[November, 
672 The Duke of Argyll 
this force which makes one piece of protoplasm develop into 
a tree, whilst another not distinguishable from it may de- 
velop into a man. 
Thus we see that the author has been dealing with some 
of the latest acquisitions of natural science to exemplify the 
Unity of Nature, which he defines as “that intricate de- 
pendence of all things upon each other which makes them 
appear to be parts of one system,” and adds “that it may 
well be that the sense of Unity in Nature, which man has 
had from very early times reflected in such words as the 
‘ Universe,’ and in his belief in one God, is a higher and 
fuller perception of the truth than is commonly attained by 
those who are engrossed by the laborious investigation of 
details,” and considers that “ this is one of the many cases 
in which the intuitions of the mind have preceded inquiry 
and gone in advance of Science, leaving nothing for sys- 
tematic investigation to do, except to confirm by formal 
proofs that which has been already long felt and known.” 
My object will be to endeavour to show, first, that the 
Unity of Nature and Monotheism have never been generally 
believed by mankind ; and, secondly, that, though the evi- 
dence given by the author does not prove the Unity of 
Nature, however probable it may make it, and though 
everything he says about gravitation, ether, light, heat, 
electricity, life, &c., may be wrong, — we may reasonably 
presume some of it is, — the Unity of Nature would still be 
true, and that there is evidence which cannot be negatived, 
and which no errors in detail can in any way affeCt. 
First, as regards the evidence given by the author of the 
general belief by mankind in the Unity of Nature from the 
use of the word “ Universe.” I do not see how this can 
prove it. The words “Universe” and “Unity,” though 
very near each other in the Dictionary, have quite different 
meanings. One might say of the Laws of the Universe 
that they aCted inharmoniously and in antagonism to one 
another, which is just the opposite of what is meant by the 
Unity of Nature. 
This is not the place to discuss the “ intuitions of the 
mind,” or what may be called, except in metaphysical 
language, inherited ideas; but such ideas or feelings always re- 
late to actions of vital importance to the species, and which 
have so long been performed by them that they have at length 
become organised — such, for instance, as those prompted by 
hunger, or the care of the young. But to what actions of 
vital importance to the human species could ideas of the 
Unity of Nature lead ; a million years hence, perhaps, they 
