,,the ,,relations ,,between ,,religion  
,,and ,,science  ,,eight ,,lectures     
,,preached ,,before ,,the ,,university  
,,of ,,oxford ,,in ,,the ,,year #ahhd   
,,on ,,the ,,foundation ,,of ,,the      
,,late ,,rev4 ,,john ,,bampton1 ,m4,a4  
,,canon ,,of ,,salisbury  ,,by ,,the    
,,right ,,rev4 ,,frederick1 ,,lord      
,,bishop ,,of ,,exeter  ,london         
,,macmillan ,,and ,,co41 ,,limited ,,new
 ,,york3 ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company    
#aijc     ,first ,edition1 #hvo1 #ahhd4 
,reprinted ,january and ,february       
7twice71 #ahhe1 ,april1 #ahhe2          
,re-issue 7,crown #hvo71 ,november1     
#ahhe1 #aijc4  ,,oxford3 ,,horace       
,,hart1 ,,printer ,,to ,,the            
,,university     ,,extract   ,,the      
,,last ,,will ,,and ,,testament  ,,of   
,,the ,,late  ,,rev4 ,,john ,,bampton1  
,,canon ,,of ,,salisbury4   --,i give   
and bequeath my ,lands and ,estates to  
the ,chancellor1 ,masters1 and ,scholars
 of the ,university of ,oxford for ever1
 to have and to hold all and singular   

the said ,lands or ,estates upon trust1 
and to the intents and purposes         
hereinafter mentioned2 that is to say1  
,i will and appoint that the            
,vice-,chancellor of the ,university of 
,oxford for the time being shall take   
and receive all the rents1 issues1 and  
profits thereof1 and 7after all taxes1  
reparations1 and necessary deductions   
made7 that he pay all the remainder to  
the endowment of eight ,divinity        
,lecture ,sermons1 to be established for
 ever in the said ,university1 and to be
 performed in the manner following3  ,i 
direct and appoint1 that1 upon the first
 ,tuesday in ,easter ,term1 a ,lecturer 
be yearly chosen by the ,heads of       
,colleges only1 and by no others1 in the
 room adjoining to the ,printing-,house1
 between the hours of ten in the morning
 and two in the afternoon1 to preach    
eight ,divinity ,lecture ,sermons1 the  
year following1 at ,st4 ,mary's in      
,oxford1 between the commencement of the
 last month in ,lent ,term1 and the end 

of the third week in ,act ,term4  ,also 
,i direct and appoint1 that the eight   
,divinity ,lecture ,sermons shall be    
preached upon either of the following   
,subjects--to confirm and establish the 
,christian ,faith1 and to confute all   
heretics and schismatics--upon the      
divine authority of the holy            
,scriptures--upon the authority of the  
writings of the primitive ,fathers1 as  
to the faith and practice of the        
primitive ,church--upon the ,divinity of
 our ,lord and ,saviour ,jesus          
,christ--upon the ,divinity of the ,holy
 ,ghost--upon the ,articles of the      
,christian ,faith1 as comprehended in   
the ,apostles' and ,nicene ,creeds4     
,also ,i direct1 that thirty copies of  
the eight ,divinity ,lecture ,sermons   
shall be always printed1 within two     
months after they are preached2 and one 
copy shall be given to the ,chancellor  
of the ,university1 and one copy to the 
,head of every ,college1 and one copy to
 the ,mayor of the city of ,oxford1 and 

one copy to be put into the ,bodleian   
,library2 and the expenses of printing  
them shall be paid out of the revenue of
 the ,land or ,estates given for        
establishing the ,divinity ,lecture     
,sermons2 and the preacher shall not be 
paid1 nor be entitled to the revenue1   
before they are printed4  ,also ,i      
direct and appoint1 that no person shall
 be qualified to preach the ,divinity   
,lecture ,sermons1 unless he hath taken 
the degree of ,master of ,arts at least1
 in one of the two ,universities of     
,oxford or ,cambridge2 and that the same
 person shall never preach the ,divinity
 ,lecture ,sermons twice4               
,,contents4   ,,lecture ,i4  ,,the      
,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of            
,,scientific ,,belief4  ,psalm civ4 #bd4
  ,o ,lord1 how manifold are ,thy works3
 in wisdom hast ,thou made them all2 the
 earth is full of ,thy riches4  ,the    
subject introduced3 ,scientific belief4 
,mathematics and ,metaphysics excluded4 
,the ,postulate of ,science3 the        

,uniformity of ,nature4 ,hume's account 
of it4 ,kant's account of it4           
,insufficiency of both accounts4        
,science traced back to observation of  
the ,human ,will4 ,the development of   
,science from this origin4 ,the         
increasing generality of the ,postulate3
 which nevertheless can never attain to 
universality4    ,,lecture ,,ii4  ,,the 
,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of ,,religious
 ,,belief4  ,genesis i4 #bg4  ,so ,god  
created man in ,his own image1 in the   
image of ,god created ,he him4  ,the    
voice within4 ,the objection of the     
alleged relativity of knowledge4        
,absolute knowledge of our own personal 
identity4 ,failure to show this to be   
relative2 in particular by ,mr4 ,herbert
 ,spencer4 ,the ,moral ,law4 ,the       
command to live according to that ,law2 
,duty4 ,the command to believe in the   
supremacy of that ,law2 the lower       
,faith4 ,the ,last ,judgment4 ,the hope 
of ,immortality4 ,the personification of
 the ,moral ,law in ,almighty ,god2 the 

higher ,faith4 ,the spiritual faculty   
the recipient of ,revelation1 if any be 
made4 ,the contrast between ,religion   
and ,science4   ,,lecture ,,iii4        
,,apparent ,,conflict ,,between         
,,science ,,and ,,religion ,,on         
,,free-,,will4  ,genesis i4 #bg4  ,so   
,god created man in ,his own image1 in  
the image of ,god created ,he him4      
,contradiction of ,free-,will to        
doctrine of ,uniformity4 ,butler's      
examination of the question4 ,hume's    
solution4 ,kant's solution4             
,determinism4 ,the real result of       
examination of the facts4 ,interference 
of the will always possible1 but        
comparatively rare4 ,the need of a fixed
 nature for our self-discipline1 and so 
for our spiritual life4   ,,lecture     
,,iv4  ,,apparent ,,conflict ,,between  
,,religion ,,and ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of  
,,evolution4  ,romans i4 #bj4  ,for the 
invisible things of ,him from the       
creation of the world are clearly seen1 
being understood by the things that are 

made1 even ,his eternal power and       
,godhead4  ,foundation of the doctrine  
of ,evolution4 ,great development in    
recent times4 ,objection felt by many   
religious men4 ,alleged to destroy      
argument from design4 ,paley's argument 
examined4 ,doctrine of ,evolution adds  
force to the argument1 and removes      
objections to it4 ,argument from        
progress2 from beauty2 from unity4 ,the 
conflict not real4   ,,lecture ,v4      
,,revelation ,,the ,,means ,,of         
,,developing ,,and ,,completing         
,,spiritual ,,knowledge4  ,hebrews i4   
#a4  ,god1 who at sundry times and in   
divers manners spake in time past to the
 ,fathers by the ,prophets1 hath in     
these last days spoken to us by ,his    
,son4  ,the evolution of ,knowledge4    
,does not affect the truth of ,science4 
,nor of ,religion4 ,special             
characteristic of evolution of          
,religious ,knowledge1 that it is due to
 ,revelation4 ,all higher ,religions    
have claimed to be ,revelations4 ,the   

evolution of ,religious ,knowledge in   
the ,old ,testament2 yet the ,old       
,testament a ,revelation4 ,still more   
the ,new ,testament4 ,the miraculous    
element in ,revelation4 ,its place and  
need4 ,harmony of this mode of evolution
 with the teaching of the ,spiritual    
,faculty4   ,,lecture ,,vi4  ,,apparent 
,,collision ,,between ,,religion ,,and  
,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,evolution4      
,psalm c4 #c4  ,know ye that the ,lord  
,he is ,god3 it is ,he that hath made   
us1 and not we ourselves4  ,evolution   
examined4 ,the formation of the         
habitable world4 ,the formation of the  
creatures which inhabit it4             
,transmission of characteristics4       
,variations perpetually introduced4     
,natural selection4 ,on the other side1 
life not yet accounted for by           
,evolution4 ,cause of variations not yet
 examined4 ,moral ,law incapable of     
being evolved4 ,account given in        
,genesis not at variance with doctrine  
of ,evolution4 ,evolution of man not    

inconsistent with dignity of humanity4  
,,lecture ,,vii4  ,,apparent ,,collision
 ,,of ,,science ,,with ,,the ,,claim    
,,to ,,supernatural ,,power4  ,st4 ,john
 xiv4 #aa4  ,believe ,me that ,i am in  
the ,father1 and the ,father in ,me3 or 
else believe ,me for the very works'    
sake4  ,the claim to work miracles      
parallel to the freedom of the will4    
,the miracles of ,revelation need not be
 miracles of ,science4 ,our ,lord's     
,resurrection1 and ,his miracles of     
healing1 possibly not miraculous in the 
scientific sense4 ,different aspect of  
miracles now and at the time when the   
,revelation was given4 ,miracles        
attested by the ,apostles1 by our       
,lord's character1 by our ,lord's power4
 ,nature of evidence required to prove  
miracles2 not such as to put physical   
above spiritual evidence2 not such as to
 be unsuited to their own day4          
,impossibility of demonstrating         
universal uniformity4 ,revelation no    
obstacle to the progress of ,science4   

,,lecture ,,viii4  ,,the ,,conclusion   
,,of ,,the ,,argument4  #a ,corinthians 
xii4 #c4  ,no man can say that ,jesus is
 the ,lord1 but by the ,holy ,ghost4    
,uniformity of nature not demonstrated1 
but established1 except in two cases2   
the interference of human will and of   
,divine ,will4 ,the exception no bar to 
the progress of ,science4 ,unity to be  
found not in the physical world1 but in 
the physical and moral combined4 ,the   
,moral ,law rests on itself4 ,our       
recognition of it on our own character  
and choice4 ,but we expect it to show   
its marks in the physical world3 and    
these are the purpose visible in        
,creation1 the effects produced by      
,revelation4 ,nevertheless a demand for 
more physical evidence2 but the physical
 cannot be allowed to overshadow the    
spiritual4 ,dangers to believers from   
leaning this way3 superstition2         
blindness2 stagnation4 ,the guarantee   
for spiritual perceptiveness3 to take   
,jesus as the ,lord of the conscience1  

the heart1 the will4     ,,lecture ,i4  
,,the ,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of      
,,scientific ,,belief4  ,the subject    
introduced3 ,scientific belief4         
,mathematics and ,metaphysics excluded4 
,the ,postulate of ,science3 the        
,uniformity of ,nature4 ,hume's account 
of it4 ,kant's account of it4           
,insufficiency of both accounts4        
,science traced back to observation of  
the ,human ,will4 ,the development of   
,science from this origin4 ,the         
increasing generality of the ,postulate3
 which nevertheless can never attain to 
universality4     ,,lecture ,i4   ,,the 
,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of            
,,scientific ,,belief4       ',o ,lord1 
how manifold are ,thy works3 in wisdom  
hast ,thou made them      all2 the earth
 is full of ,thy riches4'--,psalm civ4  
#bd4  ,those who believe that the       
creation and government of the world are
 the work of a ,being ,whom it is their 
duty to love with all their hearts1 ,who
 loves them with a love beyond all other

 love1 to ,whom they look for guidance  
now and unending happiness hereafter1   
have a double motive for studying the   
forms and operations of ,nature2 because
 over and above whatever they may gain  
of the purest and highest pleasure in   
the study1 and whatever men may gain of 
material comfort in a thousand forms    
from the results of the study1 they     
cannot but have always present to their 
minds the thought1 that all these things
 are revelations of ,his character1 and 
to know them is in a very real measure  
to know ,him4 ,the believer in ,god1 if 
he have the faculty and the opportunity1
 cannot find a more proper employment of
 time and labour and thought than the   
study of the ways in which ,god works   
and the things which ,god has made4     
,among religious men we ought to expect 
to find the most patient1 the most      
truth-seeking1 the most courageous of   
men of science4  ,we know that it is not
 always so2 and that on the contrary    
,science and ,religion seem very often  

to be the most determined foes to each  
other that can be found4 ,the scientific
 man often asserts that he cannot find  
,god in ,science2 and the religious man 
often asserts that he cannot find       
,science in ,god4 ,each often believes  
himself to be in possession1 if not of  
the whole truth1 at any rate of all the 
truth that it is most important to      
possess4 ,science seems to despise      
religion2 and religion to fear and      
condemn ,science4 ,religion1 which      
certainly ought to put truth at the     
highest1 is charged with refusing to    
acknowledge truth that has been proved4 
,and ,science1 which certainly ought to 
insist on demonstrating every assertion 
which it makes1 is charged with giving  
the rein to the imagination and treating
 the merest speculations as             
well-established facts4  ,to propose to 
reconcile these opposites would be a    
task which hardly any sane man would    
undertake4 ,it would imply a claim to be
 able to rise at once above both1 and   

see the truth which included all that   
both could teach4 ,but it is a very     
useful undertaking1 and not beyond the  
reach of thoughtful inquiry by an       
ordinary man1 to examine the relations  
between the two1 and thus to help not a 
few to find a way for themselves out of 
the perplexity4 ,and this inquiry may   
well begin by asking what is the origin 
and nature of scientific belief on the  
one hand and of religious belief on the 
other4 ,in this ,lecture ,i propose to  
deal with the former4  ,it is not       
necessary to include in the ,science of 
which ,i am to speak either ,mathematics
 or ,metaphysics4 ,in as far as ,i need 
touch on what belongs to either1 it will
 be only for the purpose of answering   
objections or of excluding what is      
irrelevant4 ,and the consequent         
restriction of our consideration to the 
,science which concerns itself with     
,nature greatly simplifies the task that
 ,i have undertaken4 ,for it will be at 
once admitted in the present day by all 

