199 
at present exist ; and the question is. Which is the cause and 
which the effect? — which of the two is eternal? If you say 
matter — the dead and unintelligent thing, — then you have to 
account for the creation of life and intelligence ! But when 
you say that mind is eternal — Intelligent Being the true 
entity , — you have nothing contrary to your reason or ex- 
perience to add, to complete your hypothesis of creation. 
Even now you have a striking analogy before you — the creation 
of something sensible, which you now perceive, produced by 
an invisible power, presided over by intelligence ! You ask 
where ? In every sound you now listen to — in every word 
I am uttering in your hearing J But where in the whole 
creation can you point out a single instance of life, intel- 
ligence, and will — in short, of spirit— -being subordinate to 
and produced by material things? If matter only be eternal, 
account for the existence, if you can, of the invisible life and 
mind of man ! 
16. I am aware there are difficulties in Natural Theism, and 
even in Revealed Religion itself, which of course I could not 
overtake in this lecture. But these cannot overthrow the foun- 
dation I have earnestly, and I trust successfully, however 
inadequately, endeavoured now to lay. And all these difficulties 
will vanish, I am bold to say, to any one who will give himself 
further time to study the question \ who, having arrived at faith 
in the— to him— Unknown God, proceeds onward to the study 
of what has been revealed of Him, and sincerely seeks the 
“ knowledge of the Holy ” in the Scriptures of Truth, and from 
those whose very mission it is to declare God's will— His mercy 
and His perfect righteousness— to men.] 
The Chairman.— We are much obliged to Mr. Reddie for supplementing 
the paper of Dr. iVRCann, and I shall be glad to hear any observations either 
from members or strangers, upon either or both of the papers that have just 
been read. 
Mr. Austin Holyoake.— As I happen to be a non-member, and, may 
say, a stranger, I hope the meeting will pardon me for taking this early 
part in the discussiop. I must confess to having been taken a little by 
surprise since I have been in the room, because, when I came, I thought I 
should only have to listen to one paper ; but we have had two. The gentle- 
man who read the latter appears to me to be somewhat in the character of 
an animated supplement. The debate to which he alludes, as having taken 
place in 1852 between Charles Frederick Nicholls and the Rev. Woodville 
Woodman, I happened to be present at, and fulfilled the functions of chair- 
man. I cannot, at the present moment, call to mind the whole scope of that 
debate, or say how far Mr. Reddie’s paper would be relevant thereto ; of this, 
however, I am quite sure, that one half of it is not relevant to the subject of 
