336 
those who have not studied the subject may have overlooked. If his 
ordship will allow me to refer to an incidental remark contained in his 
paper, I will do so very briefly. I know that there is the great danger, 
of which my friend Dr. Irons has warned us, of taking up points which 
really do not belong to the essence of the paper. But his lordship quotes from 
an article in the Chunk Quarterly Review. The remark which his lordship 
makes refers to a point that was not very fully discussed in that article, but 
was simply alluded to, and if I may be considered in order, I might explain 
what I consider to be there set forth. The point is — How it is that one half 
of nature belongs'[to religion or theology, and the other half to science ? 
In this way ; science takes cognizance of causation— cause and effect ; theology 
of the mechanism which makes cause and effect possible. You cannot have 
cause and effect except as part of a mechanical system ; and you cannot 
have a mechanical system except as the production of a mind. Hence, 
while science takes cognizance of cause and effect, or, as we say, of the laws of 
nature ; theology takes cognizance of those mechanical arrangements which 
make the laws of nature possible. Formerly, under “the mechanical theory, ’ 
God was supposed to have completed the mechanical arrangements of nature 
once for all, but now, under the theory of evolution, these arrangements 
require to be renewed from day to day. That Science cannot go beyond the 
laws of nature, that she capnot take cognizance of that mechanism which 
makes these laws possible, is clearly shown by scientific experiment. Before 
the laws of nature which the experiment is to illustrate can come into play, 
mechanical arrangements must be made, and they can only be made by the 
mind of the experimenter. The experimenter must first of all find the 
bodies he is to experiment upon, and then he must put them in their proper 
positions, so as to make a mechanical system out of them. Then, and then 
only, do the laws of nature, to be illustrated, come into play. Here, there- 
fore, we have clearly two factors, the mind of the experimenter and the 
laws of nature, conspiring to effect one result ; that is to say, in other words, 
we have illustrated the respective spheres of theology and science. If we 
look more closely at what I have designated as “ mechanical arrangements,” 
you will find that it consists of three things — the individual existence of bodies, 
their order in space, and their order in time. Now you have only to look into 
a manual of science to find that these three particulars are always postulated. 
The formula of science is, “ if so and so, then so and so.” What does this “ if ” 
mean, but that these three particulars which constitute the mechanism of 
nature, viz. the existence of bodies, and their order in space and time, lie 
outside the sphere of science and must be postulated. They belong not 
to science but to theology. I have only to express my great thanks to the 
Bishop for his exceedingly interesting paper. 
Rev. Prebendary Row. — Although I have read this paper through, I 
have not had sufficient time to thoroughly master it ; hence I do not feel myself 
competent to discuss it to my own satisfaction to-night. Perhaps, however, 
the author will allow me to tell him of one defect I thought I found in 