but a very few that the source of all   
scientific knowledge of this kind is to 
be found in the observations of the     
senses1 including under that word both  
the bodily senses which tell us all we  
know of things external1 and that       
internal sense by which we know all or  
nearly all that takes place within the  
mind itself4 ,and so also will it be    
admitted that the ,supreme ,postulate1  
without which scientific knowledge is   
impossible1 is the ,uniformity of       
,nature4  ,science lays claim to no     
revelations4 ,no voice of authority     
declares what substances there are in   
the world1 what are the properties of   
those substances1 what are the effects  
and operations of those properties4 ,no 
traditions handed down from past ages   
can do anything more than transmit to us
 observations made in those times1      
which1 so far as we can trust them1 we  
may add to the observations made in our 
own times4 ,the materials in short which
 ,science has to handle are obtained by 

experience4  ,but on the other hand     
,science can deal with these materials  
only on the condition that they are     
reducible to invariable laws4 ,if any   
observation made by the senses is not   
capable of being brought under the laws 
which are found to govern all other     
observations1 it is not yet brought     
under the dominion of ,science4 ,it is  
not yet explained1 nor understood4 ,as  
far as ,science is concerned1 it may be 
called as yet non-existent4 ,it is for  
this very reason possible that the      
examination of it may be of the very    
greatest importance4 ,to explain what   
has hitherto received no explanation    
constitutes the very essence of         
scientific progress4 ,the observation   
may be imperfect1 and may at once become
 explicable as soon as it is made       
complete2 or1 what is of far more value1
 it may be an instance of the operation 
of a new law not previously known1      
modifying and perhaps absorbing the law 
up to that time accepted4 ,when it was  

first noticed in ,galileo's time that   
water would not ascend in the suction   
pipe of a pump to a greater height than 
#cb feet1 the old law that nature abhors
 a vacuum was modified1 and the reasons 
why and the conditions under which      
,nature abhors a vacuum were discovered4
 ,the suction of fluids was brought     
under the general law of mechanical     
pressure4 ,the doctrine that ,nature    
abhorred a vacuum had been a fair       
generalization and expression of the    
facts of this kind that up to that time 
had been observed4 ,a new fact was      
observed which would not fall under the 
rule4 ,the examination of this fact led 
to the old rule being superseded2 and   
,science advanced a great step at once4 
,so in our own day was the planet       
,neptune discovered by the observation  
of certain facts which could not be     
squared with the facts previously       
observed unless the ,law of ,gravitation
 was to be corrected4 ,the result in    
this case was not the discovery of a new

 ,law but of a new ,planet2 and         
consequently a great confirmation of the
 old ,law4 ,but in each case and in     
every similar case the investigation of 
the newly observed fact proceeds on the 
assumption that ,nature will be found   
uniform1 and on no other assumption can 
,science proceed at all4  ,now it is    
this assumption which must be first     
examined4 ,what is its source8 ,what is 
its justification8 ,what1 if any1 are   
its limits8  ,it is not an assumption   
that belongs to ,science only4 ,it is in
 some form or other at the bottom of all
 our daily life4 ,we eat our food on the
 assumption that it will nourish us     
to-day as it nourished us yesterday4 ,we
 deal with our neighbours in the belief 
that we may safely trust those now whom 
we have trusted and safely trusted      
heretofore4 ,we never take a journey    
without assuming that wood and iron will
 hold a carriage together1 that wheels  
will roll upon axles1 that steam will   
expand and drive the piston of an       

engine1 that porters and stokers and    
engine-drivers will do their accustomed 
duties4 ,our crops are sown in the      
belief that the earth will work its     
usual chemistry1 that heat and light and
 rain will come in their turn and have  
their usual effects1 and the harvest    
will be ready for our gathering in the  
autumn4 ,look on while a man is tried   
for his life before a jury4 ,every      
tittle of the evidence is valued both by
 the judge and jury according to its    
agreement or disagreement with what we  
believe to be the laws of ,nature1 and  
if a witness asserts that something     
happened which1 as far as we know1 never
 happened at any other time since the   
world began1 we set his evidence aside  
as incredible4 ,and the prisoner is     
condemned if the facts before us1       
interpreted on the assumption that the  
ordinary laws of ,nature have held their
 course1 appear to prove his guilt4     
,what right have we to make such an     
assumption as this8  ,the question was  

first clearly put by ,hume1 and was     
handled by him with singular lucidity2  
but his answer1 though very near the    
truth1 was not so expressed as to set   
the question at rest4  ,the main        
relation in which the uniformity of     
,nature is observed is that of cause and
 effect4 ,hume examines this and        
maintains that there is absolutely      
nothing contained in it but the notion  
of invariable sequence4 ,two phenomena  
are invariably found connected together2
 the prior is spoken of as the cause1   
the posterior as the effect4 ,but there 
is absolutely nothing in the former to  
define its relation to the latter1      
except that when the former is observed 
the latter1 as far as we know1          
invariably follows4 ,a ball hits another
 ball of equal size1 both being free to 
move4 ,there is nothing by which prior  
to experience we can determine what will
 happen next4 ,it is just as conceivable
 that the moving ball should come back  
or should come to rest1 as that the ball

 hitherto at rest should begin to move4 
,a magnet fastened to a piece of wood is
 floating on water4 ,another magnet held
 in the hand is brought very near one of
 its poles or ends4 ,if two north poles 
are thus brought together the floating  
magnet is repelled2 if a north and a    
south pole are brought together the     
floating magnet is attracted4 ,the      
motion of the floating magnet is in each
 case called the effect2 the approach of
 the magnet held in the hand is called  
the cause4 ,and this cause is1 as far as
 we know1 invariably followed by this   
effect4 ,but to say that one is cause   
and the other effect is merely to say   
that one is always followed by the      
other2 and no other meaning1 according  
to ,hume1 can be attached to the words  
cause and effect4  ,having established  
this interpretation of these words1     
,hume goes on to ask3 ,what can be the  
ground in reason for the principle      
universally adopted1 that the law of    
cause and effect rules phenomena1 and   

that a cause which has been followed by 
an effect once will be followed by the  
same effect always8 ,and he concludes   
that no rational ground can be found at 
all1 that it is the mere result of      
custom without anything rational behind 
it4 ,we are accustomed to see it so1 and
 what we have been so perpetually       
accustomed to see we believe that we    
shall continue to see4 ,but why what has
 always been hitherto should always be  
hereafter1 no reason whatever can be    
given4 ,the logical conclusion obviously
 is to discredit all human faculties and
 to land us in universal scepticism4    
,it was at this point that ,kant took up
 the question1 avowedly in consequence  
of ,hume's reasoning4 ,he considered    
that ,hume had been misled by turning   
his attention to ,physics1 and that his 
own good sense would have saved him from
 his conclusion had he thought rather of
 ,mathematics4 ,kant's solution of the  
problem1 based mainly on the reality of 
,mathematics1 and especially of         

,geometry1 is the direct opposite of    
,hume's4  ,it will be most easy to give 
a clear account of ,kant's solution by  
using a very familiar illustration4     
,there is a well-known common toy called
 a ,kaleidoscope1 in which bits of      
coloured glass placed at one end are    
seen through a small round hole at the  
other4 ,the bits of glass are not       
arranged in any order whatever1 and by  
shaking the instrument may be rearranged
 again and again indefinitely and still 
without any order whatever4 ,but however
 they may be arranged in themselves they
 always form1 as seen from the other    
end1 a symmetrical pattern4 ,the pattern
 indeed varies with every shake of the  
instrument and consequent re-arrangement
 of the bits of glass1 but it is        
invariably symmetrical4 ,now the        
symmetry in this case is not in the bits
 of glass2 the colours are there no     
doubt1 but the symmetrical arrangement  
of them is not4 ,the symmetry is        
entirely due to the instrument4 ,and if 

a competent enquirer looks into the     
instrument and examines its             
construction1 he will be able to lay    
down with absolute certainty the laws of
 that symmetry which every pattern as   
seen through the instrument must obey4  
,just such an instrument1 according to  
,kant1 is the human mind4 ,space and    
,time and the ,perceptive ,faculties are
 the parts of the instrument4           
,everything that reaches the senses must
 submit to the laws of ,space and ,time1
 that is1 to the ,laws of ,mathematics1 
because ,space and ,time are forms of   
the mind itself1 and1 like the          
kaleidoscope1 arrange all things on     
their way to the senses according to a  
pattern of their own4 ,this pattern is  
as it were super-added to the           
manifestations that come from the things
 themselves2 and if there be any        
manifestations of such a nature that    
they could not submit to this addition1 
or1 in other words1 could not submit to 
,mathematical ,laws1 these              

manifestations could not affect our     
senses at all4 ,so too our              
,understanding has a pattern of its own 
which it imposes on all things that     
reach its power of perception4 ,what    
cannot be accommodated to this pattern  
cannot be understood at all4 ,whatever  
things may be in themselves1 their      
manifestations are not within the range 
of our intelligence1 except by passing  
through the arranging process which our 
own mind executes upon them4  ,it is    
clear that this wonderfully ingenious   
speculation rests its claims for        
acceptance purely on the assertion that 
it and it alone explains the facts4 ,it 
cannot be proved from any principle of  
reason4 ,it assumes that there is a     
demonstrative science of ,mathematics   
quite independent of experience1 and    
that there are necessary principles of  
,physics equally independent of         
experience4 ,and it accounts for the    
existence of these4  ,with ,mathematics 
we are not now concerned1 and ,i will   

pass them by with only one remark4 ,the 
ground on which ,kant's theory stands is
 not sufficient1 for this simple reason4
 ,it accounts for one fact2 it does not 
account for another fact4 ,it accounts  
for the fact that we attach and cannot  
help attaching a conviction of necessity
 to all mathematical reasoning4 ,we not 
only know that two straight lines cannot
 enclose a space1 but we know that this 
is so and must be so in all places and  
at all times1 and we know it without any
 proof whatever4 ,this fact ,kant       
accounts for4 ,space is according to him
 a part of our kaleidoscope2 you can    
always look into it and see for yourself
 what are the laws of it4 ,but there is 
another fact4 ,this space of which we   
are speaking is unquestionably to our   
minds not a thing inside of us but      
outside of us4 ,we are in it4 ,we cannot
 get rid of a sense that it is          
independent of ourselves4 ,we can       
imagine ourselves non-existing1 minds   
and all4 ,we cannot imagine space       

non-existing4 ,if it be a part of our   
minds1 how is it that we can picture to 
ourselves the non-existence of the mind 
which is the whole1 but not the         
non-existence of space which1 according 
to the hypothesis1 is the part8 ,for    
this fact1 which we commonly call the   
objectivity of space1 ,kant's theory    
does not account4 ,in fact ,kant appears
 to have no escape from assigning this  
objectivity of space to delusion4 ,but a
 theory which requires us to call an    
ineradicable conviction of consciousness
 a delusion cannot be said to explain   
all the facts4 ,john ,stuart ,mill      
maintains that the other fact1 namely1  
the conviction of the necessity of      
mathematical truth1 is a delusion4 ,and 
his account also must be pronounced for 
that reason to fail in accounting for   
all the facts4  ,but our present concern
 is not with ,mathematics but with      
,physics4 ,and here ,kant fails         
altogether to convince2 for1 taking     
,time and the ,perceptive ,powers of the

 ,understanding as parts of the human   
mind1 he shows1 what indeed is clearer  
and clearer every day1 that the         
principles 7so called7 of ,physics are  
indispensable ,postulates1 not indeed of
 observing with the senses1 but of      
comprehending with the understanding1   
whatever happens4 ,in order to give     
anything that can be called an          
explanation of any event we must show   
that it falls under the general rules   
which constitute the uniformity of      
,nature4 ,we have no other meaning for  
the words understanding or explaining an
 event4 ,thinking1 when analysed1 is    
found to consist in bringing all that   
happens under universal laws1 and no    
phenomenon can be said to be explained  
in thought except by being so related to
 all other phenomena4 ,but it does not  
by any means follow that events cannot  
happen or cannot affect our senses      
without being susceptible of such       
explanation4 ,to say that an event      
cannot be understood1 and to say either 

that it cannot happen or that it cannot 
be observed by the senses1 are two very 
different things4 ,the fact is that     
,mathematics and ,physics do not1 as    
,kant assumes1 present the same problem 
for solution1 and do not therefore admit
 of one solution applicable to both4 ,it
 is not the case that there is a science
 of abstract ,physics corresponding to  
the science of ,mathematics and sharing 
in the same character of necessity4 ,in 
,mathematics we have truths which we    
cannot but accept1 and accept as        
universal and necessary3 in ,physics we 
have no such truths1 nor has ,kant even 
endeavoured to prove that we have4 ,the 
very question therefore that we are     
asked to solve in regard to ,mathematics
 does not present itself in ,physics4 ,i
 am constrained to believe that two and 
two are four and not five2 ,i am not    
constrained to believe that if one event
 is followed by another a great many    
times it will be so followed always4    
,and the question is1 why1 without any  

constraint1 ,i nevertheless so far      
believe it that ,i require special      
evidence in any given case to convince  
me to the contrary4 ,and ,kant's answer 
is irrelevant4 ,he says that we cannot  
think the sequence of events unless they
 fall under the postulates of thinking1 
that is1 the postulates of science2 but 
this is no answer to the question4 ,why 
do we believe that1 unless the contrary 
be proved1 everything that is observed  
by the senses is capable of being       
reduced under these postulates of       
thinking8 ,the sequence of things cannot
 otherwise be explained2 but why should 
the sequence of all things that happen  
be capable of being explained8 ,the     
question therefore still remains        
unanswered4 ,what right have we to      
assume this ,uniformity in ,nature8 or1 
in other words1 what right have we to   
assume that all phenomena in ,nature1   
observed by our senses1 are capable of  
being brought within the domain of      
,science8 ,and to answer this question  

