432 J ANS Sew Bs [DECEMBER 
“chain of physical causation which joins the works of man and of other 
living beings to that part of the order of nature to which they are 
adjusted.” The remaining question is whether life itself and all its 
faculties are purely physical phenomena, or contain something which 
cannot “be expressed in terms of physical matter and mechanical 
energy.” If purely physical, then usefulness and contrivance are a 
part of, and not interference with, the order of physical nature; and 
living beings can “afford no peculiar evidence of purpose.” But the 
question is not yet answered, and the argument from contrivance, 
though its probability is vastly lessened, has not yet received its death- 
blow. 
But, supposing the mechanical conception of life to be established, 
and admitting that the argument from contrivance would thereby lose 
its force, the attempted proof of the existence of a designer would not 
on that account be supplanted by disproof. Further, whatever the 
scientific account of nature may ultimately be, it can throw no light 
upon the primal cause or final purpose of the whole or of any part. 
Science tells us what takes place, and how it takes place, she dis- 
covers the succession of events and gives us a reasonable confidence in 
the steadfastness of that succession, but she refuses to admit any 
necessity therefor, and as to any cause that les behind the veil of 
the physical universe, she remains for ever dumb. 
But, though the scientific method may throw no light on anything 
beyond the facts of nature, it is still open to inquiry whether the con- 
sideration of nature as a whole may not throw some light upon the 
ultimate cause. Thus we are led to the conception finely expressed by 
Oerstedt in the phrase: “The works of nature are the thoughts of 
God.” This view has been elaborated by a great philosopher, Bishop 
Berkeley, and by a great naturalist, Louis Agassiz. Each in his way 
maintains that the phenomena of nature constitute “a language in 
which the Creator tells us the story of creation for our delight and in- 
struction and advantage.” But each weakened his case and lost the 
adhesion of modern naturalists, because, as Dr. Brooks insists, he 
attempted to prove too much. Agassiz thought it necessary to show 
that the laws of nature were nothing but categories of thought, that 
they were arbitrary, and that no physical explanation of them was 
possible. Berkeley wrote: “The great Mover and Author of nature 
constantly explaineth Himself to the eyes of men by the sensible inter- 
vention of arbitrary signs, which have no similitude or necessary 
connection with the things signified.” And in another place he held 
that this language of nature was necessary to assist the governed. But 
the modern naturalist is aware of many a physical explanation unknown 
to Agassiz; he sees more connection between the sign and the thing 
signified than was possible for Berkeley; and he refuses to admit any 
necessity in the matter. 
But a conception supported by indefensible arguments is not 
