155 
Dr. Irons. — Does this not point to the great need of an ontology — a great 
need of our knowing what we mean when we believe in God ? 
Rev. Professor Me All. — Being engaged in the education of young men 
for the ministry, I can scarcely conceive of any composition more valuable 
than the lecture to which we have just listened, and should it form part 
of the Transactions of the Institute, I should think it would have merit 
enough to keep the volume afloat and hand it down to a late day. Perhaps 
it would be better, if there be any one present who is not convinced by the 
arguments advanced, any one who has any objection to state, that I should 
give place, for I am most anxious to hear if anything can be said against 
this lecture. I feel, for one, deeply obliged to the lecturer, and if, in a 
few minutes, when he may reply, he will meet the objection just raised, that 
the designer seems to require a designer, then his work will be final and 
complete, and nothing can be added to the obligation under which he 
has laid us. (Cheers.) 
Sir W. R. Lushington Tilson, Bart.— I would desire simply to say one 
word and add my tribute of thanks to the lecturer for his able paper. I 
entirely went with him in his criticism on Hume’s argument, which I think 
was powerful. With regard to the observations he made when speaking of 
the “unfinished” condition of things, I think he went to the point, in 
reference to those difficulties often arising in scientific minds, in saying that 
without revelation many things in nature and Providence cannot be ex- 
plained. The existence of evil in our world would lead one away from the 
idea of a perfectly benevolent Being as having created it, although we 
see marks of wisdom distinct. But the existence of physical evil must 
be traced to the existence of moral evil, and then you will see the 
importance of that word “ unfinished.” There is a time to come when 
the whole work will be complete ; there is a time to come when moral 
evil itself will be removed, when, therefore, the benevolence of the 
Supreme Being will be vindicated ; and then, and not till then, can we 
adequately understand the whole design of the universe. Unless you look 
forward to that period you will find great difficulties in looking at 
creation as it is, and will not be able to assert the benevolence of the 
Creator, although there is clear proof of His intelligence and power. 
Rev. Professor Lias.— I had not intended to intrude myself on the meeting 
to-night, but I rise at the honorary Secretary’s request, just to add one or 
two observations. I have not had access to either Paley or Hume since I 
knew I was to be present to-night, but I conceive that the real reason why 
Paley’s popularity seems to be on the wane, is that he happened to be too 
clear in his language. We all know what it is to be rated for good advice. 
When one cannot contradict it, the only thing is to abuse the person who 
gave it. (Laughter.) Now it strikes me that a great deal of the unpopu- 
larity of Paley is due to the fact that he states his case too well and forces 
his arguments too far home.* You will find in the Natural Theology of 
* Professor Lias wishes to add that in these remarks he was referring to 
Paley’s Natural Theology only. 