we must approach it from a different    
side4  ,and there is the more reason for
 this because it is undeniable that both
 the definition and the universality of 
the relation of cause and effect1 as    
they were accepted by ,hume and his     
followers1 are not accepted by men in   
general4 ,in ordinary language something
 more is meant by cause and effect than 
invariable sequence1 and the common     
assumption is not that all ,nature obeys
 this rule with absolutely no variation1
 but that the rule is sufficiently      
general for all practical purposes4  ,if
 then we begin by asking what is the    
process of ,science in dealing with all 
questions of causation1 we find that    
this process when reduced to its        
simplest elements always consists in    
referring every event as an effect to   
some cause which we know or believe to  
have produced some other and similar    
event4 ,newton is struck by a falling   
apple4 ,his first thought is1 'how hard 
the blow4' ,his second is wonder1 'how  

far the earth's attraction1 which has   
caused this hard blow1 extends4' ,his   
third1 'why not as far as the moon8'    
,and he proceeds to assign the motion of
 the moon to the same cause as that     
which produced the motion of the apple4 
,taking this as a working hypothesis1 he
 examines what would be the motions of  
all the planets if this were true4 ,and 
the examination ends with establishing  
the high probability of the ,law of     
,gravitation4  ,now this being the      
invariable process of ,science1 it      
follows that our conception of cause    
must come originally from that cause    
which we have within ourselves and with 
which we cannot but begin1 the action of
 the human will4 ,it is from this action
 that is obtained that conception which 
underlies the ordinary conception of    
cause1 namely1 that of force or power4  
,this conception of force or power is   
derived from the consciousness of our   
own power to move our limbs1 and perhaps
 too of passions1 temptations1          

sentiments to move or oppose our wills4 
,this power is most distinctly felt when
 it is resisted4 ,the effort which is   
necessary when we choose to do what we  
have barely strength to do1 impresses on
 us more clearly the sense of a force   
residing in ourselves capable of        
overcoming resistance4 ,having the power
 to move our limbs1 and that too against
 some resistance1 we explain1 and in no 
other way can we explain1 other motions 
by the supposition of a similar power4  
,in so doing we are following strictly  
the scientific instinct and the         
scientific process4 ,we are putting into
 the same class the motions that we     
observe in other things and the motions 
that we observe in ourselves2 the latter
 are due to acts of our own wills1 the  
former are assigned to similar acts of  
other wills4 ,hence in infancy1 and in  
the infancy of mankind1 the whole world 
is peopled with persons because         
everything that we observe to move is   
personified4 ,a secret will moves the   

wind1 the sun1 the moon1 the stars1 and 
each is independent of the others4      
,soon a distinction grows up between the
 things that seem to have a spontaneous 
motion and those that have not1 and     
spontaneous motion is taken as the sign 
of life4 ,and all inanimate things1 of  
whatever kind1 are held to be moved1 if 
they move at all1 by a force outside    
themselves4 ,their own force is limited 
to that of resisting1 and does not      
include that of originating motion4 ,but
 though they cannot originate motion    
they are observed to be capable of      
transmitting it4 ,and the notion of     
force is expanded by the recognition    
that it can be communicated from one    
thing to another and yet to another1 and
 that we may have to go back many steps 
before we arrive at the will from which 
it originated4 ,we began with the notion
 of a power the action of which was or  
appeared to be self-originated3 we come 
to the notion of a power the action of  
which is nothing more than the          

continuance of preceding action4 ,and   
the special characteristic of the action
 of this force as thus conceived1 which 
we may call the derivative force1 is    
seen to be its regularity1 just as the  
special characteristic of the           
self-originating action was its         
spontaneity4  ,as experience increases  
the regularity of the action of the     
derivative force is more and more       
observable1 and then arises the notion  
of a law or rule regulating the action  
of every such force4 ,and a perpetually 
increasing number of phenomena are      
brought under this head1 and are shown  
to be1 not the immediate results of     
self-originating action1 but the more or
 less remote results of derivative      
action governed by laws4 ,and even a    
large number of those phenomena1 which  
specially belong to life and living     
creatures1 in whom alone1 if anywhere1  
the self-originating action is to be    
found1 are observed to be subject to law
 and therefore to be the issue not of   

self-originating but of derivative      
action4 ,and this observed regularity it
 is found possible to trace much more   
widely than it is possible to trace any 
clear evidence of what we understand by 
force4 ,and so1 at last1 we frequently  
use the word force as it were by        
anticipation1 not to express the cause  
of the phenomena1 which indeed we do not
 yet know1 but as a convenient          
abbreviation for a large number of facts
 classed under one head4 ,and this it is
 which enables ,hume to maintain that we
 mean no more by a cause than an event  
which is invariably followed by another 
event4 ,we discover invariability much  
faster than we can discover causation2  
and having discovered invariability in  
any given case1 we presume causation    
even when we cannot yet show it1 and use
 language in accordance with that       
presumption4 ,thus1 for instance1 we    
speak of the force of gravitation1      
although we cannot yet prove that there 
is any such force1 and all that we know 

is that material particles move as if   
such a force were acting on them4  ,as  
,science advances it is seen that the   
regularity of phenomena is far more     
important to us than their causes4 ,and 
the attention of all students of ,nature
 is fixed on that rather than on        
causation4 ,and this regularity is seen 
to be more and more widely pervading all
 phenomena of every class1 until the    
mind is forced to conceive the          
possibility that it may be absolutely   
universal1 and that even will itself may
 come within its supreme dominion4  ,but
 to the very last the idea of causation 
retains the traces of its origin4 ,for  
in the first place every step in this   
building up of science assumes a        
permanence underlying all phenomena4 ,we
 cannot believe that the future will be 
like the past except because we believe 
that there is something permanent which 
was in the past and will be in the      
future4 ,and this assumption of         
something permanent in things around us 

comes from the consciousness of         
something permanent within us4 ,we know 
our own permanence4 ,whatever else we   
know or do not know about ourselves1 we 
are sure of our own personal identity   
through successive periods of life4 ,and
 as our explanation of things outside   
begins by classing them with things     
inside we still continue to ascribe     
permanence to whatever underlies        
phenomena even when we have long ceased 
to ascribe individual wills to any      
except beings like ourselves4 ,and      
without this assumption of permanence   
our whole science would come to the     
ground4  ,and in the second place let it
 be remembered that we began with the   
will causing the motions of the limbs4  
,now there is1 as far as we know1 no    
other power in us to affect external    
nature than by setting something in     
motion4 ,we can move our limbs1 and by  
so doing move other things1 and by so   
doing avail ourselves of the laws of    
,nature to produce remoter effects4     

,but1 except by originating motion1 we  
cannot act at all4 ,and1 accordingly1   
throughout all science the attempt is   
made to reduce all phenomena to motions4
 ,sounds1 colours1 heat1 chemical       
action1 electricity1 we are perpetually 
endeavouring to reduce to vibrations or 
undulations1 that is1 to motion of some 
sort or other4 ,the mind seems to find a
 satisfaction when a change of whatever 
kind is shown to be1 or possibly to be1 
the result of movement4 ,and so too all 
laws of ,nature are then felt to be     
satisfactorily explained when they can  
be traced to some force exhibited in the
 movement of material particles4 ,the   
law of ,gravitation has an enormous     
evidence in support of it considered    
simply as a fact4 ,and yet how many     
attempts have been made to represent it 
as the result of vortices or of         
particles streaming in all directions   
and pressing any two bodies together    
that lie in their path6 ,the facts which
 establish it are enough4 ,why then     

these attempts8 ,what is felt to be yet 
wanting8 ,what is felt to be wanting is 
something to show that it is the result 
of some sort of general or universal    
motion1 and that it thus falls under the
 same head as other motions1 either     
those which originate in ourselves and  
are propagated from our bodies to       
external objects1 or those which1       
springing from an unknown beginning1 are
 for ever continuing as before4  ,this  
then is the answer to the question1 ,why
 do we believe in the uniformity of     
,nature8 ,we believe in it because we   
find it so4 ,millions on millions of    
observations concur in exhibiting this  
uniformity4 ,and the longer our         
observation of ,nature goes on1 the     
greater do we find the extent of it4    
,things that once seemed irregular are  
now known to be regular4 ,things that   
seemed inexplicable on this hypothesis  
are now explained4 ,every day seems to  
add not merely to the instances but to  
the wide-ranging classes of phenomena   

that come under the rule4 ,we had reason
 long ago to hold that the quantity of  
matter was invariable4 ,we now have     
reason to think that the quantity of    
force acting on matter is invariable4   
,and to this is to be added the evidence
 of scientific prediction1 the range of 
which is perpetually increasing1 and    
which would be obviously impossible if  
,nature were not uniform4 ,and yet again
 to this is to be added that this       
uniformity does not consist in a vast   
number of separate and independent laws1
 but that these laws already form a     
system with one another1 and that that  
system is daily becoming more complete4 
,we believe in the uniformity of ,nature
 because1 as far as we can observe it1  
that is the character of ,nature4  ,and 
,i use the word character on purpose1   
because it indicates better than any    
other word that ,i could find at once   
the nature and limitation of our belief4
  ,for1 if the origin of this belief be 
what ,i have described1 it is perfectly 

clear that1 however vast may be the     
evidence to prove this uniformity1 the  
conclusion can never go beyond the      
limits of this evidence1 and generality 
can never be confounded with            
universality4 ,the certainty that       
,nature is uniform is not at all1 and   
never can be1 a certainty of the same   
kind as the certainty that four times   
five are twenty4  ,we can assert that   
the general character of ,nature is     
uniformity1 but we cannot go beyond     
this4 ,every separate law of nature is  
established by induction from the facts1
 and so too is the general uniformity4  
,every separate law of ,nature is a     
working hypothesis4 ,so too is the      
uniformity of ,nature a working         
hypothesis1 and it never can be more4   
,it is true that there is far more      
evidence for the uniformity of ,nature  
as a whole than for any one law of      
,nature2 because a law of ,nature is    
established by the uniformity of        
sequences in those phenomena to which it

 applies2 whereas every uniformity of   
sequence1 of whatever kind1 is an       
evidence of the general uniformity4 ,the
 evidence for the uniformity of nature  
is the accumulated evidence for all the 
separate uniformities4 ,but1 however    
much greater the quantity of evidence1  
the kind ever remains the same4 ,there  
is no means by which we can demonstrate 
this uniformity4 ,we can only make it   
probable4 ,we can say that in almost    
every case all the evidence is one way2 
but whenever there is evidence to the   
contrary we cannot refuse to examine it4
  ,if a miracle were worked science     
could not prove that it was a miracle1  
nor of course prove that it was not a   
miracle4 ,to prove it to be a miracle   
would require not a vast range of       
knowledge1 but absolutely universal     
knowledge1 which it is entirely beyond  
our faculties to attain4 ,to say that   
any event was a miracle would be to say 
that we knew that there was no higher   
law that could explain it1 and this we  

could not say unless we knew all laws3  
to say that it was not a miracle would  
be ex hypothesi to assert what was      
false4 ,in fact1 to assert the          
occurrence of a miracle is simply to go 
back to the beginning of science1 and to
 say3 ,here is an event which we cannot 
assign to that derivative action to     
which we have been led to assign the    
great body of events2 we cannot explain 
it except by referring it to direct and 
spontaneous action1 to a will like our  
own will4 ,science has shown that the   
vast majority of events are due to      
derivative action regulated by laws4    
,here is an event which cannot be so    
explained1 any more than the action of  
our own free will can be so explained4  
,science may fairly claim to have shown 
that miracles1 if they happen at all1   
are exceedingly rare4 ,to demonstrate   
that they never happen at all is        
impossible1 from the very nature of the 
evidence on which ,science rests4 ,but  
for the same reason ,science can never  

in its character of ,science admit that 
a miracle has happened4 ,science can    
only admit that1 so far as the evidence 
goes1 an event has happened which lies  
outside its province4  ,to believers the
 progress of ,science is a perpetual    
instruction in the character which ,god 
has impressed on ,his works4 ,that ,he  
has put ,order in the very first place  
may be a surprise to us2 but it can only
 be a surprise4 ,in the great machinery 
of the ,universe it constantly happens  
to us to find that that which is made   
indispensable1 is nevertheless not the  
highest4 ,the chosen people were not the
 highest in all moral or even in all    
spiritual characteristics2 if we refuse 
the explanation given by ,goethe that   
they were chosen for their toughness1   
yet we have no better to give4 ,the     
eternal moral law is of all we know the 
highest and holiest4 ,yet the religious 
instinct seems to have been more        
indispensable for the development of    
humanity according to the ,divine       

purpose than the observance of that     
moral law in all its fulness4 ,it would 
never have occurred to us beforehand to 
permit in ,divine legislation any       
concession to the hardness of men's     
hearts2 yet we know that it was done4   
,science now tells us that ,order takes 
a rank in ,god's work far above where we
 should have placed it4 ,it is not the  
highest2 it is far from the highest3 but
 it appears to be in some strange way   
the most indispensable4 ,god is teaching
 us that ,order is far more universal1  
far more penetrating than we should have
 supposed4 ,but1 nevertheless1 it is not
 itself ,god2 nor the highest revelation
 of ,god4 ,it is the stamp which1 for   
reasons higher than itself1 ,he appears 
to have put on ,his works4 ,what is the 
limit to its application we do not know4
 ,there may be instances where this     
,order is apparently broken1 but really 
maintained1 because one physical law is 
absorbed in a higher2 there may be      
instances where the physical law is     

superseded by a moral law4 ,but we shall
 neither refuse to recognise that ,god  
has stamped this character on ,his      
works1 nor let it on the other hand come
 between us and ,him4 ,for we know still
 that ,he is greater than all that ,he  
hath made1 and ,he speaks to us by      
another voice besides the voice of      
,science4     ,,lecture ,,ii4   ,,the   
,,origin ,,and ,,nature ,,of ,,religious
 ,,belief4  ,the voice within4 ,the     
objection of the alleged relativity of  
knowledge4 ,absolute knowledge of our   
own personal identity4 ,failure to show 
this to be relative2 in particular by   
,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer4 ,the ,moral     
,law4 ,the command to live according to 
that ,law2 ,duty4 ,the command to       
believe in the supremacy of that ,law2  
the lower ,faith4 ,the ,last ,judgment4 
,the hope of ,immortality4 ,the         
personification of the ,moral ,law in   
,almighty ,god2 the higher ,faith4 ,the 
spiritual faculty the recipient of      
,revelation1 if any be made4 ,the       

