reaction from certain violations of good taste and propriety, which at one time abounded in the (after all, well-meant) writings of second-hand writers and religious sciolists. It may be that another cause is to be found in that these great writers have in their own minds intentionally distinguished the subjective from the objective, separating the things of sight from the things of faith, and withholding the expression of their emotions, while explaining the grounds of their convictions: but whatever the causes may be, the fact remains, and as I have said, it is both disappointing and painful. I will only venture to add one observation more upon this subject, and I am sure that the great writers to whom with unfeigned respect I allude, will bear me out in the justness of the remark—and it is this; the giants of old, who were the pioneers of modern knowledge, the Keplers for instance, the Newtons, the Bernoullis, the Eulers of ancient fame, had no such reticence. Why should the sons be more reticent than the fathers? As a brilliant example of the outspoken conviction of a great mind, I cannot do better than conclude with a few passages out of that magnificent Scholium with which Newton closes the Principia, and if I give the original, it is because I despair of making or of finding a version which could reproduce the eloquence of Newton's words:-"Elegantissima hæcce solis, planetarum et cometarum compages, non nisi consilio et

dominio entis intelligentis et potentis oriri potuit. Et si stellæ fixæ sint centra similium systematum, hæc omnia simili consilio constructa suberunt UNIUS dominio...Hic omnia regit non ut anima mundi, sed ut Universorum Dominus. Et propter dominium suum, Dominus Deus Пavтоkpáтwp dici solet. Nam Deus est vox relativa, et ad servos refertur; et deitas est dominatio Dei, non in corpus proprium, uti sentiunt quibus Deus est anima mundi, sed in servos. Deus summus est ens æternum, infinitum, absolute perfectum...Non est æternitas et infinitas, sed æternus et infinitus; non est duratio et spatium, sed durat et adest...Ut cæcus non habet ideam colorum, sic nos ideam non habemus modorum, quibus Deus sapientissimus sentit et intelligit omnia...Corpore omni et figurá corporeâ prorsus destituitur, ideoque videri non potest, nec audiri, nec tangi, nec sub specie rei alicujus corporea coli debet... Hunc cognoscimus solummodo per proprietates ejus et attributa, et per sapientissimas et optimas rerum structuras et causas finales, et admiramur ob perfectiones; veneramur autem et colimus ob dominium. Colimus enim ut servi, et Deus sine dominio, providentia, et causis finalibus nihil aliud est quam fatum et natura. A cæca necessitate metaphysicâ, quæ eadem est et semper et ubique, nulla oritur rerum variatio. Tota rerum conditarum pro locis ac temporibus diversitas, ab ideis et voluntate entis necessario existentis solummodo oriri potuit...Et hæc de

Deo, de quo utique ex phænomenis disserere, ad philosophiam naturalem pertinet."

In the notes, I have given what appear to me valid reasons, drawn from philosophical considerations, why I cannot accept Mr Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as an explanation of the development of the human Eye from some greatly inferior organization. If the arguments are correct they extend to other organs also. In the strictures on this theory, I trust not a word will be found inconsistent with that respectful admiration which I, in common with most educated men, entertain for the author of some of the most charming books in our language. I hope Dr Tyndall also will find no just cause for complaint in the manner of my taking exception to some of his recent remarks on Prayer.

The great mental agitation on subjects connected with Religion, for which this age is remarkable, so far from furnishing a reasonable cause for despondency, may fairly be viewed as a providential opportunity for learned and high-placed divines to exhibit and enforce such new aspects of truth as they may consider to have been heretofore overlooked'. It was in this light that Augustine habitually regarded the controversies of his day. It is Anathema, and not moderation in argument, that is a sure sign

1 See Dean Hook's Oxford Sermons, 1837, No. 3.

either of a falling or a weakly supported cause. In contending with an opponent, nothing is gained by that assumption of a tone of superiority, or by that "look of offence, which though harmless in effect, nevertheless," in the words of the greatest of ancient historians', "is troublesome and painful to those who endure it."

1 Thucyd. Lib. II. Cap. 37.

CAMBRIDGE, Jan. 31, 1868.

LECTURE I.

THE SLOWNESS OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS.

ISAIAH XI. 9; 2 PETER III. 8.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is, with the Lord, as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

THROUGHOUT the long roll of many centuries, the thoughts contained in this promise of the prophet, and in this caution of the apostle, have animated the hopes, or sustained the patience, of God's true children, in all their sad variety of pain. The promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head ushered in the first dispensation of God's grace to man. Its reiteration in the last words of the Lord Jesus to His redeemed, "Behold, I come quickly," closes the Canon of the Holy Books. It was the hope that the Messiah of their covenant God should come, to restore the land and the government to Israel, which alone dried the tears of those who had sat down to weep by the