279 
subject before us at one of our meetings, when Mr. Warington, in a paper 
which he read to us, spoke about “ God’s eyes ” and “ God’s ears ” and 
so forth, pointing out that what was said about God’s seeing and hearing was 
not strictly applicable to God, but was an anthropomorphic way of speaking 
in accommodation to our understanding. But I beg to observe that it 
is not the eye or the reflection of the image on the retina which sees — you 
may have that in a dead eye — it is the spirit of the living man which 
sees through this means. He sees through his eyes and hears through 
his ears ; and so, what hears and what sees are truly analogous to God’s 
hearing and seeing, only man sees with certain visible instruments, and God 
can see without them. To confound the sense of seeing with the mere mode 
or form is a very shallow philosophy ; and I think Mr. Bow would be one of 
the first men, when he reconsiders these things, to stand up and refute his 
own notions 
Mr. Bow. — I think you have misunderstood me. 
Mr. Beddie. — He would be one of the first to admit that it is not the eye 
that sees, but something beyond the eye ; and not the ear that hears, 
but something beyond the ear 
The Chairman. — And “ He that made the eye, shall He not see ? ” 
Mr. Beddie. — Quite so ; but what I want to point out is, that there 
is a much greater resemblance between man and God than we conceive when 
we speak in this way ; and that it is much more accurate than some think, to 
speak of God as seeing and hearing, and as exercising those other attributes 
which we have in a certain sense also in ourselves, but which He has 
in perfection. There are two or three minor points in the paper which 
I intended to speak of ; but I do not much like going into minute criticism, 
especially considering the extraordinary amount of assumption that runs 
through the whole paper, and the peculiar way in which the author has put 
everything forward, — as, “I believe so-and-so to be the indirect result 
of God’s will,” and “ it may be that so-and-so never had a use until 
accidentally called into action,” as in the case of the mammse of the male sex, 
which Mr. Henslow says he believes to be “ capable of rendering active 
service.” I understand from the Chairman that it is recorded that in one 
case a man was known to give suck, but I must say I do not believe it 
Mr. Henslow. — It is a well-authenticated case. 
Mr. Beddie. — Well, I do not believe it, and even if it be the case in one 
instance, remember exceptio probat regulam. But I will give you one or two 
other instances of these assumptions, which I am sorry to see contained in the 
paper. The author asks this strange question approvingly : — “ Is there no in- 
tention in man’s very existence, even if he had been developed from the quad- 
rumana ?” Well, if we are to believe that man was created in this low and 
degraded state, it would alter the whole of our conceptions of God’s works. 
If we believe that man has been developed from one of the quadrumana, we 
shall have to look upon him in a very different light than heretofore. But it 
has been refuted over and over again that man could ever have emerged from 
a savage state, if he had been created only so imperfect as that. Further 
on the author says : — 
VOL. IV. 
u 