contrast between ,religion and ,science4
     ,,lecture ,,ii4   ,,the ,,origin   
,,and ,,nature ,,of ,,religious         
,,belief4       ',so ,god created man in
 ,his own image1 in the image of ,god   
created      ,he him4' ,genesis i4 #bg4 
,the order of phenomena is not the      
highest revelation of ,god1 nor is the  
voice of ,science the only nor the most 
commanding voice that speaks to us about
 ,him4 ,the belief in ,him and in the   
character which we assign to ,him does  
not spring from any observation of      
phenomena1 but from the declaration made
 to us through the spiritual faculty4   
,there is within us a voice which tells 
of a supreme ,law unchanged throughout  
all space and all time2 which speaks    
with an authority entirely its own2     
which finds corroboration in the        
revelations of ,science1 but which never
 relies on those revelations as its     
primary or its ultimate sanction2 which 
is no inference from observations by the
 senses external or internal1 but a     

direct communication from the spiritual 
kingdom1 the kingdom1 as philosophers   
call it1 of things in themselves2 which 
commands belief as a duty1 and by       
necessary consequence ever leaves it    
possible to disbelieve2 and in listening
 to which we are rightly said to walk   
not by sight but by faith4  ,now1 before
 going on to say anything more about the
 message thus given to us from the      
spiritual world1 it is necessary to     
consider an objection that meets us on  
the threshold of all such doctrines1    
namely1 that it is simply impossible for
 us to know anything whatever of things 
in themselves4 ,our knowledge1 it is    
urged1 is necessarily relative to       
ourselves1 whereas absolute as distinct 
from relative knowledge is for ever     
beyond our reach4 ,we can speak of what 
things appear to us to be2 we cannot    
speak of what they are4 ,we know or may 
know whatever comes under the           
observation of our senses as phenomena2 
we cannot know what underlies these     

phenomena4 ,and sometimes it has been   
maintained that we not only cannot know 
what it is that underlies the phenomena1
 but cannot even know whether anything  
at all underlies the phenomena1 and     
that1 for aught we can tell1 the whole  
world and all that exists or happens in 
it may be nothing but a system of       
appearances with no substance whatever4 
,this doctrine of the relativity of all 
knowledge is not only applied to things 
external but to our very selves4 ,we    
know ourselves1 it is maintained1 only  
through an internal sense which can only
 tell us how we appear to ourselves1 but
 cannot tell us in any the least degree 
what we really are4  ,now this          
contention is an instance of a tendency 
against which we are required to be     
perpetually on our guard4 ,the final aim
 of all science and of all philosophy is
 to find some unity or unities that     
shall co-ordinate the immense complexity
 of the world in which we live4 ,now    
there is one and only one legitimate way

 of attaining this aim1 and that is by  
patient1 persevering study of the facts4
 ,but the facts turn out to be so       
numerous1 so multifarious1 that not one 
life nor one generation but many lives  
and many generations will assuredly not 
co-ordinate them sufficiently to bring  
this aim within probable reach4 ,hence  
the incessant temptation1 first1 to     
supply by hypothesis what cannot yet be 
obtained by observation1 and1 secondly1 
to bend facts to suit this hypothesis2  
and1 if the framing of such hypotheses  
be legitimate1 the distortion of facts  
is clearly not legitimate4 ,it seems too
 long to wait for future ages to        
complete the task4 ,we must in some sort
 complete it now2 and for that purpose  
if the facts as we observe them will not
 suit1 we must substitute other facts   
that will4 ,accordingly every doctrine  
must be made complete1 and to make this 
doctrine of the relativity of knowledge 
complete1 we must get rid of all        
exceptions4 ,but there is one exception 

that we cannot get rid of1 and that is  
the conviction of our own identity      
through all changes through which we    
pass4 ,every man amongst us passes      
through incessant changes4 ,his body    
changes2 he may even lose parts of it   
altogether2 he may lose all control over
 some of his limbs1 or over them all4   
,and there are internal as well as      
external changes in each man4 ,his      
affections change1 his practices1 his   
passions1 his resolutions1 his purposes1
 his judgments2 everything possibly by  
which he knows his own character4 ,but  
through all these changes he is         
conscious of being still one and the    
same self4 ,and he knows this2 and knows
 it1 not as an inference from any       
observation of sense external or        
internal1 but directly and intuitively4 
,all other knowledge may conceivably be 
relative1 a knowledge of things as they 
appear1 not of things in themselves4    
,but this is not2 it is a knowledge of a
 thing as it is in itself2 for amidst   

all changes in the phenomena of each    
man's nature1 this still remains        
absolutely unchanged4 ,we do speak of   
sameness in application to phenomena2 we
 say this is the same colour as that2   
this is the same musical note as that2  
this is the same sensation as that4 ,but
 here we mean a different thing by the  
word same4 ,we mean                     
indistinguishability4 ,we mean that we  
cannot distinguish between the two      
colours1 the two notes1 the two         
sensations4 ,and this no doubt is a     
relative knowledge1 not a knowledge of  
things in themselves4 ,but we do not    
mean incapacity of being distinguished  
when we speak of our own personal       
identity4 ,when a man thinks to-day of  
his life of yesterday1 and regards      
himself as the same being through1 all  
the time1 he does not simply mean that  
he cannot distinguish between the being 
that existed yesterday according to his 
memory and the being that exists to-day 
according to his present consciousness3 

he means that the being is one and the  
same absolutely and in itself4  ,and    
this conviction of personal identity    
will presently be found to fall in with 
the revelation of the ,moral ,law1 which
 is my subject in this ,lecture4 ,for it
 is by virtue of this personal identity 
that ,i become responsible for my       
actions4 ,i am not merely the same      
thinking subject1 ,i am the same moral  
agent all through my life4 ,if ,i       
changed as fast as the phenomena of my  
being changed1 my responsibility for any
 evil deed would cease the moment the   
deed was done4 ,no punishment would be  
just1 because it would not be just to   
punish one being for the faults of a    
totally different being4 ,the ,moral    
,law in its application to man requires 
as a basis the personal identity of each
 man with himself4  ,if corroboration   
were needed of the directness of the    
intuition by which we get this idea of  
our own personal identity1 it would be  
found in the entire failure of all      

attempts to derive that idea from any   
other source4 ,comte1 the founder of the
 ,positive ,school1 can do nothing with 
this idea but suggest that it is        
probably the result of some obscure     
synergy or co-operation of the          
faculties4 ,john ,stuart ,mill passes it
 by altogether as lying outside the     
scope of his enquiries and of his       
doctrine4 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer deals  
with it in a very weak chapter#a of his 
remarkable volume of ,first ,principles4
 ,he divides all the manifestations made
 to our consciousness1 or1 as we        
commonly say1 all our sensations1 into  
two great classes4 ,he selects as the   
main but not universal characteristic of
 the one class1 vividness2 of the other 
class1 faintness2 a distinction first   
insisted on1 though somewhat differently
 applied1 by ,hume4 ,he adds various    
other characteristics of each class1    
some of them implying very questionable 
propositions4 ,and we come finally to   
the following astonishing result4       

,sensations are divided into two        
classes2 each has seven main            
characteristics which distinguish it    
from the other4 ,one of these classes   
make up the subject1 that which ,i mean 
when ,i use the words ,i myself2 the    
other the object or that which is not   
,i4 ,but there is absolutely nothing to 
determine which is which1 which class is
 the subject and which is the object1   
which is ,i myself1 and which is not ,i 
myself4 ,vividness and faintness plainly
 have nothing in them by which we can   
assign the one to that which is ,i1 the 
other to that which is not ,i4 ,if we   
were to conjecture1 we should be        
disposed to say that surely the most    
vivid sensations must be the nearest and
 therefore must be part of that which is
 ,i2 but we find it is quite the other  
way4 ,the faint sensations are          
characteristic of that which is ,i1 and 
the vivid of that which is not ,i4 ,and 
the same remark applies to each pair of 
characteristics in succession4 ,the fact

 is that ,mr4 ,spencer has omitted what 
is essential to complete his argument2  
he has not shown1 nor endeavoured to    
show1 nor even thought of showing1 how  
out of his seven characteristics of the 
subject the conception of a subject has 
grown4 ,it is quite plain that he not   
only makes his classes first and finds  
his characteristics afterwards1 which we
 may admit to have been inevitable2 but 
he fails altogether to show how that by 
which we know the classes apart has     
grown out of the characteristics that he
 has given us4 ,the characteristics     
which he assigns to that which is ,i1   
all added together1 do not in the       
slightest degree account for that sense 
of permanent existence in spite of      
changes which lies at the root of my    
distinction of myself from other things4
 ,the very word same1 in the sense in   
which ,i use it when speaking of myself1
 cannot be defined except by reference  
to my own sameness with myself4 ,it is a
 simple idea incapable of analysis1 and 

is indeed1 as was pointed out in my last
 ,lecture1 the root of the character of 
permanence which we assign to things    
external4 ,to say that this conception  
has been evolved from the               
characteristics that ,mr4 ,spencer has  
enumerated is like saying that a cat has
 been evolved without any intermediate  
stages from a fish1 or a smell from a   
colour4  ,but1 if we now go a step      
further1 and ask in what form this      
personal identity presents itself in the
 world of phenomena1 the answer is      
clear3 our personality while bound up   
with all our other faculties1 so that we
 can speak of our understanding1 our    
affections1 our powers of perception and
 sensation1 as parts of ourselves1 yet  
is centred in one faculty which we call 
the will4 ',if there be aught spiritual 
in man1' says ,coleridge1 'the will must
 be such4 ,if there be a will1 there    
must be a spirituality in man4' ,the    
will is the man4 ,it is the will that   
makes us responsible beings4 ,it is for 

the action of our will1 or the consent  
of our will1 that we come to be called  
in question4 ,it is by the will that we 
assert ourselves amidst the existences  
around us2 and as the will is the man in
 relation to phenomena1 so on the other 
side the will is the one and only force 
among the forces of this world which    
takes cognizance of principles and is   
capable of acting in pursuit of an aim  
not to be found among phenomena at all4 
,the will is not the whole spiritual    
faculty4 ,besides the power of willing  
we have the power of recognising        
spiritual truth4 ,and this power or     
faculty we commonly call the conscience4
 ,but the conscience is not a force4 ,it
 has no power of acting except through  
the will4 ,it receives and transmits the
 voice from the spiritual world1 and the
 will is responsible so far as the      
conscience enlightens it4 ,it is the    
will whereby the man takes his place in 
the world of phenomena4  ,it is then to 
the man1 thus capable of appreciating a 

law superior in its nature to all       
phenomena and bearing within himself the
 conviction of a personal identity      
underlying all the changes that may be  
encountered and endured1 that is        
revealed from within the command to live
 for a moral purpose and believe in the 
ultimate supremacy of the moral over the
 physical4 ,the voice within gives this 
command in two forms2 it commands our   
duty and it commands our faith4 ,the    
voice gives no proof1 appeals to no     
evidence1 but speaks as having a right  
to command1 and requires our obedience  
by virtue of its own inherent           
superiority4  ,its first command we call
 duty4 ,the voice within awakes a       
peculiar sentiment which1 except towards
 its command1 is never felt in our      
souls1 the sentiment of reverence4 ,and 
it commands the pursuit of that1        
whatever it may be1 to which this       
sentiment of reverence attaches4 ,this  
is the positive test by which we are to 
know what is ever to be our highest aim4

