far-fetched theory of an
aerolite having brought the first germs of life to this
planet.
In every exact science, we reason from the known
to the unknown. We infer, from what we see going
on now, what went on yesterday, and backwards for
ever. Thus in Geological science we see how land
is laid down in the estuaries of rivers, and how mud
and stones are deposited by the action of water.
We see glacial action at work in the Arctic regions,
in the Alps, and in other mountain ranges. The
processes which we witness in action, changing the
configuration of continents, we naturally suppose
to have been always at work, and sometimes on a
vastly greater scale than at present ; that mountains
have been upheaved, and again submerged, and
that continents and oceans have changed places
more than once. Thus, by reasoning from the
known to the unknown, all the phenomena of the
earth's crust are explainable, and Geology, by the
help of fossiliferous strata, becomes an exact science
in its general results.
Evolution, however, does not reason from the
known to the unknown, but from a conjecture to the
unknown. No one ever saw one species pass into
another. Evolution, as accounting for the origin of
species and the creation of man, has no basis in ex-
perience or experiment. It is a most ingenious
'^
12
hypothesis, and, being only that, is as yet unscien-
tific. In the historic period of 4000 years, no one
has never seen, or has had reason for beHeying, that
one species changed itself into another by what is
called natural selection. The cats and crocodiles of
to-day are the same as those preserved as mummies
for 4000 years ; and reasoning from the known to
the unknown, it is rational to infer that they had
been the same 4000 years before the Pyramids were
built. Indeed it is conceded by Evolutionists that
some species have, been so persistent that fossil
lizards of the age of the New Red Sandstone are
found to-day crawling about in New Zealand.
Charles Kingsley calls these Sphenodons the oldest
conservatives in the world, who have remained all
but unchanged while the whole surface of the globe
has changed around them once or twice. * Sir
Roderick Murchison tells us that the bivalve called
the Lingula has lived on from the Silurian or primae-
val days to the present time in Wales. So that this
genus has remained unevolved from well nigh the
beginning of animal life. Huxley says that "there
are found remains of animals in perfect preservation
and among them shells belonging to exactly the
same species as those which at present inhabit the
waters of Lake Erie in the immediate vicinity of
the whirlpool of Niagara, and again upon Goat
Island. This involves the conclusion that they had
lived and died before the Falls had cut their way
back, and indeed it has been determined that when
these animals lived, the Falls must have been at
♦ Town Geology, p. 95.
13
least six miles further down the river than they are
at present, that is, about 30,000 years ago." More-
over, Huxley admits that "when we examine rocks
of the Cretaceous epoch, we find the remains of
some animals which the closest scrutiny cannot
show to be in any important respect different from
those that live at the present time." He adds,
"Even among the higher animals, some types have
had a marvellous duration. In the chalk, for ex-
ample, there is found a fish belonging to the highest
and most differentiated groups of osseous fishes
which goes by the name of Beryx, which is repre-
sented at the present day by closely allied species
in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. We may go
still further back. The Carboniferous formations
in Europe and America contain the remains of
scorpions in an admirable state of preservation ;
and those scorpions are hardly distinguishable from
such as now live." Again, "The same truth is ex-
emplified if we turn to certain great periods of the
earth's history, — as, for example, the Mesozoic
epoch. There are groups of reptiles, such as the
Ichthyosauria and the Plesiosauria, which appear
shortly after the commencement of this epoch, and
they occur in vast numbers. They disappear in the
chalk,and throughout the whole of the great Mesozoic
rocks they present no such modifications a-j can be
safely considered evidence of progressive modifica-
tion."
Now what are we to infer from these admitted
facts ? Surely, reasoning from the known to the un-
known, we come to the conclusion that all species
14
are persistent in type, unless we can see one species
passing into another by various stages and grada-
tions, so that the process of metamorphosis is evi-
dent. "But no transformist can show any species
gradually losing its peculiar characters to acquire
new ones belonging to another species, and thus
transforming itself. However similar the dog may
be to the wolf, no one has found any dead or living
animal or skeleton, which might as well be ascribed
to wolf as to dog, and therefore be considered as
the link between the two. One may say exactly as
much concerning the extinct species ; there is no
gradual and imperceptible passage from one to the
other."
