198 THE REV. J. H. BERNARD, D.D., ON THE 



biological. Hoav, we ask ourselves, could such a wonderful system 

 of adaptation have been introduced into Nature without the exercise 

 from outside of Infinite Wisdom combined with infinite power, by 

 One who comprehends the end from the beginning ? We, as 

 human beings, if we are Theists, believe that the Almighty had an 

 end in view in the organisation of this Universe ; and that Man 

 himstlf, if not the great end in view, was at any rate a very 

 important part of that organisation. But Professor Bernard has 

 clearly shown that we really, as biologists, cannot assert the 

 existence of an All- Wise Creator outside and beyond our world as 

 a distinct logical or mathematical proposition, such as that two 

 and two make four. It is a conclusion that we arrive at from 

 inference and analogy ; and he has pointed out the analogy. I 

 come to a certain conclusion with regard to certain results ; and I 

 suppose that another person, from the action of his mind, has 

 come to a similar conclusion. But I have no positive proof that 

 that is the case (I am describing what Dr. Beimard has in effect 

 said) ; I cannot demonstrate that as I can that two and two make 

 four. It is an inference ; and as he has shown, with regard to the 

 operations and the results of natural phenomena and their bearing 

 on the argument from design, we can only reason from analogy 

 and from inference. But after all, does that work in opposition to 

 the views of the Theist ? I do not think it does. It amounts to 

 this — which is the more probable — that this world, with its 

 wonderful adaptations, organic and physical, and their adaptation 

 to their environments, should have resulted from " chance," or 

 from " a fortuitous co-operation of atoms," rather than from the 

 action of some intelligent Being outside and beyond our world ? 

 I should think that when we come to the doctrine of chances, 

 the doctrine would be infinitely against the former supposition. 

 It would be infinitely in favour of the latter supposition ; and it 

 is just on those grounds that we maintain, though we cannot 

 demonstrate it as a mathematical proposition, as we can demon- 

 strate that two and two make four, that there has been design 

 in the operations and results of natural phenomena; and I, for 

 my part, am satisfied with that position. I think that ought to 

 be perfectly satisfactory to the Theist, and that it is not necessary 

 that the demonstration should be of a mathematical kind such as 

 two and two make four, or that the three angles of a triangle 

 are equal to two right angles. That is the conclusion I have 



