MARKS OP MIND IN NATURE. 303 



sixteen sermons delivered as Boyle Lectures, and published 

 in 1711 and 1712. These books were early, if not the 

 earliest, British contributions to the literature of natural 

 theology. They were the forerunners of, and the intro- 

 duction to, the Bridgwater Treatises (1825) on the power, 

 wisdom, and goodness of God as manifested in Creation. 

 Among the authors of the Treatises were Dr. Chalmers, 

 Dr. Buckland, Dr. Whewell, and Sir Charles Bell. Outside 

 of the Bridgwater group the names of Paley and Bishop 

 Butler may be mentioned. To them and others we are 

 indebted for works teeming with facts illustrative of crea- 

 tive self-manifestation. But notwithstanding the amount 

 and value of these contributions, much remains to be done 

 in the departments suggested by the names now mentioned, 

 and there is abundant room for many workers. Points of 

 view have changed. The natural sciences have brought to 

 light facts and phenomena unthought of twenty years ago. 

 Materials for review and criticism have greatly increased, 

 and the question is asked, has the recognition of marks of 

 mind in nature kept pace with the discoveries of science '? 

 Looking back to the times of Boyle, and Ray, and Derham, 

 the opposition to the doctrine of creation found its chief 

 strength and expression amoug those who were equally 

 opposed to the Christian doctrine of redemption. Is it so 

 still ? A straightforward answer to this question is delayed 

 at present. But that the attitude of an influential group of 

 men of science to the doctrines of the existence of God 

 and of a future life* has recently become more hostile 

 than at any other period, few, if any, thoughtful men will 

 deny. In Britain, no doubt, the group is comparatively 

 small, but what it wants in numbers is counterbalanced by 

 ability in the various branches of natural philosophy and 

 natural science. The mere fact of the existence of such 

 a compan}^ has a hurtful influence. It shakes the ground 

 on which those stand whose religious knowledge is much 

 greater than their religious convictions. Assuming that 

 the conditions of thought now referred to exist, how are 

 they to be met ? Not, certainly, by that mere and bare 

 dogmatical antimaterialism which shirks argument and 

 denounces claims made in behalf of freedom of research 

 and of speech. Not thus, but by a full and dispassionate 



* This modification (suggested by the President) was accepted by Dr. 

 Duns in letter dated March 23rd, 1899. 



