MISCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY. 227 



always so construed, and for the simple reason that 

 both the writers from whom these citations are 

 made, are avowed agnostics. So far as Huxley and 

 Darwin are concerned, there may be a personal God, 

 the Creator of the universe ; but, they will have it, 

 there is no evidence of the existence of such a Be- 

 ing. On the contrary, according to their theory, 

 there is nothing but matter and motion, and if they 

 do not, like King Lear, say: "Thou, nature, art 

 my goddess," their teachings tend to incline others 

 to the belief that there does really exist an entity 

 subordinate to God, if not independent of Him, 

 that produces all existing phenomena, not only in 

 the world of matter, but also in the world of spirit. 



It is, then, against this constant misuse of the 

 word " nature," and especially against the many 

 false theories which are based on the misapprehen- 

 sion of its true significance, that it behooves us to 

 be constantly on our guard. Errors of the most 

 dangerous character creep in under the cover of am- 

 biguous phraseology, and the poison of false doc- 

 trine is unconsciously imbibed, even by the most 

 cautious. We may, if we will, personify nature, but, 

 if we do so, let it not be forgotten that nature, with 

 all her powers and processes, is but a creature of 

 Omnipotence ; that far from being merely an in- 

 ward, self-organizing, plastic life in matter, inde- 

 pendent of God, as was asserted by the hylozoist, 

 Strato of Lampsacus, nature, as good old Chaucer 

 phrases it, is but " the vicar of the Almightie Lord." 



"What else," asks Seneca, "is nature, but God, 

 and a certain Divine purpose manifested in the world? 



