205 
difficulty imported into this subject by metaphysical analysis. I am prepared 
to abide by the principles of common sense, and what all people feel must 
have some reality despite all metaphysical quibbles. Looking upon that 
skeleton and remembering the vast number of means that are required as 
conducive to a common end — it afforded an overwhelming evidence of 
design and a designer ; and that evidence runs through the universe of 
Almighty God. Mr. Holyoake has said that if we have any idea at all of the 
personality of that God, it involves anthropomorphism. I wish to know 
how man can form any idea which is not derived from his own bodily 
or mental perceptions. We can only conceive of a Deity relatively, even 
by the highest conceptions which man can possibly entertain. X cannot see 
the force of Mr. Holyoake’s metaphysics as to God having no attributes. 
I am ready to admit that the human mind has only human ideas, and that 
it cannot comprehend the infinite. It can infer and grasp the finite in 
its highest and grandest forms, but there is something beyond which it 
cannot grasp, which we call the infinite. An argument upon this subject 
occurred to me last week, and I am going to mention it. I allude to the 
flint knives of the first stone age. I am not desirous of arguing whether 
they were the production of man or not, but think it will soon appear, 
from what I have heard, that they are positively the productions of nature. 
My argument is, that atheists infer, from the imperfection of the instrument, 
that these knives were made by men in a very low state of civilization. 
They certainly prove this if they are real knives. If these knives can be 
shown to have been in existence a hundred thousand years ago, the argu- 
ment is irresistible, that savages existed one hundred thousand years ago 
also. The inferiority of the intellect which made the knives is justly inferred 
from the inferiority of the instrument. Granting the premises, the reasoning 
is irresistible. But why am not I entitled to carry the reasoning further, 
and infer from the superiority of an instrument such as the eye, that it is the 
production of superior intelligence ? If a bad instrument proves low intelli- 
gence, a good instrument proves the presence of superior mental power ; and 
a wonderful instrument such as the eye, the presence in previous ages of the 
highest mental capacity. In the human body we have the utmost com- 
plexity of relationship of parts ; parts which we may not always compre- 
hend ; yet they prove intelligence, and that intelligence we call God. I 
do not think this argument can be got rid of because there are certain 
things about us the uses of which we do not happen to know, — as for 
instance, the uvula is said to have no use. 
The Chairman. — I do not think so. 
Mr. Row. — But there are parts which are said to be of no use : the uvula 
is even troublesome sometimes. What I mean is, that because we do 
not happen to see the uses of a certain part of the human body, the 
argument that the whole body is made by a superior wisdom is not invali- 
dated. Take the various joints, and we see evidence of the skill of the 
mechanist, the greatest possible skill ; and the manner in which they are made 
VOL. V. Q 
