98 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON W. MACDONALD SINCLAIR, D.D., ON 
off surge was heard, dashing down once more to be reunited 
to its native deep, and that in that tiny cavity a few spores of a 
very elementary species of lichen, one of the lowest forms of all 
vegetation, settled. Long succeeding years may have intervened 
before the decomposition of that lichen and the accompanying 
disintegration of the surrounding rock were continued for a 
sufficient time to allow of the herb yielding seed within itself to 
gain a foothold and maintain a local habitation there. Multi- 
tudinous centuries may have separated the appearance of the 
Eucalyptus from the development of the more complex and 
elaborate foliage of the oak, the beech, and such trees as are 
better calculated to afford shade and rest and refreshment to 
various products and later manifestations of organic life. I 
can credit that long (I cannot say how long) ages separated the 
glacial and thermal periods of our own land, the days when the 
rocks of Snowdon were grooved by the descending glacier, and of 
which I have seen the marks in the present day. I reverently 
believe that jinis coronat opus, and that thongh God is Almighty 
to make such addition, no such addition has been made to the 
number of existing species since “God saw everything that He 
had made, and, behold, it was very good.” 
The Rev. R. C. Outton, B.D., Rector of Glynn, writes :-— 
This paper by the Archdeacon of London is valuable as drawing 
attention to common ground between those who hold the orthodox 
belief and those who diverge from it. But it appears to me that 
one passage in the paper (p. 8, No. 5) is open to criticism. The 
passage runs thus: “ When they say that the Infinite and Eternal 
Power that is manifested in every pulsation of the Universe is 
none other than the manifestation of the Living God, but that He 
is unknowable in the scientific sense of knowledge, we reply that 
such an answer is precisely what we expect to hear. It was the 
Son of God Himself who said that no man hath seen God at any time. 
To the eye of Faith alone He is visible.” 
Now, I cannot help thinking the Archdeacon’s answer fails to 
meet the point of the agnostics’ objection. That God is not level 
to the understanding—just what we believe—in a scientific sense, 
is, to my mind, not an assertion of our opponents. Rather their 
thesis is that there is no personal God, mysterious in His nature 
and attributes, ‘‘in the scientific sense.” On the contrary we hold 
that there 7s such a personal God, though He is not cognizable by 
