88 



REV. G. F. WHIDBORNE, M.A., F.G.S., ON 



conscious care the minutest details of all His infinitely vast 

 creation. 



7. This Conception ajjplicahle to ejyplain Nature. 



Let us now briefly recapitulate, in order that we may see 

 clearly where we are : — 



1. We have learned from Nature, alone, the fact of the 

 existence of one God — the Author of N'ature. 



2. We have ibrmed from Scripture, alone, a conception of 

 God, the same God who is the author of Nature. This con- 

 ception, as learned from Scripture, is most wonderful and 

 awful ; it has shown Him to us in His person and in His work, 

 in His mind and in His methods. It far transcends our 

 powers to grasp in its fulness ; but, up to the limits of our 

 capacity, it is clear, definite, and precise. 



Tlie problem now presented to us is this, " Does this con- 

 ception of God explain the fact of Nature ? Is this conception 

 the master-key which shall ultimately unlock the inmost 

 secrets of science ? Is it a light, which, thrown upon the 

 discoveries of natural research, shall by-and-bye reveal their 

 true meaning ? Is it a touchstone, which brought to bear upon 

 the demonstration of philosophy, shall gauge their ultimate 

 value ? " 



No doubt it may be objected, here, that this is a forbidden 

 way to approach scientific questions. It is said that the idea 

 of God belongs to theology, and that theology may not be 

 introduced into scientific investigations. It is said that to 

 assert a directive cause in Nature is " to rob us of all that 

 ]3arwin has given us at a blow." Surely such objections are 

 only worthy of the phantasmagoria of the dark ages. Is it 

 true science to erect artificial barriers to research: or to hedge 

 in opinions by refusing to consider facts ? No one wants to 

 confuse science with theology ; but facts are no less facts in 

 each, if they are common to both. If the fact of God can be 

 proved from Nature, is it common sense to ignore it there, 

 l)ecause it is also the foundation fact of theology ? If a 

 directive cause may be predicated from the examination of 

 known effects, is it any argument against it to say that it robs 

 us of Darwinism ? If it does so, so much the worse for 

 Darwinism ; but surely Darwinism ought to be strong enough 

 to take care of itself. Darwin, at all events, was too fair a 

 man to wish his theories to be wrapped up in cotton wool. 

 If Darwinism is to stand it must be ready to answer all the 

 facts. To shut out a fact in order to save a pet theory, is to 