Evolutionists are thus driven to explain the per-
sistence of some types which is admitted by all, and
the supposed transformation of others which is denied
by all but Evolutionists ; and they do so very in-
geniously, but not convincingly. The hypothesis, or
guess, is that, no matter what variations in them
may have taken place in the lapse of epochs, there
was no permanent change of structure, because the
surrounding conditions were always such that the
parent forms were more competent to deal with
them than the derived forms ; that in the struggle
for existence, the parent form maintained itself, and
the derived forms were exterminated. But a diffi-
culty arises here. How came it to pass that these
derived forms which arose spontaneously (that is,
by chance) escaped being fossilized ? Did they, as
[{liisiis naturcBj revert to the pp'ent type immediate-
15
2 species
1 grada-
is is evi-
r species
acquire
nd thus
dog may
or living
ascribed
dered as
cactly as
re is no
e to the
the per-
all, and
s denied
very in-
lesis, or
in them
s, there
Luse the
that the
al with
struggle
elf, and
a diffi.
t these
that is,
hey, as
lediate-
ly while yet two minute to be discernible, and be-
fore Geology could stereotype them ? One would
suppose that we ought to find in the rocks variations
from the parent type lying side by side with the
original from which they sprung. But no such varia-
tions, small or great, are to be found. Moreover,
we are asked to believe that some forms have con-
tinued unchanged during the transformation of
three or four worlds, because that, during all the
changes and chances of those countless ages, they
were unable by means of natural selection to find
conditions of life more favourable than those by
which they were originally environed ; and that they
held their own, while thousands upon thousands of
other types were being extinguished, because in
their case there was no possibility of improved con-
ditions of life.
It is said, however, that Evolutionists do reason
from the known to the unknown, — that they reason
from the known possibility of producing permanent
varieties in animals by artificial selection to the
possibihty of the same being effected by natural
selection. Huxley gives an instance of this : — A
Massachusetts farmer possessed a small flock of
sheep and a ram of the ordmary kind. Oneofthe-
ewes presented her owner with a male lamb differing
for no assignable reason from its parents by a pro-
portionably long body and bandy legs, whence it
was unable to emulate its relatives in those sportive
leaps over the neighbours' fences in which they were
in the habit of indulging. The farmer bred from
r
i6
the newly arrived type, and the result justified his
anticipations. When sufficient Ancon, or Otter,
sheep (as they were called) were obtained to inter-
breed one with another, it was found that the off-
spring was always pure Ancon sheep. From this it is
argued that what the farmer did by artificial selec-
tion, the struggle for existence does by natural
selection. But the analogy does not hold ; because
what the farmer pioduced was not a new species,
but a variety in a species ; the new sheep were sheep
still, not goats or horses. What was effected by the
farmer could not have been brought about by
natural selection, first, because the long body and
bandy legs would not have been beneficial, but
rather injurious, in the struggle for existence with
the sheep's more active companions. Secondly, be-
cause all artificial varieties in our herds of cattle, in
our horses, dogs, and pigeons, when left to them-
selves, — that is to nature, — revert to the original
type. Thirdly, because all artificial varieties produc-
ed by man are fertile and interbreed with one
another, while species produced by natural selection
are infertile and will not interbreed. There is
nothing in artificial selection akin to what Evolu-
tion teaches, viz., that all species are descended
from the same original, and that there are links con-
necting them all, even the cainiverous with the
herbivorous animals. Fourthly, because the slow
transformations by means of which any creature,
while in a state of unfitness for one mode of life, is
passing on to the development of perfect fitness for
another, would not conduce to the survival of the
II
Jtified his
Dr Otter,
to inter-
; the off.
this it is
al selec-
natural
because
species,
;re sheep
id by the
bout by
30dy and
:ial, but
nee with
idly, be-
:attle, in
to them-
original
5 produc-
'ith one
selection
'here is
t Evolu-
scended
iks con-
nth the
lie slow
reature,
f life, is
ness for
I of the
17
fittest, but the reverse. The condition of an infant
while teething, that is, passing through the transi-
tion state from nursing to eating, does not, as all
mothers know, conduce to its survival.
Professor Huxley, however, gives us what he
calls demonstrative evidence for Evolution, — evidence
as clear, he says, as that for the Copernican theory.
