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



I apply to nature in general. I find, in all things in nature, an 

 adaptation of means to ends, both animals to their environments 

 and their environments to them, and so on. I therefore suppose 

 that in those cases, too, the cause of such adaptation of means to 

 ends is conscious intelligence. That can be none other than God 

 the Creator. This seems to me to be a fair statement of the 

 argument of design which is clearly a matter of logical induction. 

 It is not assumption further than is the intuition, " like effects, 

 the like causes " ; but that lies at the basis of all our experience. 

 I wish the Paper had been a little longer, and I join with Professor 

 Hull in expressing tlie hope that the President will favour us with 

 some observations. Those who heard his Gifford lectures would 

 certainly not be disposed to think with himself that his mind had 

 no metaphysical bias. 



Rev. A. I. McCaul, M.A. — I had the advantage of reading the 

 Paper beforehand, and must say that I did so with great pleasure. 

 It is very interesting now-a-days to have arguments in defence of 

 design. I would venture to suggest that the unbeliever's objec- 

 tion (to which Mr. Cherrill referred at the beginning of his 

 remarks) that postulates the finite mind, is extra logical — it has 

 nothing whatever to do with the logical process at all. The last 

 speaker conveyed the impression that is on my mind. The 

 argument as to the watch appears to me to be placed on the same 

 footing exactly as the argument for design. The scientific man 

 compares the eye of the fish with that of the human being, and 

 he sees that the former is so constructed as to be able to see 

 under water and he compares it with that of the fly, and so 

 on, and he comes to the irresistible conclusion that these things 

 cannot have come about by chance, but that they involve absolute 

 design. As was said by one speaker, though it may not be 

 capable of mathematical demonstration, yet it is a recognised 

 logical process of induction. A number of instances have been 

 examined by scientific men, and they have come to the conclusion 

 that there is only one conclusion that is possible, and that is, that 

 these results are to be attributed to an intelligent mind, Whether 

 that mind is Infinite or finite has nothing whatever to do with the 

 logical process. The process arrives at the conclusion that there 

 is an intelligent mind, and those who are capable of examining the 

 matter further go on and by a principle of exclusion come to the 

 further conclusion that these exquisite .results cannot be attributed 



