94 
admit, for the sake of argument, evolution as a mode of formation, we only 
put off the difficulty one stage, because we are bound to ask whence come 
the forces of nature which display the evolving power ? How is the 
balance preserved ? Chance cannot effect this — the idea is absurd. We 
must attribute to nature powers of discrimination which are utterly alien 
to anything we know of the forces of nature. Take the balance between 
the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and you will see that it is very easy 
to interfere with it. What is it that makes the streams, in any over- 
populated part of England, abominable ? Simply that the balance is lost. 
If any of that noxious fluid which now is a black stagnant abomination, 
be sufficiently diluted to give the forces of nature play, the vegetable 
kingdom will set it all right again. Instead of a horrible black mass, you 
would have almost a pure fluid . I might follow the same illustration through 
all nature, and show how impossible it is that mere chance can do what is 
everywhere seen, and that we are bound to conclude that the forces of 
nature are Divinely guided. We may boldly say this; for, after all, what 
does the phrase, “ forces of nature,” mean but the expression of Gcd’s will ? 
The second part of the paper touches on the infinite richness of the repro- 
ductive arrangement of the lower plants, and also of those of some of the 
lower animals, which are equally wonderful, and equally worthy of study. 
Why is it that, when it is perfectly possible for a single cell to sprout up 
and divide itself off, there should be combined with so simple a process 
so inconceivably complex a system of reproduction ? Surely, if this were 
due to chance alone, the chance would be immensely in favour of the 
simplest method. If you throw dice, the chances are that exceedingly 
simple combinations will turn up, and not that you will produce thousands 
of double sixes running. And this brings me to one point I wish to allude 
to before sitting down. I cannot but think that Lord Bacon is rather hardly 
dealt with for calling final causes a barren study. What he meant was 
this : that if we begin by assuming that we know how a thing was repro- 
duced, we shall be very far from knowing how it was reproduced. The 
truth is that the wisdom shown in the final causes is beyond our wisdom. 
There is a wondrous wisdom in these final causes, which we do not under- 
stand. Why should there be a double form of reproduction, apparently for 
no reason ? Why, for instance, when a branch, by touching the ground, 
can reproduce a tree, should there be a seed-vessel to accomplish that ob- 
ject 1 I would merely say to our opponents, if you admit that there are 
forces in nature with intelligent foresight, that is all I ask you to grant, 
because, if you grant that, you have granted Theism without knowing it. 
Mr. J. Hassell. — I agree with the suggestion that we want a popular 
exposition of “ The Argument from Design,” and also that we ought not to 
be backward in teaching that doctrine whenever we can. It is the custom 
nowadays, with many scientific teachers, to take it for granted that there 
is no ground upon which to take our stand in teaching the great truth that 
God is the Creator of the Universe ; would it not be well in these days of 
scientific dogmatism to show plainly and clearly the absurdity of tlxe 
