50 Correspondence. [January, 
function which presides over the animal economy ” — (I would 
add, ‘ and much more ’); and says that Hylozoism is not concerned 
to dispute the existence of an ubiquitous Deity. Well, Haeckel 
himself admits as much as this ; and Goethe much more, when 
(after St. Paul) he calls the Deity ‘the All -Upholder.' But 
C. N. adds, If we assume this “ we must believe that He acfts 
in all cases direcffly, and not by living or lifeless mediation.” 
This is a ‘ non sequitur.’ If such a Being exists, He must have 
a Will; and whether He acfts one way or another must depend 
absolutely upon that Will. It is perfectly true that He — 
“ Warms in the Sun, refreshes in the breeze, 
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees.” 
Yet none of these natural objecfts is God : they are but his 
beauteous works, and gifts to his sentient and rational creatures. 
Nor do I objecft to their being called ‘ the Epiphany,’ that is 
‘ Manifestation of God’s Power.’ Then let us all adore Him, 
love Him, and obey Him, for He is the “ Father of all mercies.” 
Such Science as this, so far from being degrading , is the most 
noble and elevating of all Sciences, and I cannot imagine that 
you, Sir, would deem it unsuitable to your Journal. — I am, &c., 
J. H. Barker. 
