31'i I'EOFESSOK DUNS, D.D., F.K.S.E., ETC., OX 



heard in their special department. If avc may judge of tlieir 

 feelings by the attitude they assume to those avIio study 

 both parts of the One Revelation, our estimate of them will 

 not be very high, but neither will our dread of them be over- 

 whelming. We wish, however, that tliey would read the 

 BOOK before they condemn its contents, and make some 

 effort to understand the reasons, which those who do i-ead it 

 give for their belief, both Biblical and scientific. These ore 

 easily stated : adaptations to ends are imiumerable, and it is 

 concluded that just as analogous fitness and purpose iu 

 man's works are ever credited to the workman's mind, so, 

 when met with in nature, they warrant the inference of pre- 

 siding mind. Any such adaptations in nature point to a 

 person as their author, as surely as any piece of human 

 mechanical art does, whether we look at the material of 

 which it consists, or to the relations of its several parts, or 

 to the end in view in making it. INo doubt it is alleged by 

 some " Ave acknowledge that in all this there is what we call 

 personal skill," — but is not this skill as much a physical quality 

 as the material parts are ! The assumption is absurd. 

 Physical featm-es, physical qualities, physical energies, can 

 be scientifically dealt Avith by physical tests ; but does not the 

 poAver to test them lie outside of them ? The individual 

 man finds by introspection that his Avork of art is the out- 

 come of applied mhid, and Avhen he sees other men produc- 

 ing corresponding Avorks does not his knoAvledge of himself 

 Avarrant the inference that they also have mind like his 

 OAvn ? 



Some may say this is the old Paley p(.)int of A'icAv, but 

 things are changed. A higher force, or higlier forces, noAV 

 reign. This reference is made to the old starting point — 

 " Design implies a Designer " — Avith the vieAv of indicating the 

 source Avhence the main objection to it came, and of stating the 

 fact that Avhat Avas held to be its Aveakness is really its chief 

 strength. JSay, Ave put it thus : — God is, matter is, matter is 

 from God. Thia length even Kant Avent, having, he said, a 

 couAnction "of the reality of the phenomenal." Put a con- 

 sistent logic goes farther — in the collections of matter there 

 are proofs of wisdom, therefore God is Avise. But even Avhen 

 Kant refuses to go thus far he tries to undervalue the 

 importance of his oavu terininuii ad <jneni, by conehidiiig, that 

 though the evidence of order and power in nature and 

 organisms Avarrants the inference t)f creative ]tersoiiality, 

 sucli an argnu'ciit may produce conviction, yet it is not 