He has traced the horse of the present day through
the Hippar ion of the FViocene age, and through the
Anchitherium of the earlier Tertiaries. His hy-
pothesis IS, that the horse must have been derived
from some quadruped which had five complete digits
on each foot. He traces the succession of the forms
of the horse's le^^s and feet from the top to the
bottom of the Tertiary strata, and he finds that the
observed facts fit into the theory. First, we have
the true horse; next, the Pliocene form of the horse,
slightly differing from the ordinary horse. Lower
down we come to the Protohippus with one large
digit and two small ones on each foot. Further
down we come to the Miohippus with three complete
toes and a rudiment of a digit which answers to a
man's little finger. Next we arrive at the Mesohip-
pus in the American Miocene formations, with three
toes in front, a large rudiment representing the
little finger, and three toes behind. Lower still,
in the Eocene formation, we have Orohippus with
four complete toes on the first limb and three toes
on the hind limb. The Professor tells us that when
still lower deposits have yielded up their remains of
ancestral equine animals, we shall come at last to
the five-toed animals in which, if the doctrine of
!!
i8
Evolution be well founded, the whole series must
have taken its origin.
This then is the highest evidence adducible. Hux-
ley calls it as demonstrative as the Copernican
theory. And yet there is a simple answer to this
so-called demonstration, viz., that it is based on the
assumption that all these extinct forms belong to
the same species. But Professor Owen, in his
Anatomy of Vertebrates* says, " These extinct animals
differ from each other in a greater degree than do
the horse, the zebra, and the ass, which by Professor
Huxley are acknowledged to be true species."
Again, the evidence is not to be depended upon,
because remains of the horse, in nearly every respect
resembling the wild horse of to-day, are found in
the upper Miocene formation, and remains of the
Hipparion are found in the same deposit ; proving
that the Hipparion could not have been the ancestor
of the horse, t
Another objection to drawing conclusions in favour
of Evolution from this supposed development of the
horse is, that the whole account is inconsistent with
what Huxley tells us an imaginary spectator of the
events which constitute the history of the earth
would have seen. He says, ''Preceding the forms
of life which now exist, our observer would see
animals and plants, not identical with them, but like
them, increasing their differences with their
antiquity, and at the same time becoming simpler
and simpler." But in the case of the horse, the
♦ Vol. Ill, p. 792. I Transactions Vic. Inst., Vol. 16, p. 277.
.'J-.
19
es must
e. Hux-
)ernican
to this
d on the
along to
in his
animals
than do
rofessor
pecies."
d upon,
respect
3und in
of the
proving
ncestor
1 favour
t of the
nt with
of the
e earth
J forms
jld see
>ut like
their
iimpler
e, the
development is not from the simple to the complex,
but the reverse, — from a five-toed to a one-toed
animal. The evolution must have followed the law
of natural selection, and the five-toed animal must
have found it beneficial in the struggle for existence
to get rid of one toe, and the four-toed to divest
itself of another, and so on till we come to the
present horse. "It is," says Mr. Wallace, "a funda-
mental doctrine of Evolution that all changes of
form and structure can only be brought about in as
much as it is for the good of the being so modified."
We cannot, however, see how this evolution of the
horse's legs and feet, or rather this degradation and
shrivelling up brought about by the struggle for
existence, could have been profitable to the preserved
nimal. He lost the power of seizing hold of any
thing, — a serious loss in a struggle ! — but however
this may be, this accumulation of profitable modifi-
cations did not prevent the horse from becoming
extinct in America. The extinction may, it is true,
have been caused by the glacial period having de-
stroyed all horses ; and if not from that cause, we
must admit that Nature failed to adapt the horse to
its environments.
On the whole, it would have seemed much more
like what we mean by Evolution, had the horse of
the present day been found in the Eocene formation
and developed upwards through the Miocene and
Pliocene into a horse with five toes. That would
have looked more like development from the simple
to the complex.
But I am concerned with the doctrine of Evo-
; t
II:
I !
90
lution only so far as it is used as a device to elimi-
nate God from the Universe. My critic says, "The
scientific world is not aware that Nature has any
ends in view, or is capable of having any ends in
view which she needs the help of man to enable her
to realize. Science does not attribute purpose to
Nature." This is a very dictatorial utterance. Let
us consider it awhile. Mankind will not, because
thev cannot, give up their belief in purpose, design
and foresi ght in Nature. Why ? Because the al-
ternative belief is that "the earth and the million
spheres in space came from mechanical necessity
and for no end, and that life and consciousness came
from the same mechanical necessity, supplemented
by chance as the acting, shaping agency and real
divinity."* For this reason, the mass of mankind
guided by common sense, as well as the masters of
thought who have meditated most deeply on the
subject, continue to believe in purpose and final
cause.
