19 



expression whose unfairness is indubitable. In p. 58 of the 

 Belfast Address he describes that belief as " a theory which 

 converts the Power whose garment is seen in the visible 

 universe into an artificer, fashioned after the human model (the 

 usual cavil again) and acting hy hrohen efforts,'^ as man is seen 

 to act." The efiect of the word " efforts " on the mind of an 

 unthinking person would be that he should imagine the 

 eflForts of the Creator, or at least some of them, to have been 

 unsuccessful. Else why call them efforts ? Why not say 

 they are acts, which word means successful efforts, and would 

 truly describe the work ascribed to the Deity by believers ? 

 But he also calls them hrohen efforts, thereby intensifying the 

 idea of want of success, because the expression seems to imply 

 that they had to be broken off, some of them at least, in an 

 unfinished state. If this were not the object, " successive," 

 or some such word, would be the correct one to use. It might 

 be asked, How would Dr. Tyndall like to hear the words 

 " broken efforts " applied to a series of successful physical 

 experiments conducted by himself ? 



It is really surprising that men of philosophical mind and 

 habits of thought should condescend to such quibbling. If it 

 were to promote any other object than the depreciation of 

 religion, I cannot think they would. But for such an object 

 as that, it seems all stratagems are allowable. 



Mr. Spencer, in an earlier part of his book than that to 

 which I have been lately referring (First Principles, ipip.ZS-4), 

 carefully calls attention to the inadequacy of the " carpenter- 

 theory " to serve as a simile for creation. But he does so 

 under the delusion that Theists have adopted that theory, the 

 fact being that it is falsely attributed to them by the men of 

 his school. Theists, especially those of them who are 

 Christians, have no theory whatever on the subject of creation. 

 By a theory is generally meant a hypothesis explanatory of 

 some fact. The fact of creation they acknowledge, but they 

 confess their inability to account for it by any theory. What- 

 ever else, therefore, may be said against us, let us no more be 

 charged with accepting, or requiring others to accept, the 

 cai'penter-theory of creation. 



The next objection we have to consider is that in which we 

 are accused of ascribing a love of adulation to the Deity. 



If we take the word "' adulation " in its usual sense, it is 

 enough simply to deny the charge. That God is pleased with 

 His creatures for their own sake, when they appreciate His 

 character, however inadequately, and when they have a 



* The italics are mine. 



