evolutionist. In order to make me an evolutionist I must accept something that is very monstrous; I must believe that God made machines which not only developed themselves and produced others for immense periods of time, but that all at once those machines made something quite different, and that after that God went on making machines of broader character until at last machines were produced which had little or no relationship to the original machines. We do not believe such statements without a particle of evidence; but instead of having evidence for it, it is devoid of evidence. It is an unfair statement of the difference between two processes, and I hope the Archdeacon does not himself adopt it. I do not suppose he does. Professor Diman proceeds, "That our harmonious universe should formerly have existed undeveloped, in a state of diffused matter, without form, and that it should gradually have attained its present organization, is much more marvellous than its formation according to the artificial method supposed by the unlearned would be." The idea that evolution is a very marvellous theory has a certain truth in it, because it supposes so many extraordinary miracles, one on the other, without ground or reason; but to suppose that the theory of evolution is a grander theory than the theory of special creation is to propose what to my mind is quite preposterous.

There is a very interesting and beautiful thought that the author has brought before us, "the expression, or externalization of His thoughts was the beginning of matter." I think that very beautiful, and I wish to express my thanks to the author for it.

I would also thank the author very much for what he says on page 8 in regard to faith not being antagonistic to science and philosophy. He says "there need be no antagonism between the sternest and most abstract of their principles and those vital beliefs for which we are prepared to die."

The CHAIRMAN.-I hope in discussing this paper we shall keep quite clearly before our minds what I suggest is the most important part of it, and that is that true belief in the being of God is not merely compatible with certain particular modes of thought; but, if carefully examined, it will be found that even very different modes of thought and very different views lead up as a necessity to a belief in the existence of God.

I do not think it is exactly in point to discuss particular processes of creation. Probably, if we do, we shall then represent

But it

other views of creation in a somewhat grotesque manner. is a matter of the most vital importance to see how the very views which are sometimes thought to be destructive of any belief in God are found to be not one whit more antagonistic to a belief in God, when worked out reasonably and when not taken as mere weapons to fight faith, than those of a different nature, and it is very instructive to find how a particular attack on faith has failed. The real result of modern thought seems to me to be this, that with regard to "Agnosticism" (it is a most perplexing word from the Greek, and one wishes there was something simpler to express it in English), the mere fact of not knowing a thing is no evidence of its non-existence. Which of us understands the telephone? Which of us has the faintest knowledge of what electricity is? Which of us has the dimmest conception of the forces of gravitation? On those points I am an Agnostic. I have not a full comprehension of any one of those points, and yet one's whole practical life is made up of the acceptance of such things, and therefore the one point in the argument of Agnosticism-that full knowledge is necessary to belief—is a thing that the more one thinks of it the more absurd it is. The fact that every thinker who seems to have tried hard to get away from the acknowledgment of design underlying creation has to come back to underlying laws, suggests the question, "If there be laws who and where the law-giver?" Those who have tried to escape from belief by Agnosticism find themselves compelled to acknowledge underlying verities. It seems to me we may consider that if we follow, upon the lines of this paper, the study of modern thought and the investigation of nature we shall find that though men may proceed by difficult paths, if that study be fairly and honestly followed, it leads up to God. (Applause.)

The Rev. JOHN TUCKWELL, M.R.A.S.-There is an allusion to a subject in the paper which seems to me to be of very great importance, and I should like, if I may, to call attention to it so that it may be a little more fully considered than it has yet been. In the paper we have some very felicitous expressions concerning the method of creation. It is suggested that we may remind ourselves that it is impossible to conceive of the Eternal Selfexistent Being as subsisting without thought." We all concur in that view-"and the expression or externalization of His thoughts was the beginning of matter." That is very mysterious—

66

very profound. I think we are obliged to say, concerning that, as concerning electricity-that we do not know much about it. Whether, or not, the beginning of matter was the externalization of the divine thought, and if so, how that was accomplished, is far beyond our powers of conception and, certainly, far beyond our powers of discovery. But we must be on our guard against being led into the substitution of monotheism for modern Pantheism. Monotheism properly understood represents that there is only one Divine Being, or Person, or Substance. But according to certain modern ideas, if there are other beings besides the Divine, He cannot be infinite. It is said there may be other persons but there cannot be other beings. There must be an error here, I think, in the way in which the term "infinite" is understood. I confess I have not yet been able to solve the question how a variety and multiplicity of personalities should be possible with only one Being. I should certainly like that subject more thoroughly thrashed out, for it seems to me that it certainly leads to something that I am not able to differentiate from Pantheism. If there be only one substance, I am at a loss to understand how there can be different persons, and it leads us to this—that men, angels, demons and God are all of one substance or being, and are in some way inseparable from the Being of God. It leads, therefore, to this, that if I am at one time tempted, it is one part of God tempting another part of God. If I pray, it is one part of God beseeching another part of God for help. There are so many contradictions arising in my mind in this matterthat I should like, if possible, that there should be some further discussion of the subject.