Aristotle, with the other great thinkers of his day,
came to the conclusion that the intelligence which
existed in connection with matter involved a higher
Intelligence independent of matter.
Cicero held that the man who believes that the
world, with all its beauty, and fittedness for man as
well as for animal and vegetable life, was made by
the chance meeting of atoms, would believe that if a
countless number of the letters of the alphabet were
* Creed of Science, p. 51.
az
thrown in a mass in some place, from these letters
shaken out on the ground there can be formed the
annals of Ennius arranged in such order as to read
continuously, t
Lord Bacon declared : "I had rather believe all
the fables in the Legend and the Talmud and the
Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without
a Mind."
Sir Isaac Newton affirmed : "The world is not
God. It did not arise from a fortuitous concourse
of atoms, nor by the spontaneous energy and evolu-
tion of self-developing powers, as some have affirm-
ed, but it was created by one, almighty, eternal, wise,
and good being, — God."
The great Kepler, as he watched the skies,
was compelled to exclaim : *'0 God, I think Thy
thoughts after Thee."
Whatever, then, may be the causes which render
some men unable to see purpose or design, and
consequently God, in the Universe, of one thing we
may be absolutely sure, that superiority of intellect is
not one of them.
But it would be tedious to dwell longer on the
philosophical authority for purpose in Nature*
Apart altogether from that, can any rational or
candid man doubt that there was a purpose in the
course of the evolution of the Universe ? Can any
one really doubt that the ej'e and the ear, which
open out the world to all the animals and man,
were not somewhere in Nature's aims ; or can they
f De Natura Deoruiu.
! !
22
believe the other alternative, that the first rudi-
mentary eye came one day as the result of a lucky
chance, — a fortunate meeting of the atoms, — that it
only appeared after infinite combinations had in
vain been tried, at one happy moment vvrhen the
right number and due arrangement of particles were
hit upon ? Is this credible ? And then the same
origin must be assigned for all the oth er organs of
sense, — the origin of chance, — a perpetual shifting
and re-arrangement of the atoms by chance and
mechanical necessity, till the new and startling
phenomena appeared.
And granting that the right arrangement made
the physical organ, there is still a great gulf between
the organ and the seeing power. What is this new
phenomenon, — the fact oivision, — which one moment
came, having been non-existent just before ? Is not
this new thing somethinr like creation ? It is, says
the materialist, the product of the atoms, the effect
of molecular changes. Then the atoms are literally
creative. They have produced from nothing a most
wonderful thing. For the fact of vision is wholly
different from the material particles v/hich compose
the organ. It is a thing not made up of them, nor
of anything but itself, which one moment was not,
and the next moment was ; and this is creation, —
call it evoltUion if you please. It is creation, and
moreover it is very like creation ex nihilo pronounced
so absurd, — only that the blind atoms, according to
the materialist, have accomplished the miracle. *
Now all this weight of philosophical authority,.
• Creed of Science, p. 48.
iiil
23
and this reasoning from common sense, cannot be
set aside by the flippant dictum, "Science does not
attribute purpose to Nature." This means, if it has
any meaning, that scientific men do not attribute
purpose to nature ; but the assertion is untrue. Or it
may mean that no science, such as Botany.Geology,
or Astronomy, attributes purpose to Nature. True,
these sciences have neither speech nor language,
yet their voices must be heard. Let us select from
a multitude of instances, which in their number and
their richness are embarrassing, one from Botany,
and see whether we can detect purpose in the adap-
tatioii of structure to function.
A more wonderful, complicated, and effective
insect-trap could hardly be imagined than the
pitcher-plant. In the first place, it attracts its
victims from afar by its conspicuous color, — red, or
blue, or purple, — which makes it stand out boldly
from the inconspicuous shrub which produces it.
In the next place, its jug-like shape is as good a
device as can be employed for a trap in which the
captured flies are to be drowned. It has a close-
fitting lid which is not opened till the arrangements
are complete, and when once opened never shuts
again. When all is ready within, the lids opens ;
and we see a bait, a danger, and a destiny. The
bait is a honey secretion produced by glands situ-
ated just in the neck cf the pitcher. Below this
zone are glaucous walls of glassy smoothness, and
below these again is the water poured forth by
thousands of glands. The insects eat their fill of
the honey, then slip hopelessly down the precipitous
i Hill
ilJ
24
sides, and are drowned at the bottom. In addition
to these striking features, some of the pitchers have
external fringes calculated to lead insects the right
way to destruction.*
Now can any reasonable man deny that the pur-
pose, the design of the pitcher-plant is to kill flies ?
