197 
place. In that general purpose I fully concur. With regard to another 
part of the paper, an interesting discussion might be raised whether the other 
hypothesis, namely, that of chance, blind chance and unconscious intelli- 
gence, would be more successful in leading to the same result. Upon this 
I do not propose to enter, but will only remark, the very term “ unconscious 
intelligence ” is in itself a self-contradiction, being nothing more than uncon- 
scious consciousness, or unintelligible intelligibility. I will in conclusion 
remark, that the well-known illustration given by Paley, of the watch, rests on 
the assumption that the operations of the Supreme Being in nature are in 
a considerable degree similar to the operations of man, and will mention 
an anecdote respecting Paley’s argument. A person was putting forward 
the argument of the watch. “ Suppose,” he said, “ you were to find a watch 
on Salisbury Plain, would not your first cjuestion be, who made it 1 ” “ No,” 
was the answer, “ it would not, because I should at once read on the dial- 
plate the name of the maker.” The answer need not shake our faith, for 
in the voice of nature we have a dial-plate with the name of the maker written 
in legible characters. This brings us to the limits of a metaphysical inquiry. 
Important as such inquiry is, and necessary as it is that it should be kept 
distinct from scriptural arguments, it seems to indicate at once, the necessity 
and the fitness of revelation. The metaphysical argument is good as far as 
it goes, but it is not thoroughly satisfactory : it rests upon an analogy and 
a resemblance, and that analogy and resemblance must to a certain, to a 
considerable extent be imperfect, when we consider the different nature of a 
Supreme Being and of ourselves. But notwithstanding this imperfection of 
the analogy and of the argument founded on it, we are satisfied that they 
point to the right conclusion. It is a great deal of the truth, but it is not the 
whole. What does this show ? It shows the necessity that there should be 
a written revelation. We want the name on the dial-plate. And if our 
philosophy at times fails to assist us, we recur in thought to the noble 
exposition of the Divine Creator and of the works of God set forth in the 
Scriptures, and find therein that revelation which our metaphysical argu- 
ments show that we need, in order to arrive at a certain conclusion. 
The Chairman. — The last speaker has expressed what I wished to say 
with regard to the design and the Designer, and I will therefore only add, 
that I entirely agree with his able exposition of the subject. As to the 
paper, I should be very sorry to be supposed to object to its drift, being 
entirely in accord therewith, so far as I understand the object of the author ; 
but I must say that if we were thrown back with Hartmann and the German 
metaphysicians on nature itself alone for understanding the nature of God, 
we should not be able to comprehend that nature at all. The arguments 
of metaphysicians certainly require the aid of revelation, without which they 
would be insufficient to produce conviction. 
Rev. Principal J. H. Rigg, D.D. — I think we ought to thank the 
author for the able and valuable paper which he has communicated to us. 
It is a long time since I read a paper with more satisfaction than the acute 
and intelligent one which we have had read to us to-night. It is evidently 
