285 
whether in known action or perhaps in suspension. The sceptical idealism 
of Descartes seemed to leave no foundation at all, not even in the 
Divine will, for an external world. It reduced the outer world, practi- 
cally, to a kind of phantasmagoria. Now we are bound, in these days, 
to make up our minds (even, for the sake of our own theology, if for 
nothing more) on this question of where we place God and 1 1 is action 
in this world, and say whether we adopt one or the other of these 
three ideal philosophies ; because we must come to some conclusion on the 
point. Even scientific men have arrived now pretty generally at the 
conviction, that the mechanical universe — the physical universe — has 
not, within itself, the power of its own activities. Originating force 
cannot be detected within the physical universe. They must come to 
this question of force at last. The question, perhaps, next before us is, 
whence, or how frequently, and in •what manner, does force act? Is 
there but one force now setting everything in motion,— -all the molecules, 
all the atoms, and so on ?— or is every force— every minor force, every 
molecule, and every atom — endowed primarily with some unknown faculty, 
such as the paper tells us Leibnitz would have called a monad 1 or if 
monads are endowed with separate powers and faculties, are we to con- 
clude that they are always acting, each in its own way, unconsciously or 
consciously ? If they are unconscious forces, just doing the business foi 
which the Creator first made them, are they constructed in infinitely 
various ways as a part of the fabric of the outer world? or, are they all 
alike ? Are they atoms of various kinds, or when set in motion have they 
any variety of action ? — These are important questions affecting the 
character of phenomena, because some theories would represent God as 
close behind every atom and acting upon it every moment throughout 
space. Cudworth, it is said, opposes the notion, and, although Professor 
Morris does not say so, it is clear to me that that is not a worthy view to 
take of the action of God on the universe. Into the character of these 
atoms, and, perhaps, monads, our scientific men are now very earnestly 
and praiseworthily examining. Let us wish them all success ; but while 
they are engaged in this analysis, let us ask them on their part to look 
with a little more respect on those who are engaged in the really higher 
work of the philosophy of this whole subject. (Hear, hear.) We are 
thankful to them for their prior, but inferior work. It is most useful ; 
but we are anxious that they should know that there are thinkers as well 
as themselves, who will at length have justice done to the larger ques- 
tions involved. We must not be content to be even with them, mere 
collectors of the dry facts of the universe, but should be anxious to under- 
stand them and put them together ; and then give praise to Him who 
is the ultimate Author and Doer of Creation. (Hear, hear.) 
One word as to the method of the writer of this paper. He sets out with 
the principle that we ought to proceed “ from the known to the unknown ” 
(p. 5th from end), and then asserts, that as we know ourselves, we must 