 ,and along with this there is a        
negative test by which we are           
perpetually to correct the other1       
namely1 the test of universality4 ,the  
moral law in its own nature admits of no
 exceptions4 ,if a principle of action  
be derived from this law it has nothing 
to do with time1 or place1 or           
circumstances2 it must hold good in the 
distant future1 in planets or stars     
utterly remote1 as fully as it holds    
good now and here4  ,this duty we can   
subdivide under four heads1 accordingly 
as we apply it to our dealings with     
ourselves1 with other moral and         
spiritual beings1 with other creatures  
that can feel pleasure and pain1 with   
things that are incapable of either4 ,if
 we are thinking of ourselves only1 duty
 consists in the pursuit of holiness1   
that is1 in the absolute subjection of  
what does not demand reverence to that  
which does4 ,it is plain that what      
deserves reverence in us is that which  
approaches most nearly to the moral law 

in character4 ,the appetites1 the       
affections1 the passions1 have each     
their own separate objects4 ,they may be
 useful in the highest degree1 but they 
cannot in themselves deserve reverence1 
for their objects are not the moral law2
 they must therefore be absolutely      
subordinated to the will and the        
conscience which have for their objects 
the very law itself4 ,holiness consists 
in the subjection of the whole being1   
not in act alone1 but in feeling and    
desire as well1 to the authority of     
conscience4  ,if we are thinking of     
other moral agents1 duty prescribes     
strict and unfailing justice2 and       
justice in its highest and purest form  
is love1 the unfailing recognition of   
the fullest claims that can be made on  
us by all who share our own divine      
superiority3 to love ,god above all     
else1 and to love all spiritual beings  
as we love ourselves1 this is duty in   
relation to other spiritual beings4  ,if
 we are thinking of creatures which1    

whether moral agents or not1 are capable
 of pain and pleasure1 our duty takes   
the form of goodness or tenderness4 ,we 
have no right to inflict pain or even   
refuse pleasure unless1 if the          
circumstances were reversed1 we should  
be bound in conscience to be ready in   
our turn to bear the same infliction or 
refusal4 ,the precept1 ,do as you would 
be done by1 is here supreme1 and it is  
to this class of duties that that       
precept applies1 and the limits of our  
right to inflict pain on other          
creatures1 whether rational or          
irrational1 will be determined by this  
rule4  ,and1 lower still1 our duty to   
things that are incapable of all feeling
 is summed up in that knowledge of them 
and that use of them which makes them   
the fittest instruments of a moral life4
  ,the sentiment of reverence is our    
guide in determining our duty1 and the  
test of universality perpetually comes  
in to correct the commands of this      
sentiment and to clear and so to refine 

the sentiment itself4  ,as is the case  
in a certain degree with every other    
kind of knowledge or belief1 so in a    
very special degree the ,moral ,law     
finds its place even in minds that have 
very little of thought or of            
cultivation4 ,the most untutored is not 
insensible to the claim made on our     
respect by acts of courage1             
self-sacrifice1 generosity1 truth2 or to
 the call upon us for reprobation at the
 sight of acts of falsehood1 of         
meanness1 of cruelty1 of profligacy4    
,even in the most untutored there is a  
sense that these sentiments of respect  
and reprobation are quite different in  
kind from the other sentiments which    
stir the soul4 ,and this is even more   
clear in condemnation than in approval4 
,however perverted the conscience 7the  
seat of these sentiments7 may be1 yet   
the pain of remorse1 which is           
self-reprobation for having broken the  
moral law1 is always1 as has been well  
said1 'quite unlike any other pain we   

know1' and is felt in some form and     
measure by every soul that lives4 ,and  
as the sentiment thus holds a special   
place in the most untutored1 so too does
 the sense of universality by which we  
instinctively and invariably correct or 
defend that sentiment if it be          
challenged4 ,the moment we are perplexed
 in regard to what we ought to do or    
what judgment we ought to pass on       
something already done1 we              
instinctively1 almost involuntarily1    
endeavour to disentangle the act from   
all attendant circumstances and to see  
whether our sentiment of approval or    
disapproval would still hold good in    
quite other surroundings4 ,we try to    
get1 at the principle involved and to   
ascertain whether that principle        
possesses the universality which is the 
sure characteristic of the ,moral ,law4 
,it will be matter of consideration in a
 future ,lecture how our knowledge of   
the ,eternal ,law of the holy1 the just1
 the good1 and the right1 is thus       

purified in the individual and in the   
race4 ,at present it will be enough to  
have indicated the general principle of 
what may be called the evolution of the 
knowledge of morals4  ,but ,i now go on 
from the ,moral ,law as a duty to the   
,moral ,law as a faith4 ,for the inner  
voice is not content with commanding a  
course of conduct and requiring         
obedience of that kind4 ,this is its    
first utterance1 and the man who hears  
and obeys unquestionably has within him 
the true seed of all religion4 ,but     
though the first utterance it is not the
 last4 ,for the same voice goes on to   
require us to believe that this ,moral  
,law which claims obedience from us1    
equally claims obedience from all else  
that exists4 ,it is absolutely supreme  
or it is nothing4  ,its title to our    
obedience is its supremacy1 and it has  
no other title4 ,if it depended on      
promises of reward or threats of        
punishment addressed to us1 it might be 
considered as a law for us1 but could be

 no law for others4 ,it would in that   
case1 indeed1 be a mere physical law4   
,things are so arranged for you1 and as 
far as you know for you only1 that      
terrible pain will come to you if you   
disobey1 and wonderful pleasure if you  
obey4 ,such a law as that might proceed 
from a tyrant possessed of absolute     
power over ,,us and the things that     
concern ,,us1 and might be either good  
or bad as should happen4 ,but such a law
 would not be able to claim our         
reverence4 ,nay1 rather1 as is the case 
with all merely physical laws1 it might 
be our duty to disobey it4 ,in claiming 
our reverence as well as our obedience1 
in making its sanction consist in       
nothing but the fact of its own inherent
 majesty1 the ,moral ,law calls on us to
 believe in its supremacy4 ,it claims   
that it is the last and highest of all  
laws4 ,the world before us is governed  
by uniformities as far as we can judge1 
but above and behind all these          
uniformities is the supreme uniformity1 

the eternal law of right and wrong1 and 
all other laws1 of whatever kind1 must  
ultimately be harmonised by it alone4   
,the ,moral ,law would be itself unjust 
if it bade us disregard all physical    
laws1 and yet was itself subordinate to 
those physical laws4 ,it has a right to 
require us to disregard everything but  
itself1 if it be itself supreme2 if not1
 its claim would be unjust4 ,we see here
 in things around us no demonstrative   
proof that it is supreme1 except what   
may be summed up in saying that there is
 a power that makes for righteousness4  
,enlightened by the ,moral ,law we can  
see strongly marked traces of its       
working in all things4 ,the beauty1 the 
order1 the general tendency of all      
creation accords with the supremacy of  
the ,moral ,law over it all4 ,but that  
is by no means all4 ,we see1 and we know
 that we see1 but an infinitesimal      
fraction of the whole4 ,and the result  
of this partial vision is that1 while   
there is much in things around us which 

asserts1 there is also much which seems 
to deny altogether any supremacy        
whatever in the ,moral ,law4 ,the       
universe1 as we see it1 is not holy1 nor
 just1 nor good1 nor right4 ,the music  
of creation is full of discords as yet  
altogether unresolved4 ,and if we look  
to phenomena alone1 there is no solution
 of the great riddle4 ,but in spite of  
all imperfections and contradictions1   
the voice within1 without vouchsafing to
 give us any solution of the perplexity1
 or any sanction but its own            
authoritative command1 imperatively     
requires us to believe that holiness is 
supreme over unholiness1 and justice    
over injustice1 and goodness over evil1 
and righteousness over unrighteousness4 
,to obey this command and to believe    
this truth is ,faith4  ,this is the     
,faith which is perpetually presenting  
to the believer's mind the vision of a  
world in which all the inequalities of  
this present world shall be redressed1  
in which truth1 justice1 and love shall 

visibly reign1 in which temptations     
shall cease and sin shall cease also2 in
 which the upward strivings of noble    
souls shall find their end1 and holiness
 shall supersede penitence1 and hearts  
shall be pure of all defilement4 ,this  
is the ,faith which holds to the sure   
conviction that all things shall one day
 come to judgment2 and whether by sudden
 catastrophe or by sure development1 the
 physical system shall surrender to the 
moral4 ,this is the ,faith which        
supplies perpetual strength to the hope 
of immortality2 for though it cannot be 
said that the immortality of the        
individual soul is of necessity involved
 in a belief in the supremacy of the    
,moral ,law1 yet there is a sense1 never
 without witness in the soul1 that all  
would not be according to justice if a  
being to whom the ,moral ,law has been  
revealed from within is nevertheless in 
no degree to share in the final         
revelation of the superiority of that   
,moral ,law over what is without4 ,we   

cannot say that it is a necessary part  
of the supremacy of the ,moral ,law that
 every one of those who know it should  
partake of its immortal nature4 ,we     
cannot even say that it is a necessary  
part of the ultimate redressing of all  
injustice and resolution of all the     
discords of life that the hope of it    
should prove true in the individual as  
it will certainly prove true in the     
universe4 ,for we are unable to weigh   
individual merit or demerit1 and cannot 
assert for certain that the balance of  
justice is not maintained even in this  
present life4 ,but nevertheless the hope
 that it must and will be so is         
inextinguishable1 and ,faith in an      
,eternal ,law of ,morals is inextricably
 bound up with hope of immortality for  
the being that is endowed with a moral  
and responsible nature4  ,faith in the  
absolute supremacy of the ,moral ,law is
 the first1 but this again is not the   
last step upwards in ,faith4 ,we are    
called upon1 and still by the same      

imperative voice within1 to carry our   
,faith still further1 and to believe    
something yet higher4  ,for the         
supremacy of the ,moral ,law must be a  
moral1 not merely a physical supremacy4 
,in claiming supremacy at all the ,moral
 ,law does not assert that somehow by a 
happy accident1 as it were1 all things  
turn out at last in accordance with what
 is in the highest sense moral4 ,the    
supremacy of the moral over the physical
 involves in its very nature an         
intention to be supreme4 ,it is not the 
supremacy of justice1 if justice is done
 as the blind result of the working of  
machinery1 even if that be the machinery
 of the universe4 ,in our very          
conception of a moral supremacy is      
involved the conception of an intended  
supremacy4 ,and the ,moral ,law in its  
government of the world reveals itself  
as possessing the distinctive mark of   
personality1 that is1 a purpose and a   
will4 ,and thus1 as we ponder it1 this  
,eternal ,law is shown to be the very   

,eternal ,himself1 the ,almighty ,god4  
,there is a sense in which we cannot    
ascribe personality to the ,unknown     
,absolute ,being2 for our personality is
 of necessity compassed with            
limitations1 and from these limitations 
we find it impossible to separate our   
conception of a person4 ,and it will    
ever remain true that our highest       
conceptions of ,god must fall altogether
 short of ,his true nature4 ,when we    
speak of ,him as infinite1 we are but   
denying that ,he is restrained by limits
 of time and space as we are4 ,when we  
speak of ,him as absolute1 we are but   
denying that ,he is subject to          
conditions as we are4 ,so when we speak 
of ,him as a person1 we cannot but      
acknowledge that ,his personality far   
transcends our conceptions4 ,but it     
still remains the truth that these      
descriptions of ,him are the nearest    
that we can get1 and that for all the   
moral purposes of life we can argue from
 these as if they were the full truth4  

,if to deny personality to ,him is to   
assimilate ,him to a blind and dead     
rule1 we cannot but repudiate such      
denial altogether4 ,if to deny          
personality to ,him is to assert ,his   
incomprehensibility1 we are ready at    
once to acknowledge our weakness and    
incapacity4 ,but we dare not let go the 
truth that the holiness1 the justice1   
the goodness1 the righteousness1 which  
the ,eternal ,moral ,law imposes on us  
as a supreme command1 are identical in  
essential substance in our minds and in 
,his4 ,indeed1 the more we keep before  
us the true character of that law1 the  
more clearly do we see that the ,moral  
,law is not ,his command but ,his       
nature4 ,he does not make that law4 ,he 
is that law4 ,almighty ,god and the     
,moral ,law are different aspects of    
what is in itself one and the same4 ,to 
hold fast to this is the fullest form of
 ,faith4 ,to live by duty is in itself  
rudimentary religion4 ,to believe that  
the rule of duty is supreme over all the

 universe1 is the first stage of ,faith4
 ,to believe in ,almighty ,god is the   
last and highest4  ,it will be seen at  
once by those who have followed me that 
,i am in this ,lecture only working out 
to its logical conclusion what was said 
long ago by ,bishop ,butler in ,england 
and by ,kant in ,germany4 ,butler calls 
the spiritual faculty whose commands to 
us ,i have been examining by the name of
 conscience3 ,kant calls it the         
practical reason4 ,but both alike insist
 on the ultimate basis of morality being
 found in the voice within the soul and 
not in the phenomena observed by the    
senses4 ,science by searching cannot    
find out ,god4 ,to reduce all the       
phenomena of the universe to order will 
not1 even if it could ever be completely
 done1 tell us the highest truth that we
 can attain to concerning spiritual     
things4  ,science may examine all the   
phases through which religions have     
passed and treating human beliefs as it 
treats all other phenomena it can give  

us a history of religion or of          
religions4 ,but there is something      
underlying them all which it cannot     
treat1 and which perpetually evades all 
attempts to bring it under physical     
laws4 ,for just as all attempts to      
explain away our conviction of our own  
personal identity have invariably failed
 and will for ever fail to satisfy human
 consciousness1 so too the strictly     
spiritual element in all religion cannot
 be got out of phenomena at all4 ,no    
analysis succeeds in obliterating the   
fundamental distinction between moral   
and physical law2 or in enabling us to  
escape the ever increasing sense of the 
dignity of the former1 or in shutting   
our ears to the still small voice which 
is totally unlike every other voice     
within or without4 ,to bring the ,moral 
,law under the dominion of ,science and 
to treat the belief in it as nothing    
more than one of the phenomena of human 
nature1 it is necessary to treat the    
sentiment of reverence which it excites1

 the remorse which follows on           
disobedience to its commands1 the sense 
of its supremacy1 as delusions4 ,it is  
always possible so to treat these       
things2 but only at the cost of standing
 lower in the scale of being4  ,but we  
have one step further to take4 ,for as  
the spiritual faculty is the recipient  
directly or indirectly of that original 
revelation which ,god has made of       
,himself to ,his rational creatures1 so 
too this appears to be the only faculty 
which can take cognizance of any fresh  
revelation that it might please ,him to 
make4 ,if ,he commands still further    
duties than those commanded by the      
supreme ,moral ,law1 if ,he bids us     
believe what our reason cannot deduce   
from the primal belief in that ,law and 
in ,himself1 it is to that faculty that 
the command is issued4 ,if over and     
above the original religion as we may   
call it there is a revealed religion1 it
 is the spiritual faculty that can alone
 accept it4 ,such a revelation may be   

confirmed by signs or proofs in the     
world of phenomena4 ,he who is absolute 
over all nature may compel nature to    
bear witness to ,his teaching4 ,the     
spiritual may burst through the natural 
on occasion1 and that supremacy1 which  
underlies all nature and which is       
necessarily visible to intelligences    
that are capable of seeing things as    
they are in themselves1 may force itself
 into the world of phenomena and show   
itself in that manner to us4 ,but this  
always is and must be secondary4 ,the   
spiritual faculty alone can receive and 
judge of spiritual truth1 and if that   
faculty be not reached a truly religious
 belief is not yet attained4  ,external 
evidences of revealed religion must have
 a high place but cannot have the       
highest4 ,a revealed religion must      
depend for its permanent hold on our    
obedience and our duty on its fastening 
upon our spiritual nature1 and if it    
cannot do that no evidences can maintain
 it in its place4  ,this account of the 

