MAEKS OF MlIv^D IN NATURE. 3 15 



scientific, because it transfers the conce23tion of cause by 

 man from himself to tilings. It leads to the acknowledg- 

 ment of an extra-world Author, but not of an Almighty and 

 All- Wise Creator; or, as it might be pnt— a most mighty and 

 omniscient Being with the nature of man. Now it is at tiiis 

 point of our demonstration of " Mind in Nature " that students 

 of natural theology are charged with anthropomorphism — 

 the worship of an almighty man ! The monstrous assertion 

 as thus expressed is unworthy of criticism ; our anthropo- 

 morphism is suggestive of something better and higher as 

 we remember the words, " And God said. Let us make man 

 in our image, after our likeness ; so God created man in his 

 own image, in the image of God created he man ; male and 

 female created he them. And God blessed them." It is. as 

 thus created, we can not only understand His works but 

 hear His words. The children, in virtue of their origin, can 

 know what their Father says, and can appreciate what their 

 Father has been doing from the first act of creative self- 

 manifestation. And as the joints of time fit in historical 

 sequence into one another, are we not led into the presence 

 of another glorious Personality ? " Doth not Wisdom cry : 

 ' Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way,' before 

 His works of old." " I Avas set up from everlastirig, from the 

 beginning, or ever the earth was ; then I was by Him : 

 rejoicing in the habitable parts of His earth." " My Father 

 worketh hitherto and I work." It is here we meet with 

 Chrisius Creator et Christus Redemptor. To this one Per- 

 sonality we trace the proofs in all Nature of thought and 

 forethought — in a word of Presiding Mind. 



The Chairman. — We are very mncla obliged to Dr. Kidd for 

 reading this interesting paper by Professor Duns, and we shall be 

 g]ad to hear any remarks that any gentlemen present may wish to, 

 make on the paper. 



The Rev. Beresford Potter.- — I notice it is a very common 

 thing, of late years, to throw discredit on the old argument which 

 is referred to in this paper, viz., the Paley argument of design ; 

 and I have seen it stated by a good many writers that owing to 

 the Darwinian theory of evolution the Paley argument of design, 



