reading it. He uses the term “ law,” as it appears to me, in three or four 
different senses. This seems, to my mind, to cause a considerable difficulty 
in getting to the meaning of the paper, and I should require to make a very 
close analysis of it before I could properly understand it. I am sure it would 
add greatly to the perspicuity of his paper if the term “ law” were used in a 
more definite sense. My idea is that the term “law” should simply be used 
in an invariable set of sequences. It seems to me that he uses it to denote 
force, cause, and invariable sequence, which is to complicate its meaning. 
Apart from this, the paper generally has my entire appreciation. There are a 
few points in it that seem to me more or less doubtful, but I quite agree in 
the author’s first remarks. I wish, however, to call attention to one passage. 
I do not lay much stress on what I consider to be its ambiguity, which, I 
have no doubt, the Bishop will hereafter explain ; but in section 10 of 
the Paper he seems to lay down that there is no great distinction betwee n 
physical and moral law. He says:— “ Nor is this science, as might be 
imagined, of a different order from physical science.” I think there is a 
difficulty in this sentence. It seems to me that physical and moral science 
belong to very different orders of thought. I do not think that the Bishop 
has expressed what is exactly his meaning. I value the Paper so highly 
that I should be exceedingly sorry to see it go forth with any defects. I 
quite agree with the observations the Bishop makes about the subject of 
beauty, and, as far as my reading of the classics goes, I believe you might 
count on your ten fingers every allusion to the physical beauties of nature. 
For instance, the beauties of the scenery of the Lake of Geneva are not once 
alluded to by Julius Caesar, who continually travelled through that district. 
It seems as if the heathen mind were absolutely incapable of perceiving 
these natural beauties. It is a valuable characteristic of the Paper that 
it deals with the higher regions of thought, and I should be sorry not 
to do it full justice. I agree with the writer in deprecating the habit many 
people have of merely resting the controversy on certain specific subjects, 
instead of taking a general view, and endeavouring to get to the root of the 
entire question. I believe that this Paper does go to the root of this subject. 
There are many things on which we are too much in the habit of attaching 
importance, because we find there is some little agreement between science and 
Scripture. But that does not get us over the main difficulty. I am sure that 
we do a great deal of damage to the cause we are attempting to defend if 
we spread it over a needlessly wide field. We have seen the result of 
this error during the present war ; when the Russians were extending their 
forces over an enormously wide surface, they got the worst of it. Those who 
are engaged in defending Revelation should keep their eyes on this illustra- 
tion, and endeavour to confine themselves to central positions, and should 
not allow themselves to be driven from them. They should lay down those 
central positions which constitute the essence of Revelation, and refrain from 
going into endless controversy on a set of minor points. It is in this respect 
that the Paper we have heard is of great value and importance. It deals 
