262 GEOEGE JOHN EOMANES 1889- 



few of the very greatest achievements in the depart- 

 ment of literature to which it belongs it may, I say, 

 be argued, as it recently has been argued by the Eev. 

 Aubrey Moore, that ' the counterpart of the theological 

 belief in the unity and omnipresence of God is the 

 scientific belief in the unity of nature and the reign of 

 law ' ; that ' the evolution which was at first supposed to 

 have destroyed teleology is found to be more saturated 

 with teleology than the view which it superseded ' ; 

 that ' it is a great gain to have eliminated chance, to 

 find science declaring that there must be a reason for 

 everything, even when we cannot hazard a conjecture 

 as to what the reason is ' ; that ' it seems as if in the 

 providence of God the mission of modern science was 

 to bring home to our unmetaphysical ways of thinking 

 the great truth of the Divine immanence in creation, 

 which is not less essential to the Christian idea of 

 God than to the philosophical view of Nature.' But 

 on the opposite side it may be represented as, 

 indeed, Mr. Aubrey Moore himself expressly allows 

 that all these deductions are valid only on the pre- 

 formed supposition, or belief, ' that God is, and that 

 He is the rewarder of such as diligently seek Him.' 

 Granting, as Mr. Aubrey Moore insists, that a pre- 

 cisely analogous supposition, or belief, is required for 

 the successful study of Nature viz. ' that it is, and 

 that it is a rational (? orderly) whole which reason 

 can interpret,' still, where the question is as to 

 the existence of God, or the fact of design, it 

 constitutes no final answer to show that all these 

 deductions would logically follow if such an answer 

 were yielded in the affirmative. All that these 