Professor ORCHARD.-May I ask you, sir, if you have read the accounts of the conference of Zoologists last year in this country? If so you will find that the testimony of Embryologists was decidedly against the theory of evolution.

Dr. WALTER KIDD, F.Z.S.-I think, sir, we have wandered rather away from the main subject, the Being of God, into by-ways. For the time being the question is;-how modern philosophy and thought bear on this profound question of God's existence-I should say more than His existence-His operations in the world.

It is, I think, manifest that the present trend of human thought is definitely against the mechanical theories of the universe which

were so lately held by men of light and leading; and against the philosophical teachings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, in particular, there appears to be an uprising among eminent meu. In so far as this philosopher's teaching is agnostic, we may be thankful for the frequent protests that one now hears. His evolutionary teachings are less opposed, and the number of those who accept his description of the processes by which inorganic and organic existence is carried on is much greater than of those who accept his whole scheme of philosophy, into which metaphysics enters so largely. His doctrine of the Persistence of Force, as laid down by him, is much questioned, and yet to his scheme, as a whole, it is essential, as also is the other principle which he lays downthat mind is a series of states of consciousness, which, again, is largely denied.

But his doctrine that there is a first cause, and yet that this is unknowable (not merely at present unknown), is the stumblingblock against which many a would-be follower of Mr. Spencer has stumbled. It has often been pointed out what a strange assumption it is for Mr. Spencer to make that;-God is unknowable, when he is prepared to predicate so many profound attributes-such as that the First Cause possesses causal energy, is eternal, is infinite, is inscrutable. The Rev. Jas. Iverach says, "when we gather together into one thought all that Mr. Spencer affirms regarding the unknowable,' we find that it is an omnipresent power, that it is incomprehensible, and that it is the proper object of religious reverence, and that we are ever in its presence and from it all things proceed. Truly we must come to the conclusion that the word 'unknowable' is used only in a Spencerian sense."

I submit that for every branch of science there is an ultimate beyond which investigation seems unable to go, such as the organism for biology-the atom for chemistry-the ether for physics, and that every special scientist will acknowledge in his own department a remainder, often a very large one, of mystery. No theologian or metaphysician professes to deny that an immense remainder of mystery belongs also to his "ultimate "—which is a personal God. He may, however, just as well object to any teacher, however great, telling him his "ultimate" is "unknowable," as the chemist if he be told that his atom, or the physicist that his ether is unknowable. We know God in measure and expect to know Him better even in this life. Mr. Iverach again asks:

"If a consciousness like Mr. Spencer's can do so much (as the construction and conception of the formula of evolution), what may not a greater consciousness effect?" And therefore why may not an originating mind bring into being and lay down for its governance an ordered universe? The originating mind Mr. Spencer stoutly denies, while admitting, as Archdeacon Sinclair has said, that Humanity has proceeded from the ultimate cause which he postulates.

We have as little reason for submitting to this summary taking away of the key of knowledge as would an astronomer, 70 years ago, before Leverrier and Adams, have submitted to be told that the causes, which were found to disturb the movements of the planet Uranus, were unknowable, though, very soon after, it was found that the hitherto unknown Neptune was the disturbing

cause.

Surely no better argument for Theism is to be found than that of St. Paul: "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." An argument summed up also by Kant in his well-known saying: "The starry heaven above me and the moral law within me." And by Gibbon: "The God of nature has written His existence on all His works and His law in the heart of man."

The CHAIRMAN.-If there are no others who wish to speak, I will ask you to join with me in a most hearty vote of thanks to Archdeacon Sinclair for this most valuable and interesting paper. There may be some diversity of opinion on the subject; but of the general force of his argument and of its value I am sure we can have no doubt.

The vote of thanks was then put to the meeting and carried unanimously.

The Ven. ARCHDEACON, in reply, said: There is very little that I want to say on the subject, except that I think we may all agree that men of science and philosophy, as a rule, when they are on the unbelieving side, put into the word "know" a restriction which we are not willing to concede to them. They use the word "know" in a scientific and demonstrative sense; and when we use the word "know" in a theological sense, we claim its use in the province of faith; and we are bound to admit, I think, in justice to science with all its restrictions, that the province of Faith and