Or can any rational being imagine that it was evolv-
ed by the blind chance of the concurrence of atoms,
or that the plant made itself? And if the mind
designing this adaptation of structure to function
does not exist inside the plant, surely it must be
somewhere outside.
Such illustrations are omnipresent in nature ; but
let us select another striking one. In South Ameri-
ca there is a strange plant, a species of club-moss,
endowed with very remarkable properties. In the
dry season, when every particle of moisture is
extracted from the soil, it is detached from its grow-
ing place, rolled up into a ball and carried away by
the equinoctial gales, often to a very great distance.
It remains rolled up in this form for a considerable
time ; but if carried to a marsh or any other moist
place, it begins slowly to unfold and spread itself
out flatly on the soil, assumes its former vigour,
takes root, develops its fructification, and casts
abroad its seed npon the air. When this new situa-
tion is dried up, it resumes its old unsettled habits,
and like an adventurous pilgrim takes advantage of
the wind to emigrate to a more favourable locality, t
Here we see plainly purpose and design. Did the
plant design itself, or was chance its architect ?
* Vide Transactions Vic. Inst., Vol. 17, p. 89.
f Bible Teachings in Nature, p. 215.
i
' 1
i
[
11. m:,
25
In addition
ditchers have
cts the right
hat the pur-
to kill flies ?
it was evolv-
ice of atoms,
if the mind
to function
it must be
nature ; but
3uth Ameri-
club-moss^
ies. In the
moisture is
ni its grow-
ed away by
It distance,
onsiderable
ther moist
•read itself
ler vigour,
and casts
new situa-
led habits,
vantage of
; locality, t
Did the
itect ?
The wealth of illustration of purpose in the Ani-
mal Kingdom is so great that it is hard to select
one from it. One of the most striking, however, is
the marsupial modification by means of which the
mother is enabled to feed and carry her offspring
with her in the long migrations necessitated by the
scarcity of water. The greatest living authority on
Comparative Anatomy, Professor Owen, says, t
"The correlated modifications of maternal and
foetal structures, designed with special reference to
the peculiar conditions of both mother and off-
spring, afford, as it seems to me, irrefragable evi-
dence of creative foresight."
I must now speak of some strange perversions of
my argument when I spoke of the necessity of obey-
ing laws of nature, and as a consequence abolishing
all hospitals for the idiot and the insane, the blind
and the dumb. What I meant and said was that
if "survival of the fittest" be a law of nature, we
should imitate and help nature, as we do in sickness
by nurse-tending, and in gardening by pruning and
weeding. On evolutionary principles, I hold that it
is plainly intimated to us that if we desire the per-
fection of our race, we ought to do artificially what
Evolution does naturally, and let the unfit perish, —
that is, allow all deformed and imperfect specimens
of our race, and all tainted with the germs of heredi-
+ "When the helpless progeny is first presented to the nipple, it is utterly
incapable of the muscular effort of sucking ; the mother is therefore fur-
nished with a muscle which presses the nipple and causes the milk to flow.
The act of swallowing, however, might not always take place at the same
instant as the injection, and the throwing of the fluid into the wind-pipe
might be fatal. This danger is provided for and obviated by an express
contrivance : the air-passage is completely separated from the throat, and
the milk passes down in a double straam on each side of the larynx into the
stomach."— Gos-se's Zoology, Vol. I, p. 125.
-i'
26
tary disease, to die ; because "the law of heredity
is such that a microscopic portion of seemingly
structureless matter contains such an influence,
that the resulting being shall fifty years after become
gouty or insane."
Evolutionists do not like this logical deduction
from their principles ; and so they justify the exist-
ence of hospitals and asylums for those "smitten
with cruel and hopeless maladies," — how think you ?
Because, forsooth, if we let those so smitten perish,
the world might lose a genius or two in a century !
Or, because it is well for us to have occasional
examples of "fortitude and resignation" before our
eyes, — as if "resignation" were not an utterly un-
meaning word in the mouth of an Agnostic ! If we
wait till such motives as these influence men to
build and endow hospitals, we shall wait till dooms-
day.