fundamental beliefs of ,religion when   
compared with the fundamental postulates
 of ,science shows that the two begin   
with the same part of our nature but    
proceed by opposite methods4 ,both begin
 with the human will as possessing a    
permanent identity and exerting a force 
of its own4 ,but from this point they   
separate4 ,science rests on phenomena   
observed by the senses2 ,religion on the
 voice that speaks directly from the    
other world4 ,science postulates        
uniformity and is excluded wherever     
uniformity can be denied1 but compels   
conviction within the range of its own  
postulate4 ,religion demands the        
submission of a free conscience1 and    
uses no compulsion but that imposed by  
its own inherent dignity4 ,science gives
 warnings1 and if you are capable of    
understanding scientific argument1 you  
will be incapable of disbelieving the   
warnings4 ,certain things will poison   
you2 certain neglects will ruin your    
health2 disregard of scientific         

construction will bring your roof down  
on your head2 to enter a burning        
building will risk your life2 some of   
these things you may learn by ordinary  
experience1 some of them by that        
combination of experience which is      
called ,science4 ,but if you are capable
 of the necessary reasoning you cannot  
doubt1 however much you may wish to do  
so4 ,and yet to defy these warnings and 
take the inevitable consequences of that
 defiance may be your highest glory4    
,religion also gives warnings2 it       
assures you that the ,eternal ,moral    
,law is supreme2 that1 sooner or later1 
those who disobey will find their       
disobedience is exactly and justly      
punished2 that no appearance to the     
contrary presented by experience can be 
trusted4 ,but ,religion will not compel 
you to believe any more than ,science   
will compel you to obey4 ,disbelieve if 
you choose and ,religion will do nothing
 but perpetually repeat its warnings and
 add that your disbelief has lowered you

 in the scale of being4 ,so too ,science
 gives promises2 it promises1 to the    
race rather than to the individual1 life
 on easier conditions1 and of greater   
length2 fewer pains1 fewer diseases2    
perpetually increasing comforts2        
perpetually increasing power over       
nature4 ,and ,science is sure to keep   
the promises4 ,and yet we may refuse to 
accept the promises1 and it is          
conceivable that the refusal may be far 
nobler than the acceptance4 ,and        
,religion promises also4 ,it promises   
stainless purity in the soul2 and truth 
and justice and unfailing love2 and     
tenderness to every creature that can   
feel2 and a government of all that is   
under our dominion with a single eye to 
the service of ,god4 ,and we may refuse 
to believe these promises or to care    
whether they are kept or not4 ,but the  
refusal or pursuit of such aims as these
 determines our position in the judgment
 of the ,supreme and in the court of our
 own conscience4  ,god has made man in  

,his own image3 that is1 ,he has given  
man power to understand ,his works and  
to acknowledge ,himself4 ,and it is in  
acknowledging ,god that man finds       
himself divine4 ,he is a partaker of the
 divine nature in proportion as he      
recognises the ,supreme ,law and makes  
it the law of his own will4 ,and        
therefore has his will been made free as
 well as his mind rational3 he has the  
power to choose as well as the power to 
know4 ,and our choice lays hold on ,god 
,himself and makes us one with ,him4    
,,lecture ,,iii4   ,,apparent ,,conflict
 ,,between ,,science ,,and ,,religion   
,,on ,,free-,,will4  ,contradiction of  
,free-,will to doctrine of ,uniformity4 
,butler's examination of the question4  
,hume's solution4 ,kant's solution4     
,determinism4 ,the real result of       
examination of the facts4 ,interference 
of the will always possible1 but        
comparatively rare4 ,the need of a fixed
 nature for our self-discipline1 and so 
for our spiritual life4     ,,lecture   

,,iii4   ,,apparent ,,conflict ,,between
 ,,science ,,and ,,religion ,,on        
,,free-,,will4       ',so ,god created  
man in ,his own image1 in the image of  
,god created      ,he him4' ,genesis i4 
#bg4  ,religion and ,science both begin 
with the human will4 ,the will is to    
,science the first example of power1 the
 origin of the conception of cause2 the 
bodily effort made by the will lies at  
the root of the conception of force4 ,it
 is by comparing other forces with that 
force that ,science begins its march4   
,and the will is to religion the        
recipient of the ,divine command4 ,to   
the will the inner voice addresses      
itself1 bidding it act and believe4 ,it 
is because we have a will that we are   
responsible4 ,in a world in which there 
were no creatures endowed with a will1  
there could be no right-doing or        
wrong-doing2 no approval by conscience  
and no disapproval2 no duty and no      
faith4  ,here is the first possibility  
of collision between ,science and       

,religion4 ,science postulates          
uniformity2 ,religion postulates        
liberty4 ,science cannot ever hope to   
reduce all phenomena to unity if a whole
 class of phenomena1 all those that     
belong to the action of human will1 are 
to be excluded from the postulate of    
invariable sequence4 ,the action of the 
will is in this case for ever left      
outside4 ,the evidence for the absolute 
uniformity of nature seems to be shaken1
 when it is found that there is so      
important a part of phenomena to which  
this law of uniformity cannot be        
applied4 ,if a human will can thus      
interfere with the law of uniformity1   
there enters the possibility that behind
 some phenomena may lurk the            
interference of some other will4        
,religion1 on the other hand1 tells     
every man that he is responsible1 and   
how can he be responsible if he is not  
free8 ,if his action be determined by   
something which is not himself1 how can 
the moral burden of it be put on him8   

,to tell a man that he is to answer for 
it if he does something which he is     
tempted to do1 is unmeaning1 if he has  
no power to prevent himself from doing  
it4  ,but this is not all4 ,for besides 
the sense of responsibility we have a   
direct consciousness of being free1 a   
consciousness which no reasoning appears
 to extinguish4 ,we sharply distinguish 
between that which goes on within us in 
regard to which we are free and that in 
regard to which we are not free4 ,we    
cannot help being angry1 but we can     
control our anger4 ,we cannot help our  
wishes1 but we can restrain our         
indulgence or our pursuit of them4 ,we  
cannot directly determine our           
affections1 but we can cherish or       
discourage them4 ,there are extreme     
cases in which our wills seem powerless1
 but even here we are conscious of our  
power to struggle for self-assertion and
 self-control4 ,there is very much in us
 which is not free2 nay1 there is much  
in us which impels us to action which is

 not free4 ,but we never confound this  
with our wills1 and when our wills are  
overpowered by passion or appetite1 we  
call the act no longer a perfectly free 
act1 and do not consider the            
responsibility for it to be quite the   
same4  ,this question of the freedom of 
the will was considered by ,bishop      
,butler in the ,analogy4 ,he contented  
himself with proving that1 make what    
theory we would concerning the necessity
 of human action1 all men in practice   
acted on the theory of human freedom4   
,we promise2 we accept promises2 we     
punish2 we reward2 we estimate          
character2 we admire2 we shun2 we deal  
with ourselves2 we deal with others2 as 
if we and all others were free4 ,and    
this was enough for his purpose4 ,for he
 had to reconcile a ,divine system of   
rewards and punishments with our sense  
of justice4 ,and if he could show1 as he
 did1 that rewards and punishments were 
plainly not inconsistent with that sense
 of justice in our dealings with one    

another1 it was impossible to call them 
inconsistent with that sense of justice 
in ,god's dealings with us4  ,but the   
purpose of these ,lectures requires     
something more1 and that for two        
reasons4 ,for1 in the first place1 the  
doctrine of necessity was most often in 
,bishop ,butler's days derived from a   
conception of a ,divine foreknowledge   
arranging everything by supreme ,will1  
not from the conception of a blind      
mechanical rule holding all in its      
unrelaxing grasp4 ,and though to the    
cold reason it may make no difference   
how the will is bound1 yet to the moral 
sentiment the two kinds of compulsion   
differ as life and death4 ,to have no   
liberty because of being absolutely in  
the hands of ,almighty ,god is quite    
another thing from having no liberty1 as
 being under the dominion of a dead iron
 rule4 ,it seems possible to accept the 
one and call it an unfathomable mystery2
 but to accept the other is to call life
 a delusion and the moral law a dream4  

,and in the second place1 the doctrine  
of necessity advanced as a theory and   
based on arguments not resting on facts1
 is a very different antagonist from the
 same doctrine advanced as a conclusion 
of science1 and as deducible from a mass
 of co-ordinated observations4 ,we may  
dismiss the mere theory after showing   
that it has not substance enough to hold
 its ground in ordinary life4 ,we cannot
 so treat what claims to be a scientific
 inference4  ,the modern examination of 
the question begins with ,hume1 who     
maintains that the doctrine of liberty  
and that of necessity are both true and 
of course compatible with each other4   
,but his arguments touch only the broad 
question whether they are true for      
practical purposes1 not whether either  
is true in the strict sense and without 
exception or modification4 ,to ,kant's  
system1 on the contrary1 it was         
essential that both doctrines should be 
true in the strictest sense4 ,holding   
that invariable sequence was a law of   

,nature known independently of          
experience and applicable to all        
phenomena in the minutest detail1 he    
could not allow that any act of the     
human will lay outside the range of this
 law4 ,such an act being a phenomenon   
must1 in his view1 be subject to the law
 which the constitution of our minds    
imposed on all phenomena apparent to us4
 ,and yet1 on the other hand1 holding   
that the eternal ,moral ,law made us    
responsible for all our acts1 he could  
not but maintain that in the doing of   
those acts we must be free4 ,his mode of
 reconciling the two opposites amounted 
to this1 that our action throughout life
 considered as a whole is free1 but that
 each separate act considered by itself 
is bound to the preceding acts by the   
law of invariable sequence4 ,we may     
illustrate this by the familiar instance
 of a prism acting on a ray of light4   
,the ray has or may have a colour of its
 own before it passes through the prism4
 ,the prism spreads it out and shows a  

series of colours4 ,the order in which  
this series is arranged is determined by
 the character of the prism acting on   
the nature of the ray4 ,the colours when
 combined give the colour of the ray2   
when separated by the prism each has its
 own distinct character1 and the order  
of the colours is determined1 and       
invariably determined1 by the prism4 ,so
 too in ,kant's view the character of a 
man in itself may be free1 but when it  
passes through the prism of time into   
the world of phenomena and is spread    
over many years it shows a number of    
separate actions1 no one of which taken 
by itself exhibits the man1 though all  
put together are the true representation
 of him to human perception4 ,the man is
 free4 ,his life represents his free    
choice4 ,but his separate acts are what 
that free choice becomes when translated
 into a series of phenomena1 and are    
bound each to the preceding by the law  
of invariable sequence4 ,it is plain at 
once that this does not satisfy our     

consciousness4 ,we are not conscious of 
freedom as regards our life as a whole2 
we are conscious of freedom as regards  
our separate actions4 ,our life as a    
whole embraces our past which is        
absolutely unchangeable1 and our future 
which is not yet within our reach2 we   
are conscious of no present power over  
either4 ,our separate acts are          
perceptibly subject to our own control2 
nay1 it is by the use of our free-will  
in our separate acts that we are able to
 change the character of our life or to 
preserve it from change2 and with this  
corresponds our responsibility4 ,we hold
 ourselves responsible for each act as  
it is done2 we hold ourselves           
responsible for the character of our    
lives only so far as we might have      
changed it by our acts4 ,the solution   
leaves the difficulty where it was4  ,it
 is now customary with the advocates of 
the doctrine of necessity to express it 
by a different word1 and call it the    
doctrine of determinism4 ,the purpose of

 changing the word is to get rid of all 
associations with the idea of           
compulsion2 just so in ,science it is   
thought better to get rid of the words  
cause and effect1 and substitute        
invariable sequence1 in order to get rid
 of the notion of some compulsion       
recognisable by us in the cause to      
produce the effect4 ,determinism does   
not say to a man 'you will be forced to 
act in a particular way2' but 'you will 
assuredly do so4' ,there will be no     
compulsion2 but the action is absolutely
 certain4 ,just as on a given day the   
moon will eclipse the sun1 so in given  
circumstances you will do the precise   
thing which it is your character in such
 circumstances to do4 ,and your sense of
 freedom is simply the sense that the   
action proceeds from yourself and not   
from any force put upon you from        
without4  ,but this too does not solve  
the problem4 ,it is true that in regard 
to a very large proportion of our       
actions the sense of freedom seems to be

 no more than negative4 ,we do what it  
is our custom1 our inclination1 our     
character to do4 ,we are not conscious  
of any force being put upon us2 but     
neither are we conscious of using any   
force ourselves4 ,we float as it were   
down the stream1 or hurry along with a  
determined aim1 but having no desire nor
 purpose to the contrary1 the question  
of freedom or necessity never seems to  
arise4 ,it is even possible and common  
for us not to know ourselves as well as 
others know us1 and to do many things   
which an observer would predict as sure 
to be our actions1 but which we         
ourselves fancy to be by no means       
certain4 ,even in these cases we        
sometimes awake to the fact that what we
 are thus allowing in our lives is not  
consistent with the law of duty1 and1 do
 what we may1 we cannot then escape the 
conviction that we are to blame1 and    
that we had power to act otherwise if   
only we had chosen to exert the power4  
,but it is when a conflict arises       

between duty and inclination that our   
inner certainty of our own freedom of   
will becomes clear and unconquerable4   
,in the great conflicts of the soul     
between the call of duty and the power  
of temptation there are two forces at   
work upon us4 ,we are never for a moment
 in doubt which is ourselves and which  
is not ourselves2 which is the free     
agent and which is the blind force2     
which is responsible for the issue1 and 
which is incapable of responsibility4   
,there is in this case a real sense of  
compulsion from without1 and a real     
sense of resistance to that compulsion  
from within4 ,it is impossible in this  
case to account for the sense of being a
 free agent1 by saying that this merely 
means that we are conscious of no       
external force4 ,we are conscious of an 
external force and we are conscious that
 this will of ours which struggles      
against it is not an external force1 but
 our very selves1 and this distinction  
between the will and the forces against 

