266 
may or may not know, — that there must be some initiative force outside in 
order to make a beginning : I think that this is an interesting illustration. 
I have been very much pleased with Mr. Pattison’s paper, and with the dis- 
cussion which has occurred upon it, and I think the great moral of the paper 
is, that we must remember how all the scientific processes and all scientific 
knowledge are, to quote an expression used by Professor Virschow in his 
address to the recent congress of naturalists at Munich, only “ piece-work.” 
Let us remember that though the knowledge obtained by scientific men, 
from year to year, goes a great way ; it does not cover the whole space. 
When we leave the limits of physical science, and scientific research into 
phenomena, and get into the sphere of philosophy and the mental processes, 
we have another handle to use ; and what I believe these discussions more 
and more prove is, that you never can get to any valuable truths] without 
taking hold of both the handles, without bringing your philosophy in to the 
assistance of your physical science, and having the help of your physical 
science to the framing and modifying of your philosophy. Then, after all is 
said, there comes the still further question, “ Do we know anything'more ? ” 
and further, as Dr. Wainwright has said, with what we know in revelation, 
we can go on from our physical research and observation of nature, and from 
our investigations into consciousness, and so on, to a higher sphere still. Thus 
it is “ by faith we have the knowledge that the worlds or the agesjwere made 
by the Word of God, so that we cannot think of the visible as haviug come 
into existence out of phenomena,” but we must think’ of it as having come 
into existence from a Power beyond. Then we know from revelation some- 
thing more about that Power than that it was merely the First Cause — we 
know something about Him, the Almighty and Omniscient, “ the]source of 
all love as well as of all power.” (Cheers.) 
Mr. Pattison. — I am very much obliged to the meeting for the way in 
which my paper has been discussed. The first speaker objected to .my 
making nature and man two entities. In the passage which he referred 
to I have not tried to dissociate them, but have simply spoken* of man as 
being surrounded by phenomena, — which it is the fashion to’call “ environ- 
ments,” the man being one thing and the environments another. It is true 
that I have used the phrase, “ a trick of advocacy,” but no one would know 
better what I meant, or would forgive me for it more heartily, than Pro- 
fessor Tyndall himself, to whom I have applied it. I apply the phrase in 
reference to one used by Professor Tyndall, “ It is now generally ad- 
mitted.” Professor Huxley also errs in the same way, for, after giving us a 
hypothesis, he sums up and says, “ It is the general belief.” I speak of 
that as “a trick of advocacy,” which, however, only means the'skilful use 
which an advocate makes of all the points within his reach for thc^purpose 
of obtaining the verdict. The third speaker referred to what I have said 
in my twenty-first paragraph, and used as an argument, but have not, per- 
haps, expounded with sufficient clearness, in reference to development. If 