Herbert Spencer says, "The uniform principle
has been that better adaptation shall bring greater
benefit ; which greater benefit, while increasing the
prosperity of the betteradapted, shall increase also its
ability to leave offspring inheriting more or less the
the better adaptation." * I repeat therefore that
on Evolution principles, if we could so manage it
that those best fitted for their surroundings should
survive, and that the members of our race should
become more and more adapted to the conditions of
life, we should be conferriiig the greatest boon on
mankind ; and as the ancients tried to bring about
this result by destroying all puny and superfluous
* Data of Ethics, aec. 60.
27
infants, so all Positivists and worshippers of
Humanity should do the same, so that eternal pro-
gress should be the law. For in spite of all that has
been said about Evolution not requiring this constant
progress and improvement of our race, its funda-
mental principles are, — that there has been pro-
gression from the primitive protoplasm through
type after type to the highest of all — man ; that no
variation caused by nature ever became permanent
unless for the good of the animal or plant ; that the
same forces that were at work in ages past are now
working in the same way as ever ; and that Man is
destined to reach a higher type than his present one,
unless we adopt the theory that Evolution, having
reached Man and the Elephant, then stopped short,
and quitted the stage of the Universe.
To my contention that laws of Nature, if they be
really such, should be listened to and obeyed, the
following pleasantries are no answer. It is asked,
"When a conflagration rages, do we obey and
co-operate with Nature by adding fuel to the flames ?
When pestilence is abroad, do we try to increase its
deadly activity ? When we stumble, do we make a
point of yielding to the law of gravitation and
throwing ourselves headlong ?" These foolish ques-
tions are based on the supposition t hat all laws of
nature are positive, whereas some are negative.
Some say, "Thou shalt" ; others, "Thou shalt not."
Some command, others forbid. When our property
is on fire, we do see a law of nature at work, — the
law by which carbon and oxygen combine to form
fire ; and the knowledge of this \^w forbids our call-
28
I ;
?i Mm I
i ■•
ing it into operation so as to burn our houses, and
commands us to use it in cooking our food. Pestilence
is not a law of nature, but the result of disobedience
to laws of nature, especially sanitary laws, which
we do well to obey. To throw ourselves headlong
when we stumble is not to obey, but to disobey,
the law of gravitation, which warns us against
stumbling.
Indeed it seems to me that Agnosticism itself is a
resultant of disobedience to the laws of Nature.
Thus when my mind meditates on itself, and on
minds superior to itself, I am led on till I reach
what seems to me the highest of human minds ;
and then I find that highest describing itself as only
a child gathering pebbles on the shore of the Ocear;
of Truth ; and so I cannot help soaring to a recog-
nition of mind above mind, till necessity compels
me to take refuge in Infinite Mind. And this is
not the playfulness of fancy or imagination. It is
as much a part of my nature as my consciousness,
my appetites, or my memory. Were I to resist
the process by means of which I am drawn to re-
cognize an Infinite Mind, I should be disobeying
a law of my nature as much as if I resisted memory,
or struggled against a belief in my own identity. I
should ue brought to the awful standstill of intellec-
tual confusion ; for I can no more help coming to
recognize Infinity in connection with mind, than
Infinity in connection with space or time. I cannot
conceive a point beyond which there is no space or
no time ; and yet we are gravely told that this law
of Nature is as absurd as "one horse exceeding
29
another in size or strength leading to a behef in an
infinite or supreme horse." Who but an Agnostic
would think of reasoning from mind in the abstract
to Si horse in the concrete ? Just as if intelligence
and a horse were synonymous terms, and material
size and strength constituted intelligence ! As-
suredly, if the horse's mind were constituted as
man's is, and he could see one equine intelligence
exceeding another as man sees human intelligence,
the horse would come to the same conclusion as
man ; and all this means, if a horse were a man —
not a very solid foundation on which to build an
argument !
To sum up : Since we cannot imagine a mind
arriving at that point beyond which there is none
higher, we must come to the conception of Infinite
Mind — God. And Agnostics partly admit this; for it
is said, "If we see signs of an intelligence higher
than the human, we have simply to acknowledge
the fact." The great difference between us is that
they do not see this Higher Intelligence in the Uni-
verse, — we do.
