[November, 
676 The Duke of Argyll 
many able men of Science whose Theology was, as the 
author remarks, weak. Theology and Science would 
thus seem to be in inverse proportion to one another, 
and the reason of this is to be found, I believe, in 
the erroneous relationship in which they are supposed 
to stand to one another. Theology anathematises Science 
because it is not theological, and Science returns the 
compliment because Theology is not scientific ; whilst 
there are those who, like the author, bless them both, and 
would make out that they are indispensable to one another. 
Perhaps some day it will be discovered that, on the 
contrary, they are entirely independent of one another. 
There are no doubt many things included under Theology* 
and generally considered the most important part of it, 
which have no more right to be so than paint and feathers 
to be called man, though they too are often considered the 
most important part of him. An enlightened common sense 
may be trusted to make the necessary distinction. 
Attempts are now frequently made to prove that miracles 
are not breaks in the uniformity of Nature’s laws, just as 
they are made to show that seven days are countless ages, 
and it is a hopeful sign to see this growing tribute to 
great truths ; but for the present their success does not con- 
cern us, but only this — that no one thought of such a 
question formerly, there being no idea of any such uni- 
formity any more than there was of the countless ages. 
The author makes the following remark, which seems 
somewhat singular from so firm a believer in the Unity of 
Nature : — “ A sense and a perception of the Unity of Nature 
— strong, imaginative, and almost mystic in its character — 
is now prevalent among men over whom the idea of a per- 
sonal agency of a living God has, to say the least, a much 
weaker hold.” Why does he call a sense of the Unity of 
Nature imaginative and mystic ? It can hardly be because 
he has any doubt about it. The faCt is that, like many 
others, he seems to shrink from what he believes to be its 
logical consequences on religious faith ; but nobody need 
trouble himself in the least about that : man’s faith has 
never yet been comprised within the three corners of a syl- 
logism, whether they contained the Unity of Nature or 
anything else. 
The second object I propose to attempt is to show 
that, — though everything the author says about gravita- 
tion, light, heat, electricity, life, &c., may be wrong, 
without in the least affecting the truth of the Unity of 
Nature, — there is such evidence of its truth as cannot be 
