JS 80 .] Correspondence . 79 1 
of my “ pervasive intelligence ” with the “watch-making Deity.” 
Somewhat of the difference between us may be thus indicated— 
An intelligent critic of my work writes : — 
“ The presence of intelligence as the counsel and regulation 
principle of the order of nature is the focus principle to which 
Mr Baildon brings all his illustrations.” Now this description 
would be very insufficient and incorrea as a summary of Paley’s 
argument. Where I am content to show the adtion of intelli- 
gence, Paley’s goes on into teleology, attempting to demonstrate 
definite intention and particular purpose. And herein lies the 
weakness of his argument. He tries too often to give a single 
definite answer to the child-like query “ what is this for ? ” To 
such questions there is seldom or never a single simple answer, 
because the relations of any being to its surroundings are so 
complex and numerous. , . . T 
I am anxious not to encroach on your space, and I think I 
have said sufficient to make it patent to your readers that the 
article in question gives anything but a true idea of my book. — 
I am, &c., _ „ 
H. Bellyse Baildon. 
THE SPIRIT OF NATURE. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
$ IR Never having previously come in contadtwithanyof the irri- 
tahile genus vatum, I had little notion of their power of inventing 
grievances and of looking at fadfs, at opinions, and at persons, 
by “ the light that never was on sea or shore.” In the foregoing 
letter two charges are brought against me : Misrepresentation 
or “ caricature ” of Mr. Baildon’s opinions, and discourtesy. 
Turning to the former accusation, based upon a few lines at the 
top of k6o (“Journal of Science” for Sept.), it is, I maintain, 
incorredf The passage in question, fairly construed in connec- 
tion with the whole of the article, points out certain characteristics 
of a school of thinkers which are to be met with in certain degrees 
in the “ Spirit of Nature.” Mr. Baildon reminds us that he has 
disclaimed attempting to prove “ the extreme theorem that this 
is the best of all possible worlds, or even that the process of 
struggle and suffering that we see is inevitable; but he adds, 
sarcastically, “ I must confess to so little acquaintance with any 
other world or process* that I cannot contradict either theorem ! 
Not merely so, but the whole book is filled with laudations of 
“ nature ” and censure of those who do not share his peeping 
admiration. Referring to the opinion of John Stuart Mill that 
* As if such acquaintance were necessary ! 
