154 
Do you say the force is the cause ? or, is it some property in the cause ? 
Either is very difficult to understand. Science, I see, takes us up to the last 
edge of the dead phenomenal. What is it that then sets the phenomenon in 
motion ? That is the question. It must either be something identified 
with the phenomenon — (which would make the “ First Cause ” part of the 
universe) — or it must be a kinesis linked to the phenomenon ; or, thirdly, 
it must be something distinct from the phenomenon. I can conceive of no 
other than these three statements of what that must be which gives motion to 
phenomena. I apprehend that every Christian would say the last, viz. that the 
cause is essentially distinct from the phenomenon ; or else we should deny the 
whole idea of Creation. We put it as the Christian position that God created 
all things out of nothing ; in other words, He projected apart from Himself 
all things that now exist out of Himself — (for God Himself changes not). 
It follows that they are not God nor linked to Him. If we accept this con- 
clusion, I think we should be in difficulty if we also adopted Dr. Thompson’s ; 
for his would place God as immediately touching the several phenomena of 
the universe as the force, without any intermediate created force. I cannot 
believe that God moulds the leg of that table or each hair of my head, 
in such a sense as that each is done by the immediate touch of God. I 
rather believe Moses, when he said that a created life was given to the 
creature. In these instances — the “ table,” and the “ hair ” — the force is 
mechanical immediately (and man beyond), in the first, and vital in the 
second. I believe that God projects, that is, puts various kinds of life apart 
from Himself, and that life is force, — a distinct creation (Gen. i. 12). It 
seems to me there would be something almost atheistical in the thought 
of putting God locally, in relation with each phenomenon as the immediate 
cause ; because also it would make God capable of being extended. It 
would conceive of His Divine omnipresence as a local ubiquity. I protest 
then against any notion of placing God as force before every detail of pheno- 
mena, since it cannot be thought out, without materializing God. I 
must now leave this to Dr. Thompson. I really want instruction on the 
point.* 
Mr. Bunting. — I should like to hear what the author of the paper says 
to a very common modern objection to Paley’s argument — that you may 
carry it a step backwards : If the design imply the designer, what does the 
designer imply ? Why cannot you carry back the argument one step 
further ? Must not the designer itself be a kind of instrument implying 
some prior construction which implied a further design ? I think that Dr. 
Thompson’s criticism of Paley’s statement is clear and just. His one phrase 
puts the axiom pithily without tautology. 
Sir T. Lushington. — It appears to me that you will bo only going back 
to a final designer. 
* Modern Pantheism aims to make God a part of the universe, — under 
the plausible name of Force ; the truth is, that force is a creature of God, 
though itself unperceived except in its results. — W. J. I. 