which the will is striving is           
ineffaceable from our minds4 ,that the  
will is often weak and on that account  
overpowered1 and that after a hard      
struggle our actions are often          
determined1 not by our wills but by our 
passions or our appetites1 is           
unquestionable4 ,often has the believer 
to pray to ,god for strength to hold    
fast to right purpose1 and often will he
 feel that without that strength he must
 inevitably fall4 ,but he knows that    
whatever source may supply the strength1
 it is he that will have to use it1 and 
he that will be responsible for using it
 or neglecting to do so4  ,the advocates
 of determinism urge that every action  
must have a motive1 and that the man    
always acts on that motive which is the 
stronger4 ,the first proposition may be 
granted at once4 ,the freedom of the    
will is certainly not shown in acting   
without any motive at all4 ,if there be 
any human action which appears to be    
without any motive1 it is not in such   

action that we find human freedom4 ,such
 action1 if possible at all1 must       
inevitably be mechanical4 ,a man who is 
acting from mere caprice is even more   
completely at the mercy of passing      
inclination than one who is acting from 
passion or from overpowering temptation4
 ,the freedom of the will is not shown  
in acting without motive1 but in        
choosing between motives4 ,but when it  
is further said that a man always acts  
from the stronger motive1 the question  
immediately follows1 what determines    
which is the stronger motive8 ,it cannot
 be anything in the motives themselves1 
or all men would act alike in the same  
circumstances2 and it is clear that they
 do not4 ,it must be therefore something
 in the man4 ,and if it be something in 
the man1 it must be either his will     
acting at the moment1 which in that case
 is free1 or his character4 ,but if it  
be his character1 then follows the      
further question1 what determines his   
character8 ,if we are to maintain the   

uniformity of nature1 we must answer by 
assigning the determination to the sum  
total of surrounding and preceding      
circumstances4 ,nothing will satisfy    
that law of uniformity but this2 that1  
given such and such parents1 such and   
such circumstances of birth and life1   
there must be such a character and no   
other4 ,at what point is there room in  
this case for any responsibility8 ,i did
 not on this supposition make my        
character2 it was made for me2 any one  
else born in my stead1 and living in my 
stead1 would of necessity have acted    
exactly as ,i have done2 would have felt
 the same1 and aimed at the same1 and   
won the same moral victories1 and       
suffered the same moral defeats4 ,how   
can ,i be held responsible for what is  
the pure result of the circumstances in 
which ,i was born8 ,but if1 on the other
 hand1 it be said that our character is 
not the mere fruit of our antecedents   
and surroundings1 the law of uniformity 
is clearly broken4 ,a new element has   

come into the world1 namely1 my         
character1 which has not come out of the
 antecedents and surroundings according 
to any fixed law4 ,the antecedents and  
surroundings might have been quite the  
same for any one else1 and yet ,i should
 have my character and he his1 and our  
lives would have altogether differed4   
,it is clear that determinism does not  
get us out of the difficulty4 ,here1    
too1 as in regard to the necessary      
truths of mathematics1 and in regard to 
the relativity of all our knowledge1 the
 theory has purchased completeness by   
the cheap expedient of calling one of   
the facts to be accounted for a         
delusion4 ,such a solution cannot be    
accepted4 ,in spite of all attempts to  
explain it away1 the fact that we think 
ourselves free and hold ourselves       
responsible remains1 and remains        
unaffected4  ,but let us examine how far
 the difference between the scientific  
view and the religious view of human    
action extends4  ,observation certainly 

shows that a very large proportion of   
human action1 much even of that which   
appears at first sight to be more       
especially independent of all law1 is   
really as much regulated by laws of     
nature as the movements of the planets4 
,i have already pointed out how often an
 observer can predict a man's actions   
better than the man himself1 and how    
often the will is certainly passive and 
consents instead of acting4 ,in these   
cases there is no reason whatever to    
deny that nature and not the will is    
producing the conduct4 ,and not only so1
 but that which seems most irregular1   
the kind of action that we call caprice1
 there is very often just as little     
reason to call free1 as to assign       
free-will as the cause of the           
uncertainties of the weather4 ,but it is
 not in observing individuals so much as
 in observing masses of men that we get 
convincing proof that men possess a     
common nature1 and that their conduct is
 largely regulated by the laws of that  

nature4 ,that amongst a given large     
number of men living on the whole in the
 same conditions from year to year1     
there should be every year a given      
number of suicides1 of murderers1 of    
thieves and criminals of various kinds1 
cannot be accounted for in any other way
 than by the hypothesis that like       
circumstances will produce like conduct4
 ,so1 too1 in this way only can we      
account for such a fact as the          
steadiness in the proportion of men who 
enter any given profession1 of men who  
quit their country for another1 of men  
who remain unmarried all their lives1 of
 men who enter a university1 of men who 
make any particular choice 7such as     
these7 which can be tested by figures4  
,now1 this argument is unanswerable as  
far as it goes2 but it succeeds1 like   
all the other arguments for the         
uniformity of nature1 in establishing   
the generality1 and not at all the      
universality of that uniformity4        
,indeed1 it falls far short of proving  

as much uniformity in human action as is
 proved in the action of inanimate      
things4 ,the induction which proves the 
uniformity of the laws of mechanics1 of 
chemistry1 of physics1 is so far greater
 than the induction which proves the    
uniformity of human conduct1 that it is 
hardly possible to put the two side by  
side4 ,when we turn from abstract       
arguments to facts1 the doctrine of     
necessity is unquestionably unproven4   
,and this agrees with the result of a   
careful examination of the facts of     
human consciousness from the opposite   
point of view4 ,we cannot but           
acknowledge that when we look very      
closely we find a very large proportion 
of our own actions to be by no means the
 result of an interference by the will4 
,a large proportion is due to custom2 a 
large proportion to inclination1 of     
which the will takes no special notice1 
and is not called on by the conscience  
to notice2 a large proportion to        
inclinations which we know that we ought

 to resist1 but we do not resist2 a much
 smaller proportion1 but still some1 to 
passions and appetites against which we 
have striven in vain2 only a very small 
proportion to deliberate choice4 ,there 
is1 in fact1 no irresistible reason for 
claiming freedom for human action except
 when that action turns on the question 
of right or wrong4 ,there is no reason  
to call action free that flows from     
inclination or custom1 or passion1 or a 
desire to avoid pain1 or a desire to    
obtain pleasure4 ,the will claims to be 
free in all these cases1 but it is free 
in the sense that it might be exerted2  
and so1 since it is not exerted1 the    
action is not free4 ,but when1 at the   
call of duty1 in whatever form1 the will
 directly interferes1 then and then only
 are we conscious not only that the will
 is free1 but that it has asserted its  
freedom1 and that the action has been   
free also4  ,the relation of the will to
 the conduct falls under four distinct  
heads3 for sometimes the will simply    

concurs with the inclination2 sometimes 
it neither concurs nor opposes2         
sometimes it opposes but is overpowered2
 sometimes it opposes and prevails4 ,in 
the first case1 inclination of some kind
 or other prompts the man to action4    
,the inclination1 whether set up by an  
external object of desire or by an      
internal impulse of restlessness or     
blind craving or the like1 comes clearly
 from the nature1 and is not free       
choice4 ,there is no reason to believe  
that it is not in most cases1 possibly  
in all cases1 under the dominion of     
fixed law4 ,it may be as completely the 
product of what has preceded it as the  
eclipse of the sun4 ,and if the will    
concurs in the inclination1 it is       
needless to discuss the question whether
 the will acts or not4 ,the conduct is  
the same whether the will adds force to 
the inclination or is simply passive4   
,the freedom of the will may in this    
case be considered as negative4 ,so1    
too1 may the freedom of the will be     

considered negative in the second case1 
which is that of the will neither       
concurring with inclination nor opposing
 it4 ,in this case there may be a       
distinct consciousness of freedom in the
 form of a sense of responsibility for  
what inclination is permitted to do4 ,a 
man in this case knows that he is free1 
perhaps knows that he ought to interfere
 and control the conduct4 ,but as he    
does not interfere1 the freedom of the  
will is not asserted in act4 ,and it is 
possible that1 as far as all external   
phenomena are concerned1 there may be no
 breach in uniformity of sequence4      
,this1 however1 can hardly be in the    
third case1 which is when the will and  
the inclination are opposed1 and the    
will is overpowered4 ,although the      
inclination prevails1 yet the struggle  
itself is an event of the most important
 kind1 and is sure to leave traces on   
the character1 and to be followed by    
consequences4 ,in this case we are      
distinctly conscious of a power to add  

force to that one of the contending     
opposites which is most identified with 
our very selves1 and we know whether we 
have added that force or not4 ,and not  
only may we add this force directly from
 within2 we may and we often do go      
outside of ourselves to seek for aids to
 add still more force indirectly1 and we
 do for this purpose what we should not 
do otherwise4 ,we dwell in thought on   
the higher aims which are the proper    
object of will2 we read what sets forth 
those higher aims in their full beauty2 
we seek the words1 the company1 the     
sympathy of men who will1 we are sure1  
encourage us in this the higher path4   
,and1 on the other hand1 we turn away   
from the temptation which gives strength
 to the evil inclination1 and if we     
cannot escape from its presence we      
endeavour to drive the thought of it    
from our minds4 ,all this action is not 
for the sake of anything thus done1 but 
for the sake of its indirect effect on  
the struggle in which we are engaged4   

,whenever there is a struggle1 we are   
not only conscious that the will is     
free1 but that it is asserting its      
freedom4 ,in these struggles there is   
not a mere contest between two          
inclinations4 ,we are distinctly        
conscious that one of the combatants is 
our very selves in a sense in which the 
other is not4 ,but1 nevertheless1 when  
all has been said1 it still remains in  
this case that the will is beaten and   
inclination prevails1 and the conduct in
 the main is determined by the          
inclination1 which is under the dominion
 of the law of uniformity1 and not by   
the will1 which claims to be free4 ,the 
fourth case in which the will prevails  
may1 of course1 make a momentous breach 
in the uniformity of sequence of the    
conduct4 ,but in far the largest number 
of cases the struggle is very slight1   
and the difference between the will and 
the inclination is not1 taken alone1 of 
grave importance in the life4 ,and in   
those instances in which the struggle is

 severe and the resulting change is     
great1 it is very often the case that   
the way has been prepared1 as it were in
 secret1 by the quiet accumulation of   
hidden forces of the strictly natural   
order ready to burst forth when the fit 
opportunity came4 ,in the great         
conversions which have sometimes seemed 
by their suddenness and completeness to 
defy all possibility of reduction to    
natural law1 there are often            
nevertheless tokens of deep             
dissatisfaction with the previous life  
having swelled up slowly within the soul
 for some time1 even for some long time 
beforehand4 ,the inclination to go on in
 evil courses has been broken down at   
last1 not merely by the action of the   
will1 but by the working of the         
machinery of the soul4  ,to this it must
 be added that the action of the will is
 such that it very often happens that1  
having been exerted once1 it need not be
 exerted again for the same purpose4 ,a 
custom is broken down1 an exceedingly   

strong temptation has been overpowered1 
and its strength so destroyed that its  
return is without effect4 ,or sometimes 
the act of the will takes the form of   
deliberately so arranging the           
circumstances of life that a dreaded    
temptation cannot return1 or if it      
return cannot prevail2 the right eye has
 been plucked out1 the right hand cut   
off1 and the sin cannot be committed    
even if desired4 ,while therefore the   
will is always free1 the actual         
interference of the will with the life  
is not so frequent as to interfere with 
the broad general rule that the course  
of human conduct is practically uniform4
 ,in fact the will1 though always free1 
only asserts its freedom by obeying duty
 in spite of inclination1 by            
disregarding the uniformity of nature in
 order to maintain the higher uniformity
 of the ,moral ,law4 ,the freedom of the
 human will is but the assertion in     
particular of that universal supremacy  
of the moral over the physical in the   

last resort1 which is an essential part 
of the very essence of the ,moral ,law4 
,the freedom of the will is the ,moral  
,law breaking into the world of         
phenomena1 and thus behind the free-will
 of man stands the power of ,god4  ,when
 the real claim of the will for freedom 
has been clearly seized by the mind1 it 
becomes apparent that there is no real  
collision between what ,science asserts 
and what ,religion requires us to       
believe4 ,science asserts that there is 
evidence to show that an exceedingly    
large proportion of human action is     
governed by fixed law4 ,religion        
requires us to believe that the will is 
responsible for all this action1 not    
because it does1 but because it might   
interfere4 ,science is not able1 and    
from the nature of the case never will  
be able to prove that the range of this 
fixed law is universal1 and that the    
will never does interfere to vary the   
actions from what without the will they 
would have been4 ,science will never be 

able to prove this1 because it could not
 be proved except by a universal        
induction1 and a universal induction is 
impossible4 ,at present there is no     
approximation to such proof4 ,religion1 
on the other hand1 does not call on us  
to believe that the will often          
interferes1 but on the contrary is      
perpetually telling us that it does not 
interfere as often as it ought4         
,revealed religion1 indeed1 has always  
based its most earnest exhortations on  
the reluctance of man to set his will to
 the difficult task of contending with  
the forces of his nature1 and on the    
weakness of the will in the presence of 
those forces4  ,and when we pursue this 
thought further we see that for such    
creatures as we are the subjection of a 
large part of our own nature to fixed   
laws is as necessary for our dominion   
over ourselves as the fixity of external
 nature is necessary for our dominion   
over the world around us4 ,the fixity of
 a large part of our nature--nay1 of all

 but the whole of it--is a moral and    
spiritual necessity4 ,for it requires   
but a superficial self-examination to   
discern the indications of what the     
profoundest research still leaves a     
mystery--that we are not perfect        
creatures of our own kind--that our     
nature does not spontaneously conform to
 the ,supreme ,moral ,law--that our     
highest and best consists not in        
complete obedience to which we cannot   
attain1 but in a perpetual upward       
struggle4 ,now such a struggle demands  
for its indispensable condition         
something fixed in our nature by which  
each step upwards shall be made good as 
it is taken1 and afford a firm footing  
for the next ascent4 ,if there were     
nothing in us fixed and firm1 if the    
warfare with evil impulses1 wayward     
affections1 overmastering appetites had 
to be carried on through life without   
the possibility of making any victory   
complete1 the formation of a perpetually
 higher and nobler character would be   

impossible2 our main hope in this life1 
our best offering to ,god would be taken
 away from us2 we could never give our  
bodies to be a living sacrifice1 holy1  
acceptable to ,god2 we could give our   
separate acts but not ourselves1 for we 
should be utterly unable to form        
ourselves into fitness for such a       
purpose4 ,the task given to the will is 
not only to govern the actions but to   
discipline the nature2 but discipline is
 impossible where there is no fixity in 
the thing to be disciplined4  ,and this 
becomes still more important when we    
search more deeply and perceive that not
 the nature only but the will itself is 
in some strange way infected with evil4 
,we can hardly imagine even a perfectly 
pure will capable of continuing to the  
end a conflict in which no progress ever
 was or could be made4 ,the tremendous  
strain of fighting with an enemy that   
might be defeated again and again for   
ever without ever suffering any change  
or relaxing the violence of any attack  

or giving the slightest hope of any     
relief1 would seem too much for the most
 unearthly1 the most noble1 the most    
godlike of human wills4 ,but wills such 
as ours1 penetrated with weakness1      
perhaps with treachery to their own best
 aspirations1 how utterly impossible    
that they could persevere through such a
 hopeless conflict4  ,it is the         
sustaining hope of the ,christian that  
he shall be changed from glory to glory 
into the image or likeness of ,his      
,lord1 and that when all is over for    
this life he shall be indeed like ,him  
and see ,him as ,he is4 ,but that hope  
is never presented as one to be realized
 by some sudden stroke fashioning the   
soul anew and moulding it at once into  
heavenly lineaments4 ,it is by steady   
and sure degrees that the ,christian    
believes that he shall be thus blessed4 
,and this progress rests on the fixed   
rules by which his nature is governed1  
and which admit of the character being  
gradually changed by the life4 ,the     

