678 
[November, 
The Duke of Argyll 
in unceasing succession. But as the total amount of matter 
in the universe is always the same, and as its condition at 
any particular moment is the resultant, the outcome, the 
effedt of the previous condition, it follows that the etieCt 
contains the whole of the cause, neither more nor less. 
Take an example on a smaller scale. Oxygen, hydrogen, 
and motion are not only the cause, so to speak, oi water ; 
they are water. Cause and effedt are therefore merely different 
aspedts of one and the same thing. The universe of to-day 
is therefore one and the same with that of any previous 
time, however different may be the arrangement of its con- 
stituent parts, and the reason of this is neither more nor less 
mysterious than is the reason of the infinite succession oi 
causes and effedts which are going on every moment within 
us and around us. _ f 
I will briefly sum up thus : — 1st. There is no evidence oi 
a general belief in the Unity of Nature and Monotheism ; 
the probabilities are all against it ; and there is abundant 
evidence of a belief in a dualism both of Nature, and of 
supernatural beings. 2nd. As the sum of all effedts is — the 
sum of all causes, the universe of to-day is = the universe of 
any previous time, and this it is which constitutes tie 
Unity of Nature. In order to disprove it, the sum oi an 
effedt must be shown to be either greater or less than the 
sum of its cause, which is impossible. 
The above was written before the issue of the Odtobei 
number of the “ Contemporary Review,” in which there is 
a second article on the Unity of Nature, by the Duke of 
Argvlh which I think fully bears out my remarks regarding 
the faulty nature of the method he has adopted as evidence 
of it ; for if what he now states be true, it would show not 
a unity but a duality of Nature. 
The first article was mainly occupied with the pheno- 
mena of non-living matter — with the movements we 
call heat, light, eledtricity, chemical adtion, &c., and 
the intimate relations existing between, them ; the 
present one treats of the phenomena of life, and shows 
their close relationship in all living things from the 
amoeba up to man. This is no doubt all quite true ; but oi 
what use is it as evidence of the Unity ot Nature, if, as he 
now says, there is a great gulf of difference, even of antago- 
nism, between the living and the non-living. A chain 1 is no 
stronger than its weakest link ; and if the Unity of Nature 
can withstand one such antagonism, why not any number oi 
them ? Thus heat, light, eledtricity, and chemical adtion 