All my reviewer's dissertation on Intelligence is
irrelevant, as he treats of it as a condition of mind,
whereas I spoke of it as mind itself. If in each of
the questions he asks concerning intelligence and its
creator, the world, we substitute Mind and Matter
respectively, the questions will show their own ab-
surdity : — It is asked, "Does it follow, because the
world by the variety of its appeals to consciousness
creates intelligence, that intelligence must have
created the world ? " which being interpreted
ft . -f<
!
I
1
1
11
i
i
1 !
i
!
I
(
i
30
means, Does it follow that, because matter makes
mind, mind makes matter? The question is there-
fore a reductio ad absurdum. Again, we are asked,
" Because the grindstone gives sharpness to the axe,
does it follow that the sharpness of some greater axe
made the grindstone ?" In this question, the
presence of intelligence, or mind, is conveniently
left out, and therefore is absurd, as not bearing on
the subject under discussion. Suffice it to say, that
if we could see an intelligent grindstone going about
sharpening axes, we should argue that reason points
to a higher mind to account for the existence and
adaptation of both the grindstone and the axe.
But we are told that ** we can recognize works of
human intelligence because they stand out distinct
from unorganized nature." We have something
wherewith to contrast them, viz., "the raw ma-
terials furnished by nature." In the case of the
works of Infinite Intelligence, or Mind, we have
nothing wherewith to contrast them ; they don't
stand out distinct from unorganized nature. Now
it is quite true that the works of Infinite Mind do
not stand out distinct from unorganized nature,
because there is no such thing in existence as un-
organized nature. The very atoms are complex and
manufactured. It is very true that we cannot con-
trast the works of Infinite Mind with the raw ma-
terial of which they are mide, because human
science has not yet discovered the ultimate structure
of atoms and molecules. But for all that, the works
of Infinite Mind stand out in bold relief as contrasted
one with another, whether they be revealed to us in
3X
the telescopic or the microscopic universe. ** The
sea is His, and He made it" ; and it stands out in
as well defined contrast to the oxygen and hydrogen
of which it is composed, as does a cathedral to the
quarry. In neither case was raw material used,
because both the gases and the stones were manu-
factured articles.
The great difference between the works of an In-
finite and a finite mind is this (and it is urged as an
objection), — that the works of the Infinite are uni-
versal and unlimited ; those of the finite, partial
and limited. That is to say, because the evidence
of Infinite Mind is omnipresent, it is not present ;
because it is everywhere, it is nowhere ; because we
cannot point it out in particular, we cannot point it
out at all ; and therefore its very universality com-
pels us to deny its existence. The. Universe is so
crowded with proofs of intelligence, like a multitude
of rays bent to one focus, that therefore^ it is said,
there is no proof of an universal Intelligence. We
have but to state such reasoning in order to refute
it.
We are informed by Agnostics what are the terms
or conditions on which they will admit the evidence
of Infinite Mind. It is said, ''Give us the same
means of affirming intelligence in the case of the eye,
the ear, or the hand, that we have in the case of the
watch ; show us first where a Power not elsewhere
exemplified in the Universe steps in, and it sufficeth
us." This is equivalent to saying, Show us a miracle,
and it sufficeth us. This, it seems to me, can be
shown. The bringing in or creating of new things,
J
32
or a break in the continuity of nature, is our general
notion of a miracle. Now it is a determinate fact of
exact science, proved by the law of the dissipation
of energy "as certainly as a mathematical demonstra-
tion, that the present order and laws of nature,if left
to themselves, must end in the entire Universe arriv-
ing sooner or later in a state of death, — of absence of
all motion, physical and vital." Professor Thompson
has well pointed out that a process of degradation
cannot be eternal. If we could view the Universe
as a candle no' lit, then it is perhaps conceivable to
regard it as being always in existence. But if we
regard it, as we must, rather as a candle that has
been lit, we become absolutely certain that it cannot
have been burning from eternity, and that a time
will come when it will cease to burn. *
If it be thus certain that the Universe, if left to
itself, must have an end, it is equally certain that it
must have had a beginning. In other words, some-
thing outside Nature and her laws has interfered in
times past, and will again interfere in time to
come, t Here, then, was a miracle, — "an instance
of a Power not elsewhere exemplified in the Universe
stepping in." There was a break in the continuity
of nature when the visible Universe was produced
from the invisible ; though, on Agnostic principles,
it seems incongruous to use the words visible or
invisible in relation to the Universe at its original
production, because no earthly eye had as yet been
evolved, and the Eye of GOD did not exist.
