290 
anthropomorphic way. That is a point which I think justifies one in saying— 
henceforth we may glory in the reproach which is conveyed in the censure 
put upon the word “anthropomorphic.” We need that word to enable us to 
declare the whole of the idea, which we hold is only true when it is taken 
as a whole. (Hear.) : 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REMARKS BY THE REY. R, COLLINS, M.A. 
Tus paper arouses the mind very forcibly to the consideration of the 
question, What must be our ultimate defence against Modern Materialism ? 
I think the true answer is, unquestionably, We must take our stand on History. 
We have, perhaps, too long expended our powers in chiefly endeavouring to 
show the weak points in the Materialist’s line of thought, we have dealt 
largely in negatives. It is not very difficult to show that many of the 
assumptions of the Materialist are too absurd for belief; and yet it is 
possible to mistake or mis-state them. For instance, the Materialist does 
not attribute design to the animal or plant that improves itself. The note 
on page 260 correctly expresses the Evolutionist’s theory; but he would not, 
as on the same page, speak of an animal “ discerning the advantage of tenta- 
cula,” &c. With the Materialists the will and intelligence are simply 
“mhysical phenomena” produced by, or associated with, “ molecular processes,” 
excited in the brain by external circumstances; the will or “‘cogitation” has 
no hand in Evolution, only the inherent forces of nature, or whatever other 
term may be used ; so that, as Professor Huxley says, “the whole world, 
living and not living, is the result of the mutual inter-action, according to 
definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive 
nebulosity of the universe was composed.” These forces, however, always 
manage to work for harmony; and the Evolutionists are ebliged to use, or 
choose to use, the language of intelligence. Darwin’s phrase “ natural selec- 
tion” is a case in point. This always seems to me a tacit, though no doubt 
unwilling, testimony to the fact, that “ final causes” are being worked up to ; 
and it is difficult to conceive that, without supposing previous intention 
somewhere. And yet intention is no part of the Evolutionist’s theory. 
~ How are we then, in our turn, to explain the potency or potencies, or 
whatever term may be acceptable, under which the Cosmos is what 
it is? Mr. Herbert Spencer unifies this effort in Nature, and expresses 
it as “an Infinite and Eternal Energy trom which all things proceed.” 
Our mission is to show that the Infinite and Eternal Energy is the Energy 
of an Infinite and Eternal Intelligence ; and to persuade men of this 
we must fortify our statement that this Intelligence has spoken to man. 
