thoroughly sound, and is put in an exceedingly clear and forcible manner. 
Now we come to Hume. His argument is : “ That the notion of cause and 
of design is derived from our observation and experience of nature, and 
cannot be generalized beyond the sphere of human action and experience.” 
The lecturer says that this is a fallacy, because “ in nature we never 
see a cause, but only sequences. The notion of cause proceeds from ourselves 
as intelligent and willing actors and powers.” “ From this,” he adds, “ we 
intuitively and necessarily refer the adaptation of sequences to an intelligent 
and designing cause.” And he goes on : “ Experience more or less has no 
concern with this positive condition of the mind from its knowledge of 
itself.” All this is true ; but I do not think that the force of the argument 
will be generally perceived, or that it is necessary for the refutation of 
Hume’s fallacy. My answer to him would be simply this : — that, when we 
have acquired “ the notion of cause and design,” howsoever it may have 
been derived, we intuitively and necessarily extend it to everything that 
comes under our observation. In the language of Paley, we believe that 
“ there cannot be a design without a designer.” Hence as, when we observe 
a work of art beyond the power of an irrational animal, we infer that man 
has been at work ; so in like manner, when we observe in nature— using the 
word in its w’idest sense — works of art beyond the power of man, we infer 
the exercise of superhuman power and ability. That is my answer to 
Hume. Without disputing about his premises, I deny his conclusion. 
With reference to teleology, it appears to me quite clear that, putting 
aside all metaphysical argument, and taking simply the common sense of 
man— and that is what we have to attend to in the controversy with sceptics ; 
if we look at the material w'orld, the vegetable and animal world, and 
further the moral world, we cannot but come to the conclusion, unless our 
mind be perverted in some way or other, that the world has had a 
Creator, and that that Creator possesses a wisdom and power far beyond all 
human conception. The unity in the world— in the whole universe — shows, 
as the lecturer has pointed out, an adaptation of means to an end. The 
wonderful combinations we see necessarily lead us up to an infinitely wise 
and powerful Creator. I am not so sure that we could say a perfectly 
benevolent Creator. There is much to perplex a thoughtful man in the 
contemplation of the mixture of evil and good which is in the world. I 
can conceive of doubt as to the unlimited power, or as to the bene- 
volence of the Creator. Here we come to feel our need of revelation. 
It is only by revelation that we know the character of God, and in some 
degree understand the doings of God towards us. Even with the Bible in 
their hands men are subjected very often to extremely great trials from 
comparing what they see in the world around them with what it tells us of 
the Creator ; and the paper, which has just been read to us, is very valuable in 
pointing out that the present is an unfinished state ; that there is a plan of 
development, and that we are to look forward beyond the present world. 
Just one sentence more. With regard to natural religion, its lessons are 
most plainly taught us by God Himself in the Book of Job. 
