94. THE VEN. ARCHDEACON W. MACDONALD SINCLAIR, D.D., ON 
“Tf a consciousness like Mr. Spencer’s can do so much {as the 
construction and conception of the formula of evolution), what 
may not a greater consciousness effect?” And therefore why 
may not an originating mind bring into being and lay down for 
its governance an ordered universe? The originating mind Mr. 
Spencer stoutly denies, while admitting, as Archdeacon Sinclair 
has said, that Humanity has proceeded from the ultimate cause 
which he postulates. 
We have as little reason for submitting to this summary taking 
away of the key of knowledge as would an astronomer, 70 years 
ago, before Leverrier and Adams, have submitted to be told that 
he causes, which were found to disturb the movements of the 
planet Uranus, were unknowable, though, very soon after, it was 
found that the hitherto unknown Neptune was the disturbing 
cause. 
Surely no better argument for Theism is to be found than that 
of St. Paul: ‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of 
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” An argument 
summed up also by Kant in his well-known saying: “ The starry 
heaven above me and the moral law within me.”’ And by Gibbon: 
“The God of nature has written His existence on all His works 
and His law in the heart of man.” 
The Cuatkman.—lf there are no others who wish to speak, I 
will ask you to join with me in a most hearty vote of thanks to 
Archdeacon Sinclair for this most valuable and interesting paper. 
There may be some diversity of opinion on the subject; but of the 
general force of his argument and of its value I am sure we can 
have no doubt. 
The vote of thanks was then put to the meeting and carried 
unanimously. 
The Ven. ARCHDEACON, in reply, said: There is very little that I 
want to say on the subject, except that I think we may all agree 
that men of science and philosophy, as a rule, when they are on 
the unbelieving side, put into the word “know” a restriction 
which we are not willing to concede to them. They use the word 
‘‘know”’ in a scientific and demonstrative sense; and when we use 
the word “know” in a theological sense, we claim its use in the 
province of faith; and we are bound to admit, I think, in justice 
to science with all its restrictions, that the province of Faith and 
