INDICATIONS OF A SCHEME IN THE UNIVERSE. 167 



this omnipotent, omnipresent Being. We must think of Him as 

 having a desire to cause a reflex of Himself so as to be surrounded 

 by beings capable of acknowledging and appreciating Him, but 

 differing from Himself individually. His thought was reflected 

 in the ether or ions. Then began the elementary processes of 

 chemical affinity. The fact that the results of these processes were 

 orderly and progressive, shows that they were not the result of 

 chance, but of plan and law. Here we are confronted of course 

 with the very prominent effects of failure and imperfection in the 

 progress of development. It appears that the Almighty mind 

 would not force perfection, else all would have been perfect but 

 uninteresting. The atoms were allowed to arrange themselves 

 according to laws, principles and ideals — but with freedom and 

 without compulsion. This led to an endless and invaluable 

 variety. This was finally the case with man, no compulsion, 

 but a large amount of freedom, and the result of the conflict 

 of good and evil demonstrates every day of our lives the persistent 

 tendency of good to prevail. We see the grand processes of 

 the universe going on at the present moment. There are the 

 vast nebulae and the clouds of cosmic dust. When some burning 

 star blazes forth it seems to be a ^vorld which has come to an end. 

 We recognize that there is much that is mysterious and many 

 difficulties that we can never solve, but there is enough to convince 

 us of a loving and almighty Mind in which we can put our trust. 



Mr. Howard said : It is most important in considering this 

 valuable paper to note the absolute necessity which there appears to 

 be in the human mind to acknowledge a guiding force in nature. 

 The habit of the human mind of trying to grasp the whole, to rise 

 from the particular to the general is inherent, and there seems no 

 escape from the necessity of viewing the Universe as a whole and 

 governed by intelligence or at least by law. It is quite true that 

 you may go no further than the philosophers who spoke of o iov 

 rather than of to irav, but the idea of unity you must have. 



Now some have thought that evolution might explain creation 

 without a Creator, but we find laws of evolution recognised by the 

 very people who would escape from the idea of first cause. What 

 is a law without a law-giver % And if it is anthropomorphism to 

 speak of an intelligent law-giver is it less so to speak of laws at 

 all ? Our whole conception of law is human. And why should we 



M 



