he should simply shock the religious sense which it has been his object to elevate and refine.

Now, in reference to these difficulties, the author does not hesitate to avow that the chief drawbacks to the performance of his task are his imperfect acquaintance with the circle of the sciences, and his great reluctance to wound the susceptibilities of those whose religion, though it may appear to him to be a strange combination of truth and error, prompts them continually to perform acts of self-denying charity and devotion, and for whom therefore he entertains sincere respect. But fortunately the object of the following chapters is constructive or synthetical rather than analytical or destructive; and whilst the metaphysical views of scientific writers will be very freely criticised, more especially those which have a materialistic bearing, it will be left as much as possible to the conscience of the "orthodox" reader, to compare his own theological tenets with such scientific information and inductions as appear to the author worthy of his notice and acceptance.

It has been not unfrequently said by modern investigators that science recognises no authority, but requires a rigid proof of all her doctrines. In regard to new theories, this statement must be accepted literally; but it means further that the recognised principles of science are liable to correction, and a scientific man who refuses to adopt a new theory simply because an old doctrine with which it conflicts was promulgated by a high scientific authority of the past, would be considered an unsafe guide, not only in regard to that particular subject or theory, but in all that he ventured to publish as the fruits of original

research. But this exposition of scientific methods of study must not be regarded as of universal application, for science has as much need of authorities, and those are as industriously consulted, as in religion and law. There is however this difference between the two former, science and doctrinal theology, that whilst in the latter much is accepted without inquiry, merely because the authority by whom it was promulgated holds or has held a high position in the Church, regard is had, in the case of science, solely to the accuracy and trustworthiness of the teacher's experiences. To put the case practically, an erroneous doctrine propounded by Luther or Calvin would be accepted and perpetuated for ages, whilst the errors of an Owen or a Darwin would barely endure for a decade or for a year.

But if scientific authorities have to be consulted on what may be termed purely secular matters, in the determination of natural phenomena, how much more necessary is it to have recourse to them in the metaphysical interpretation of those phenomena ? For there we require the opinions of scientific writers as well as the record of their investigations, and we have to study as a whole the various impressions made by the same natural operation upon differing minds. So that in generalisation and in tracing the connection between visible effect and invisible cause, we have need of the utmost discrimination in the selection of our scientific guides. And again, if scientific theories are liable to correction and even abrogation, the metaphysical views which are based upon them must always be advanced with diffidence and caution. Did we understand fully all the laws and visible phenomena of the universe, we should doubtless have acquired a far more accurate

conception of the Creator and of his providential acts than we at present possess, and whilst the prospect of forming a nearer acquaintance with his ends in Creation ought to be, much more frequently than it is, the highest incentive to scientific observation and research, we should be very careful in generalising from our restricted survey of nature, not to propound any doctrine which may hereafter prove fallacious, and so not only discredit natural theology, but impede the systematic study of the science of religion.

Our aim, then, in the following chapters will be to avail ourselves of the published opinions of some of the scientific authorities who, as such, have obtained the confidence of the scientific world, and without excluding the results of personal observation and reflection, to attempt to show that there is a view of the Deity to be obtained from the contemplation of nature, as real and as edifying as that which has been handed down to us by tradition, or as we find impressed upon the tablets of the conscience. But before proceeding to the execution of our task, let us, as concisely as may be, refer to the changes of opinion that have recently taken place concerning the proofs of God's existence in nature; for we shall have to deal with those in various portions of our argument.

Formerly the existence of God in the universe was sought in the evidences of design, which were believed to be apparent in the structure of natural objects, or in the adaptation of means to ends; those it was thought conclusively established the immediate presence and constant supervision of a designing Mind.

As the knowledge of natural laws and phenomena ex

H

tended, it was found that whilst many of the latter, of which the purposes were obvious, were the necessary results of previous natural operations, and whilst others appeared to subserve no utilitarian ends, it was becoming every day more apparent that the universe is self-adjusting, so to speak, and contains within itself all the elements and conditions necessary for the maintenance of order, and for purposes of development; and so there sprang up a small section of thinkers, who, as a celebrated French astronomer is reported to have said, "could see no necessity for the hypothesis of a God."

A still further extension of scientific knowledge, however, has led some of our ablest observers to the conclusion that although the adjustment of the mechanism of the universe is so perfect as not to necessitate the immediate interposition of a superintending Mind for the maintenance of order, yet there is such an obvious purpose and usefulness in the vast aggregate of phenomena, past and present, that it is impossible to exclude from view a Mind somewhat resembling ours, but of a much higher standard, in nature. And they attempt to reconcile the self-acting mechanism of the universe, with the existence of a Deity by an appeal to Man's inferiority as compared with the Divine Majesty, somewhat after this fashion: "Can you suppose it necessary," they say, "that He should have to interfere in every little act of nature, as we are compelled to do before we can bring a work of art to completion? No, it is a much nobler view of Him to suppose that He impressed his laws upon matter from the › beginning, and that all goes on smoothly for ever." And when they come to consider the perplexing problem of life

they employ a similar phraseology, modified however to meet the necessities of the case, and they say, "there is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one, and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been, and are being evolved."

It is not our intention here to discuss the merits of these cosmical theories,-for the one which negatives the existence of a Deity can hardly be called a theological doctrine. Criticisms upon them will arise in the course of our argument, and they will be more fully noticed when we come to consider the evidences of design in the universe; but one or two difficulties at once suggest themselves in regard to the last theory. We are led to inquire what essential difference there can be, in the eyes of an evolutionist, between the creation of the lowest types of existence in the beginning, and to-day; and if it was necessary that "life," with "all its powers," should have been originally "breathed" (whatever that may mean) into those forms, what reason is there to doubt the continued inspiration of life into every succeeding one, and into every living thing that comes into existence today? Again, if a supernatural influence or in-breathing was requisite to cause the difference between an inorganic crystal and a particle of protoplasm, the basis of organised structures, must not, a fortiori, a still higher influence

*It is probably unnecessary to state that these are the concluding lines of Darwin's Origin of Species.'