260 
snpin?»*? f G °? S relatl01 ^ to His creation, which infests the 
of tlie “ advanced ” minds in science and 
nnrlfj phy, n he W ° rld 0ver ’ Up to the P resent da y. As if God 
C WGre two “dependent beings, occupying different 
places m the universe, and could not come into any kind of con- 
tact without detraction, on the one hand, from the absolute bles- 
nrffhT infin A t ? per ft ctl0ns of Deit ^ and without disturbance, 
on the other, of the self-sufficient order of nature ! As if “ mat- 
er and nature could even be, much less act, except, as St. Paul 
says, in and through God ! ) Hence Cudworth, with constant 
a « Zti ° th f aUt » T ty , ° f Aristotle and Plotinus, postulates 
instrument as an inferior a » d subordinate 
nstiument, doth drudgingly execute that part of (God’s) provi- 
mate” 1 iQ “S a “ d orderly motion of 
matter. ibis nature is subordinate to a higher providence, 
", h ‘£ “ s omot.me 3 ” overrules it and supplies*, defects T , 
S ir ” ‘r " ? Tanet y.of “life,” it is “ art embodied in 
matter, acting from within vitally and magically,” and never 
of ttS Ln h »et • 0 d °' Bu V‘ asit dothnot comprehend the reason 
what H doth ‘‘““ft 8 ”- 116 "I ,S ‘ Wld ex P re5 % conscious 
Tt bL o . • 14 “ n,10t »ct electively and with discretion.” 
It has “a certam dull and obscure idea of that which it stamps 
Scv P ” Th°e“ “w--’Vr b ^ ‘ his is far icferior to « animal 
of aU'lives ” b . P f-‘ C of nature is the “last and lowest 
noreal ” r,,d -“.T 14 18 a Iife - i4 must needs be incur- 
Neo PIsf C ' !r JI 'th s theory is simply the reproduction of a 
'u»l ,!T ):,n a Chnstia n’s “ System of the Universe.” 
niiif™® 4 : " 0t take U P s l ,ace ,J - V further indications of the im- 
the history* of F P^ s . ence ot a theory of unconscious reason in 
i - .I English thought. I will only remind the mem- 
bers of the Institute of Mr. J. J. Murphy’s hypothesis of an 
plastic Mature mte li Sence” similar in conception* Cudworth’s 
Sons as win It 68 •“ ‘° p " form about the same func- 
tions, as well as to relieve our Christian theodicy of certain 
burdens which, without this hypothesis, it is assumed that the 
°8™f eha COTy - - (See Murphy's^to »,iX“ 
Si bv B T P X T’ X ^’ and the Conception of 
921-081 ' if. B ' n Cocker ’ ?' D ” LL D -> New York, 18-5, pp. 
~~ 5 2-3 o where the internal contradiction in Mr. Murphy’s 
views, and the, r unsatisfactory nature on other grounds are 
briefly hut forcibly set forth.) I„ an American account of the 
doctrine of evo lution, I find a view similar to that of Murphy 
attiibuted to the English writers Morcll and Lavcock, whose 
works I have not now immediately at hand. 
The recent animated discussions in Germany have led there 
