200 
us to have a belief in a living God, as the precondition to the acceptance of 
all revelation. What are the principles which at the present day are put 
forth by eminent scientific thinkers 1 They tell us that the argument from 
causation, order, and adaptation, is invalid and worthless, to prove that there 
is a God who created the universe. On the validity of this argument is the 
turning point of all modern controversy between Tlieists on the one part, and 
Pantheists and Atheists on the other. In passing, I may say that I prefer 
the term “ intelligent cause,” which the author has used two or three times in 
the course of this paper, to the more usual one by which the same thing 
is designated “ final cause.” One point the author of the paper does not 
seem to have dwelt upon — namely, that order is distinct from adaptation, 
and that the order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent 
mind. The great point this paper brings out is that the human mind 
is so constituted that it cannot possibly help thinking .that order in the 
universe implies an orderer, adaptation an adaptor, and design a designer. It 
has been objected that these are conceptions which are purely human, and that 
therefore we cannot justly apply them to nature. I answer that all our con- 
ceptions are human. Force, law, matter, are human conceptions ; and we 
have no conceptions that are not human. If such reasonings are invalid, 
because our conceptions are only human conceptions, we lay the axe to the 
root of the tree on which we are standing and render all truth impossible. 
The theory that reason in a latent state exists in the universe is one which 
is extensively held and requires to be effectually met, and it would require a 
paper by itself to meet the theory laid down on that subject. Still, I am 
sorry that the author of this paper has not in some degree dealt with it 
instead of laying down that the principle is simply absurd ; for it is put forth 
by many able writers, and is supported by arguments not devoid of plausi- 
bility. We all of us do actions by habit, and these habitual actions leave 
no trace in the self-conscious intellect. A certain class of the instinctive 
actions of animals seem to be acquired in this way, but I fully agree with Dr. 
Rigg and Dr. Currey in thinking that the assumption of the existence of an 
unconscious intelligence diffused throughout nature is absurd. If this prin- 
ciple of unconscious intelligence exists in nature, it must exist in every 
particle of matter, and I do not see how you can arrive at any other con- 
clusion. If it exists in nature — if, according to the atheistic theory, every- 
thing is built up of molecules, — it is quite inconceivable that intelligence can 
exist except as distinct molecules possessing intelligence — rational atoms, if 
you like to call them so. 
The Chairman. — Leibnitz asserts that. 
Mr. Row. — And also atoms must exist in nature that possess feeling. At 
any rate, as these views are very extensively taught, and as the object 
which the Atheist and Pantheist have is, by means of them to evade the 
idea of a personal God, I think it would be best to grapple with the subject 
in a distinct paper. I think the present paper is right in resting all our 
actual knowledge upon our self-consciousness. My self-consciousness and 
your self-consciousness are as much facts of nature as any physical fact you 
