THE GENESIS OF XATURE. 



59 



by that single mundane way of evolution." To some of us it is 

 quite easy to imagine that. We can imagine the Di^-ine hand 

 giving the orum power to evolve to a greater extent its successive 

 stages and to reproduce higher animate forms. 



In his definition of inspiration I would ask Mr. AMiidborne if he 

 would not like to alter that> slightly. I refer to the passage, 

 *' ^Miatever else inspiration means, it means this — that the whole 

 Bible, in so far as it came from God. is the word of God." But 

 supposing it did not come from God. AVell, that is the whole point. 

 Inspiration means the whole Bible is the true word of God. What 

 Mr. AMiidborne meant to exclude is the hiunan element in it, no 

 doubt, but it rather spoils the weight of that beautiful phrase. 



Then the point from which Mr. AVhidborne regards creation is 

 a beautifully poetic view : but I do not think it is necessary that 

 everything I make should be like myself. It is wondertully beauti- 

 ful to say that the way in which nature may be described is as the 

 Testure of the living God " in the way it shows itself, but in many 

 ways it does not. Some of the postulates therefore strike me as 

 being a little forced, but on the whole I thank him for his most 

 valuable paper. 



Professor Orchard. — I wish to express my obligation to the 

 author for this valuable paper, mai'ked, as it is, not only by logical 

 acumen, but by philosophical insight. 



I may have misimderstocKl the meaning of the author, but in 

 one paragraph there appears an assertion that " the immaterial part 

 of nature itself is dependent on the material part, and has, as far as 

 we can see, no power or vitality, which is not foimded on the 

 material part.'' If we look at the top of the preceding page we see, 

 certainly the matter of the brain did not come into existence by 

 thinking ; as certainly thought cannot owe its origin to the mere 

 mechanical structure of the brain." It appears to me there is a 

 little inconsistency in those two statements, and that possibly the 

 author might slightly modify the expression, 



I think we shall all agree with the author in his main thesis, 

 which I luiderstand to be that nature illustrates the Bible concep- 

 tion of God. Surely it is fair to say that a workman is known by 

 his work. Anyone making an elaborate piece of machinery will 

 probably show whether he is wise or imwise — whether he is skilled 

 or the reverse— and so undoubtedly a complicated and elaborate 



