151 
The Chairman said : I think I may, in thanking Dr. Thompson for his 
temperate, able, and lucid paper, take the liberty of tendering to him our 
hearty ■welcome, and say how much pleasure we have in seeing in this room a 
friend from the other side of the Atlantic. 
Right Rev. Bishop Perry, D.D. — I very heartily respond, sir, to what 
you have said in commendation of the paper. I am sure it must have 
inspired all who have listened to it with admiration for the reasoning powers 
and eloquence of the author. His metaphysical talent is evident throughout 
the whole. But my wish is to say something on behalf of my old friend 
Paley (hear, hear), and also to make some remarks on one who, although 
a very able, is yet a very fallacious reasoner— Hume. With reference to 
Paley; our lecturer has referred to the basis of his argument, that “ There 
cannot be a design without a designer,” and has stated that there he has 
assumed what he should have proved. I think that he rightly assumed it. 
Paley did not write for materialists ; he did not enter into the argument as 
to how we get the idea of a designer — he assumed that we had it. The 
lecturer has spoken very ably of the intuitive conviction that we have of 
an intelligent and designing cause, and it was on this conviction that Paley 
proceeded. If I may venture to say so, the statement of the lecturer him- 
self is of the same character. He does not really prove more than Paley ; 
and his statement, although correct, is expressed in such terms as would 
not convey a very clear idea to ordinary readers. I do not know whether I 
am right in appealing to this room as to whether they understand the 
meaning of “ A collocation or adjustment of phenomena or forces in nature 
toward a given result produces in the mind the immediate conviction of an 
intelligent purpose behind such phenomena and forces.” If Paley had 
introduced this phraseology into his book, it would have been out of place. 
I trust Dr. Thompson will kindly bear with me for making these friendly 
critical remarks. I believe that, when we see a machine, we have an intuitive 
conviction that it has been made under the working of some intelligent 
mind ; in other words, that “ there cannot be design without a designer.” 
Do you not all agree with this ? It is not an undue assumption. I have 
some difficulty in speaking on the present occasion, because it is nearly 
fifty years since I looked into Paley and Hume, and unfortunately before 
I left Melbourne I gave them both to the Diocesan Library ; I speak, 
therefore, only from recollection. But this, I think, is Paley’s argument : 
If you find a watch, you would infer that there must have been a watch- 
maker. So there must have been a maker of the eye ; and as some man 
must be the maker of the watch, so the Great Creator of the universe 
must have been the maker of the eye. That is Paley’s argument ; and 
although, from the want of accurate scientific knowledge, there may be some 
errors in his book, the argument is, I think, as the lecturer has himself remarked, 
