291 
that, rightly understood, it is not the law of the whole created universe ; but 
rather that its principles are derivative and subordinate to a higher law of in- 
telligence, by which latter mechanism is to be explained, and not intelligence 
by mechanism. In my reply to the discussion upon a previous paper ( Journal 
of Transactions, vol. ix. p. 203) I expressed myself as follows The error 
of scientific men too generally is, that they identify the results of their inves- 
tigations in the region of the phenomenal with knowledge of the real. All 
positive science which is duly confirmed by observation, comparison, and ex- 
periment, is to be accepted as true. But this true science of the phenomenal 
is not to be confounded with science of the truly real, or of the true cause, the 
underlying truth of the real.” I repeat these words as conveying a lesson 
suggested by the present discussion. I would only add a reference to Aris- 
totle, Metaphysics, xi. 6, 12, where a wholesome warning is expressed against 
seeking in the reports of our sensible experience a criticism of ontological 
truth. Stripped of the local colouring which they receive from the idola of 
Aristotle’s pagan mind, the words of this master contain a truth at once old 
and new, and worthy never to be forgotten. 
I would, finally, more expressly call attention to two points indirectly im- 
plied in my foregoing remarks. Eirst, that I do not say that all force is 
directly identical with conscious will. When I say that it is “reducible” to 
conscious will, I mean that it is derivable from it, and that in some way (how- 
ever unintelligible to us) both it and “ matter,” in which it is said to reside, 
partake in some one or more of the attributes of ideal or spiritual existence. 
I do not identify the world with God. With the utmost strength of rational 
conviction, I acknowledge the unique divinity of the personal God of Chris- 
tianity. But I would make the world in some sense His child, rather than a 
dead product of His creative power, utterly unrelated to the Creator. The 
other point is, that the alternative is by no means between variable “ will ” 
and “fate.” A good will is invariable, and such surely is the will of God, 
which can show no change in that part of its government where unchangeable- 
ness is better — namely, in the government of the inorganic universe. Eor the 
ascription to atoms of an “ ideal or spiritual aspect ” does not imply that they 
are conscious personalities, capable of independent volition. Their whole 
action is, in the words of my paper, “in obedience to . . . laws originating with 
and enforced by God himself.” Their action is, therefore, the expression of 
God’s will, but not on this account subject to variation, nor (on the other 
hand) ascribable to “ fate.” 
I now dismiss the subject with one supplementary bibliographical reference 
to St. George Mivart’s Contemporary Evolution, in the first chapter of which 
some interesting facts are pointed out concerning the substitution, in certain 
directions of English thought, of the idea of “ unconscious intelligence for 
that idea of personal intelligence which is essential to all Theism . 
VOL. XI. 
X 
