840 
The J udge insists with proper emphasis (for it is a cardinal point) upon 
the fact that the question of originating force is “ a question not of quantity 
but of quality” (p. 331). 
“Allow time enough,” says the advocate of “natural development,” “and 
everything will come out of the primary granule of matter.” But this 
granule must either have itself possessed a creative power, or it must have 
been, in a manner which “ science ” cannot explain^ endowed with a non- 
material germ of vitalising and organific energy, which was to be gradually 
evolved and perpetually sustained. 
Whence came the energy? how is it directed into the organising 
channels ? and how did that granule come into existence ? 
Philosophy says, “ We must believe in Mind and Personal Will.” 
Eeligion and moral impulses lead us higher, and we say, “We believe in 
God Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.” 
This belief in God is, at any rate, a more reasonable and a more adequate 
answer to our searchings after the cause and origin of things than any 
Materialistic scheme of philosophy can be. 
The last sentence in the paper reminds us that Materialism, when 
logically carried out, proves to be an immoral as well as an irrational and 
an inadequate theory. (We assert this, while we fully adopt the just reser- 
vation made at the beginning of the paper, that some persons who have 
adopted a Materialistic creed in philosophy have by no means been immoral 
persons.) It is not merely mind but conscience that is attacked by Mate- 
rialism. And our conscience as well as our intellect repels the theory as 
one which, logically, can find no place for the stupendous problems of sin and 
righteousness, of right and wrong. These are problems which must present 
themselves to every thoughtful man, whatever practical conclusion he may 
come to in the matter of religious belief. A philosophy that ignores these 
problems is no true philosophy. They are problems with which “ science ” 
cannot deal, — problems which “ philosophy ” must face, but problems on 
which satisfactory light can only be gained by “ revelations ” from God. 
I am, &c. 
Professor Odell said that all classes were, more or less, occupied with the 
question of Materialism, and he believed that there was no subject of greater 
importance. On the fourth page of the paper the author said, “ On this 
account Hume and his followers, including Mill and Herbert Spencer, 
consistently maintain that the knowledge of a producing cause is beyond 
the scope of science.” Was this so ? Was the knowledge — he did not mean 
an absolute, but a partial knowledge — of a producing cause beyond the scope 
of science ? Was such a knowledge beyond the scope of ordinary minds ? 
He (Professor Odell) thought not. They might not see the cause of a par- 
ticular effect, but they knew there was a cause somewhere. Could they 
see the world as it was presented to their vision and intelligence in all 
its might and magnitude, and yet come to the conclusion that there was no 
cause for it ? The whole foundation of society was being undermined by the 
