ception, too, as to the “ absolute,” as if without existence, 
though it must needs be at the foundation of all being, is 
remarkable. 
70. They speak, for example, of no events taking place which 
would “finally, and for ever, put to confusion the intelligent 
beings who regard them” (p. GO); — not noticing the previous 
“ absolute,” thus implied. They rightly deprecate such intellec- 
tual confusion that “ an intelligent being will for ever continue 
baffled in any attempt to explain phenomena, because they 
have no physical relation to anything that went before, or that 
followed after” — (p. 61)'; thus again assuming the absolute. 
They “ have perfect trust that God will work in such a way as 
not to put us to permanent intellectual confusion” (p. 62). In 
all such expressions, which indeed give us their fundamental 
reason for the Law of Continuity, and are of constant occur- 
rence, our authors do not seem to observe that they are admit- 
ting “intelligence,” “intellectual” beings, “us,” — who are 
powers lying beyond the “ material,” powers who cannot with 
impunity be disregarded, but must be treated as having a voice 
inth e expectation or order of things, and so are in relation with 
the absolute. These intelligences they say, have “ the duty and 
privilege of grasping the meaning of all events that come before 
them”; (p. 63), and, they ask, “ do not all terrestrial occur- 
rences of whatever nature, form that material upon which the 
intellect of man is intended to work — that earth which man is 
commanded to subdue? — a command,” they finely add, “ equi- 
valent to victory ? ” 
Well then, why do our authors turn away so often from this 
more than material being, this power, force, (which Sir W. R. 
Grove says, “cannot be annihilated ” (p. 16) — or, this intelli- 
gence, that must be respected, and is apparently ever watching, 
in permanence, the whole physical order of things, as a 
Superior? Why do they seem to assign to this distinct being, 
no more than, after all, a “conditioned,” or semi-material con- 
tinuity of being ? — Is it that useful “ dread of metaphysics ?” 
Whenever scientific men, or commercial men, or any men, 
turn away from what they call “metaphysics,” — or thinking out 
conclusions to their end, — they in truth are imagining, that 
“ God has put us to permanent intellectual confusion.” 
