40 



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



analysing their constituents, but the authoritative way to 

 understand their making is to see the potter at his work. 



8. Its effect on scientific phrases. 



Before proceeding further, let us observe what new light is 

 shed by this conception of God upon tliose three terms which 

 we have found sometimes to be used with a kind of scientific 

 idolatry to the confusion of thought. 



Eii st the term " Nature " itself can no longer be used as an 

 undefined potency or controlling principle, Irom which to 

 legislate on the conduct of discovery. It can no longer be 

 regarded as a kind of talisman, by which to explain anything 

 which cannot otherwise be easily explained. Nature now 

 becomes a synonym for the workmanship of God ; it is an 

 equivalent phrase to the " mechanism " of God. To say that 

 " Nature does or permits or requires a thins^," is simply to say 

 that " God does or permits or requires a thing in the realm of 

 nature." We may use the old phraseology still ; but we must 

 use it with this meaning alone. 



Secondly, th<^ term " evolution " must cease to assume any 

 idea of intrinsic power or self-originating energy. It cannot 

 be too emphatically remarked that it is the reading into the 

 theory of Evolution that idea, which is really extraneous to it, 

 which has led to much of the warmth with which it has been 

 debated, much of the intolerance with which it has been 

 asserted or denied. Scientific thought has forgotten, that if it 

 would bar theology from its purview it must not itself intrude 

 on the sphere of theology ; if it limits itself to the consideration 

 of secondary causes, it thereby puts not only theology but 

 itself out of court for scientific deductions regarding the origin 

 of Nature. The moment it makes any implication whatever, 

 regarding the cc priori meaning of evolution, it knocks down its 

 own artificially erected limits, and opens the held n(jt only to 

 its own, but to all other valid evidence on tlie prime foundation 

 of the ediiice of the Universe. The impression has been formed 

 that the explanation of the change of species by slight variations, 

 by natural selection, by the struggle for existence, by the 

 operation of environment, by interiial development, somehow 

 reduces or removes the possibility of the action or control of 

 the First cause. The bringing into prominence of a number of 

 minutely working secondary causes has appeared to leave no 

 room for the Will or Working of the Creator. But the flaw in 

 this reasoning is af'er all remarkably clear. However much 

 the secondary causes producing any particular effect be 



