274 
all mere systems elaborated out of considerations from the Divine attributes, 
that because those attributes are perfect they must produce what we call 
perfect results, fall hopelessly to the ground. We have to deal with the great 
facts of nature, which is no doubt full of imperfections ; and I do not think that 
any of our ordinary attempts to explain away these facts will hold water. For 
example, it is a common thing to explain all the imperfections which we see 
in nature by the doctrine of the Fall. I will not say anything on that, except 
that it does not explain these things at all ; it only moves the matter a 
step further away ; and still the real difficulty arises, — why did the Creator so 
arrange things that man should be capable of falling ? That is one of the valu- 
able things laid down in Butler’s Analogy , and the more we study that book, 
the more we shall pay attention to this fact, that we must admit what Mr. 
Henslow has called imperfections in nature. I do not think “imperfection” 
is a good word to express this ; but, at the same time, I cannot tell what word 
we ought to use to fill its place. There are, no doubt, certain imperfections in 
nature. In my finger, for instance. Did not God make it ? Yes ; and so I 
might run through creation. Wherever I see signs of physical evil, whatever 
they may be, lam obliged to think them to be in conformity with the supreme 
will of the Creator, and any reference to a subordinate cause is out of the 
question. One expression has been used in this paper which I do not agree 
with. Mr. Henslow speaks of the passage “ God’s ways are not our ways.” 
Now, that is true in the sense in which it is used in the Scriptures, but 
it is not true in the sense in which it is used here. Mr. Henslow seems to 
suppose that we can measure the Divine ways by something else than our 
ways. But this is not true ; God’s ways are not our ways, and we know 
nothing of them, because no conception of them can be formed by the human 
mind. This leads me to refer to another passage, where Mr. Henslow speaks 
of trying to get rid, more or less, of the language of anthropomorphism. I 
believe that that is simply impossible, as is shown in Mansel’s Bampton 
Lectures. We may abstract, from our conception of the Deity, the more 
strong anthropomorphic forms, but abstract them as we will, what do we 
leave behind ? A remnant which is anthropomorphic after all ; or— to use 
Mansel’s words — after we get rid of human feeling, human love, human affec- 
tion, and so on, we really leave human coldness behind. There are many 
other points in Mr. Henslow’s paper which I should prefer to leave other 
hands to deal with, and therefore I will pass over them, and turn to the 
second part of the paper, which I wish the author had elaborated to a much 
greater degree, because he has touched upon many important points, and I 
am not prepared to say what are his views upon many of them. At the 
beginning of the second part Mr. Henslow says : — 
“ In considering, next, the methods of Deity as revealed to us in the 
Bible, I wish to call attention to some striking analogies which will be found 
between them and those spoken of as existing in nature.” 
Now, this is most important, and would bear to be treated of in a separate 
paper. I believe myself that God exhibits Himself in nature, in history, and 