♦ Conservation of Energy.— Stewart,
in MontreaL
f Professor Haughtou's Sermon
Haughton's Sermon
33
Again, there was a break in the continuity of
nature when a power stepped in at the original pro-
duction of life. That dead matter cannot produce
a living organism is the universal experience of the
most eminent physiologists. The law of Biogenesis,
— that a living thing can only be produced from a
living thing, — is regarded by Huxley and others *
as the great principle underlying all the phenomena
of organized existence. The introduction of original
life on this planet is therefore another instance of
"a Power not elsewhere exemplified in the Universe
stepping in."
Another illustration of the interference of this
Power is found in the creation of vision ; for be it
remembered that the fact of vision is quite a distinct
thing from the mechanism of the eye, or the undula-
tion of light. That man of common sense and real
science too, the great John Hunter, saw that the eye
did not make itself,nor man make it, nor his parents,
nor any other man. Yet it was made by One Who
understood the transmission, reflection, and refrac-
tion of light ; how to make lenses of different powers,
adjust them for clear perception of near or distant
objects ; how to make and use most ingenious
mechanical contrivances in order to turn the eye in
every direction, and increase or diminish light ;
how to place the eye so as to be of most service,
protected from injury, moistened from time to time,
and able to open and shut. Common sense is sure
that Intelligence made the eye, t and Darwin con-
fesses that to suppose the eye could have been formed
* Unseen Universe, p. 229. t Supernatural in Natxire, p. 13.
ii'i'i
34
by natural selection is absurd in the highest degree. X
But whether the eye was created or evolved, the
moment vision resulted from the joint action of the
. mechanism of that organ and of the brain, under
the influence of the undulation of light, a Power had
stepped in as a Creator ; and again, according to
Wallace and his school of Evolutionists, this Power
stepped in once more at the original production of
man.
To draw to a conclusion, — I hope my hearers will
not think that the topics I have brought before
them are unsuited to this place or to this day. The
Christian's Book is full of texts which my words are
intended to enforce. " He that made the eye, shall
He not see ?" "It is He that hath made us, and
not we ourselves." "Consider the lilies and the
ravens." "The heavens declare the glory of God."
" I will consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy
fingers ; the moon and the stars which Thou hast
ordained." These passages need enforcement from
the pulpit. We should sing the Benedicite, not only
with the spirit, but with the understanding also. I
do not therefore apologize for calling attention to
"the works of the Lord, praising and magnifying
Him for ever."
And let me add, before I conclude, that in a con-
troversy with those that say, "There is no God,"—
or, which comes to the same thing, that they do not
ktiow whether there is a God or not, and that it
does not matter, — Ihave nothing but the kindest
I Originof Species, p. 156.
35
feelings towards involuntary Agnostics ; but it is
hard to bear with blatant and aggressive ones. The
issue is too serious in a moral, social, and political
point of view ; for I agree with that robust intellect,
Thomas Carlyle, who says, "The Agnostic doctrines
are to all appearance like the finest flour from which
you might expect the most excellent bread ; but when
you come to feed upon it, you find it is powdered
glass, and you have been eating the deadliest
poison." But we have grounds for believing that
the poison is finding its antidote. There are indi-
cations that materialistic Evolutionists are about
to modify, or reconstruct, their scientific guesses.
The last utterance of the High Piiest of Agnosti-
cism, Herbert Spencer, is a step in the right direc-
tion. He says, "Amid the mysteries, which become
the more mysterious the more they are thought
about, there will remain the one absolute certain-
ty, — that he is ever in the presence of One absolute
and eternal Energy from which all things proceed."
But surely Mr. Spencer cannot rest here. He can-
not be satisfied, now that he has arrived at the
conclusion that there is an Infinite, Absolute, and
Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed, let
loose in the Universe. He must go on to ask. Is
this Energy without aim or direction ? Is it under
control ? Is it beneficent, or maleficent ? Is it
governed by wisdom, or by chance ? We know
sortjething of the awfulness of the effects of finite
energy, or force, in the volcano, the hurricane, and
the lightning. But who can gauge the results of
Infinite Energy without aim or control ?
36
The result of such questioning^s must be the
answer, — that Infinite Energy is guided by Infinite
Wisdom, and Infinite Goodness ; and so we reach
the First Article of the Christian Creed by means
purely scientific, and we "believe in God the Father
Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth."
[■•V- ."i'"/
British Whig Steam Presses, Kiiigstou.
^