,christian knows that ,god has so made  
us that a temptation once overcome is   
permanently weakened1 and often overcome
 is at last altogether expelled2 that   
appetites restrained are in the end     
subdued and cost but little effort to   
keep down2 that bad thoughts perpetually
 put aside at last return no more2 that 
a clearer perception of duty and a more 
resolute obedience to its call makes    
duty itself more attractive1 fills us   
with enthusiasm for its fulfilment1     
draws us as it were upwards1 and        
ennobles the whole man4 ,the ,christian 
knows that the thought of the ,supreme  
,being1 the contemplation of ,his       
excellency1 the recognition of ,him as  
the source of spiritual life has a      
strange power to transform1 and evermore
 to transform the whole man4 ,in this   
knowledge the ,christian lives his life 
and fights his battle4 ,and what is this
 but a knowledge that he has a nature   
subject to fixed laws1 which he can     
indeed interfere with1 but without which

 his self-discipline would be of little 
value1 and assuredly could not long     
continue4  ,and if the progress of      
,science and the examination of human   
nature should eventually restrict more  
closely than we might have supposed the 
length to which the interference of the 
will can go2 if it should appear that   
the changes which we can make at any one
 moment in ourselves are within a very  
narrow range1 this1 too1 will be        
knowledge that can be used in our       
self-discipline and quite as much       
perhaps in our mutual moral aid4 ,it is 
conceivable that the branch of science  
which treats of human nature may in the 
end profoundly modify our modes of      
education1 and our hopes of what can be 
effected by it4 ,but if so the knowledge
 will only add to the store of means put
 within our reach for the elevation of  
our race4 ,and we may be sure that      
nothing of this sort will really affect 
the revelation that ,god has written in 
our souls that we are free and          

responsible beings1 and cannot get quit 
of our responsibility4     ,,lecture    
,,iv4   ,,apparent ,,conflict ,,between 
,,religion ,,and ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of  
,,evolution4  ,foundation of the        
doctrine of ,evolution4 ,great          
development in recent times4 ,objection 
felt by many religious men4 ,alleged to 
destroy argument from design4 ,paley's  
argument examined4 ,doctrine of         
,evolution adds force to the argument1  
and removes objections to it4 ,argument 
from progress2 from beauty2 from unity4 
,the conflict not real4     ,,lecture   
,,iv4   ,,apparent ,,conflict ,,between 
,,religion ,,and ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of  
,,evolution4       ',for the invisible  
things of ,him from the creation of the 
world are      clearly seen1 being      
understood by the things that are made1 
even      ,his eternal power and        
,godhead4' ,romans i4 #bj4  ,the        
regularity of nature is the first       
postulate of ,science2 but it requires  
the very slightest observation to show  

us that1 along with this regularity1    
there exists a vast irregularity which  
,science can only deal with by exclusion
 from its province4 ,the world as we see
 it is full of changes2 and these       
changes when patiently and perseveringly
 examined are found to be subject to    
invariable or almost invariable laws4   
,but the things themselves which thus   
change are as multifarious as the       
changes which they undergo4 ,they vary  
infinitely in quantity1 in qualities1 in
 arrangement throughout space1 possibly 
in arrangement throughout time4 ,take a 
single substance such1 say1 as gold4    
,how much gold there is in the whole    
universe1 and where it is situated1 we  
not only have no knowledge1 but can     
hardly be said to be on the way to have 
knowledge4 ,why its qualities are what  
they are1 and why it alone possesses all
 these qualities2 how long it has       
existed1 and how long it will continue  
to exist1 these questions we are unable 
to answer4 ,the existence of the many   

forms of matter1 the properties of each 
form1 the distribution of each3 all this
 ,science must in the last resort       
assume4  ,but ,i say in the last resort4
 ,for it is possible1 and ,science soon 
makes it evident that it is true1 that  
some forms of matter grow out of other  
forms4 ,there are endless combinations4 
,and the growth of new out of old forms 
is of necessity a sequence1 and falls   
under the law of invariability of       
sequences1 and becomes the              
subject-matter of ,science4 ,as in each 
separate case ,science asserts each     
event of to-day to have followed by a   
law of invariable sequence on the events
 of yesterday2 the earth has reached the
 precise point in its orbit now which   
was determined by the law of gravitation
 as applied to its motion at the point  
which it reached a moment ago2 the      
weather of the present hour has come by 
meteorological laws out of the weather  
of the last hour2 the crops and the     
flocks now found on the surface of the  

habitable earth are the necessary       
outcome of preceding harvests and       
preceding flocks and of all that has    
been done to maintain and increase them2
 so1 too1 if we look at the universe as 
a whole1 the present condition of that  
whole is1 if the scientific postulate of
 invariable sequence be admitted1 and in
 as far as it is admitted1 the necessary
 outcome of its former condition2 and   
all the various forms of matter1 whether
 living or inanimate1 must for the same 
reason and with the same limitation be  
the necessary outcome of preceding forms
 of matter4 ,this is the foundation of  
the doctrine of ,evolution4  ,now stated
 in this abstract form this doctrine    
will be1 and indeed if ,science be      
admitted at all must be1 accepted by    
everybody4 ,even the ,roman ,church1    
which holds that ,god is perpetually    
interfering with the course of nature1  
either in the interests of religious    
truth or out of loving kindness to ,his 
creatures1 yet will acknowledge that the

 number of such interferences almost    
disappears in comparison of the         
countless millions of instances in which
 there is no reason to believe in any   
interference at all4 ,and if we look at 
the universe as a whole1 the general    
proposition as stated above is quite    
unaffected by the infinitesimal         
exception which is to be made by a      
believer in frequent miracles4 ,but when
 this proposition is applied in detail  
it at once introduces the possibility of
 an entirely new history of the material
 universe4 ,for this universe as we see 
it is almost entirely made up of        
composite and not of simple substances4 
,we have been able to analyse all the   
substances that we know into a          
comparatively small number of simple    
elements--some usually solid1 some      
liquid1 some gaseous4 ,but these simple 
elements are rarely found uncombined    
with others2 most of those which we meet
 with in a pure state have been taken   
out of combination and reduced to       

simplicity by human agency4 ,the various
 metals that we ordinarily use are      
mostly found in a state of ore1 and we  
do not generally obtain them pure except
 by smelting4 ,the air we breathe1      
though not a compound1 is a mixture4    
,the water which is essential to our    
life is a compound4 ,and1 if we pass    
from inorganic to organic substances1   
all vegetables and animals are compound1
 sustained by various articles of food  
which go to make up their frames4 ,now1 
how have these compounds been formed8   
,it is quite possible that some of them1
 or all of them to some extent1 may have
 been formed from the first4 ,if        
,science could go back to the beginning 
of all things1 which it obviously       
cannot1 it might find the composition   
already accomplished1 and be compelled  
to start with it as a given fact--a fact
 as incapable of scientific explanation 
as the existence of matter at all4 ,but1
 on the other hand1 composition and     
decomposition is a matter of every-day  

experience4 ,our very food could not    
nourish us except by passing through    
these processes in our bodies2 and by   
the same processes we prepare much of   
our food before consuming it4 ,may not  
,science go back to the time when these 
processes had not yet begun8 ,may not   
the starting-point of the history of the
 universe be a condition in which the   
simple elements were still uncombined8  
,if ,science could go back to the       
beginning of all things1 might we not   
find all the elements of material things
 ready indeed for the action of the     
inherent forces which would presently   
unite them in an infinite variety of    
combinations1 but as yet still separate 
from each other8 ,scattered through     
enormous regions of space1 but drawn    
together by the force of gravitation2   
their original heat1 whatever it may    
have been1 increased by their mutual    
collision2 made to act chemically on one
 another by such increase or by         
subsequent decrease of temperature2     

perpetually approaching nearer to the   
forms into which1 by the incessant      
action of the same forces1 the present  
universe has grown2 these elements1 and 
the working of the several laws of their
 own proper nature1 may be enough to    
account scientifically for all the      
phenomena that we observe4 ,we do not   
even then get back to regularity4 ,why  
these elements1 and no others2 why in   
these precise quantities2 why so        
distributed in space2 why endowed with  
these properties3 still are questions   
which ,science cannot answer1 and there 
seems no reason to expect that any      
scientific answer will ever be possible4
 ,nay1 ,i know not whether it may not be
 asserted that the impossibility of     
answering one at least among these      
questions is capable of demonstration4  
,for the whole system of things1 as far 
as we know it1 depends on the perpetual 
rotation of the heavenly bodies2 and    
without original irregularity in the    
distribution of matter no motion of     

rotation could ever have spontaneously  
arisen4 ,and if this irregularity be    
thus original1 ,science can give no     
account of it4 ,science1 therefore1 will
 have to begin with assuming certain    
facts for which it can never hope to    
account4 ,but it may begin by assuming  
that1 speaking roughly1 the universe was
 always very much what we see it now1   
and that composition and decomposition  
have always nearly balanced each other1 
and that there have been from the       
beginning the same sun and moon and     
planets and stars in the sky1 the same  
animals on the earth and in the seas1   
the same vegetation1 the same minerals2 
and that though there have been         
incessant changes1 and possibly all     
these changes in one general direction1 
yet these changes have never amounted to
 what would furnish a scientific        
explanation of the forms which matter   
has assumed4 ,or1 on the other hand1    
,science may assert the possibility of  
going back to a far earlier condition of

 our material system2 may assert that   
all the forms of matter have grown up   
under the action of laws and forces     
still at work2 may take as the initial  
state of our universe one or many       
enormous clouds of gaseous matter1 and  
endeavour to trace with more or less    
exactness how these gradually formed    
themselves into what we see4 ,science   
has lately leaned to the latter         
alternative4 ,to a believer the         
alternative may be stated thus3 ,we all 
distinguish between the original        
creation of the material world and the  
history of it ever since4 ,and we have1 
nay all men have1 been accustomed to    
assign to the original creation a great 
deal that ,science is now disposed to   
assign to the history4 ,but the         
distinction between the original        
creation and the subsequent history     
would still remain1 and for ever remain1
 although the portion assigned to the   
one may be less1 and that assigned to   
the other larger1 than was formerly     

supposed4 ,however far back ,science may
 be able to push its beginning1 there   
still must lie behind that beginning the
 original act of creation--creation not 
of matter only1 but of the various kinds
 of matter1 and of the laws governing   
all and each of those kinds1 and of the 
distribution of this matter in space4   
,this application of the abstract       
doctrine of ,evolution gives it an      
enormous and startling expansion3 so    
enormous and so startling that the      
doctrine itself seems absolutely new4   
,to say that the present grows by       
regular law out of the past is one      
thing2 to say that it has grown out of a
 distant past in which as yet the       
present forms of life upon the earth1   
the present vegetation1 the seas and    
islands and continents1 the very planet 
itself1 the sun and moon1 were not yet  
made--and all this also by regular      
law--that is quite another thing4 ,and  
the bearings of this new application of 
,science deserve study4  ,now it seems  

quite plain that this doctrine of       
,evolution is in no sense whatever      
antagonistic to the teachings of        
,religion1 though it may be1 and that we
 shall have to consider afterwards1 to  
the teachings of revelation4 ,why then  
should religious men independently of   
its relation to revelation shrink from  
it1 as very many unquestionably do8 ,the
 reason is that1 whilst this doctrine   
leaves the truth of the existence and   
supremacy of ,god exactly where it was1 
it cuts away1 or appears to cut away1   
some of the main arguments for that     
truth4  ,now1 in regard to the arguments
 whereby we have been accustomed to     
prove or to corroborate the existence of
 a ,supreme ,being1 it is plain that1 to
 take these arguments away or to make it
 impossible to use them1 is not to      
disprove or take away the truth itself4 
,we find every day instances of men     
resting their faith in a truth on some  
grounds which we know to be untenable1  
and we see what a terrible trial it     

sometimes is when they find out that    
this is so1 and know not as yet on what 
other ground they are to take their     
stand4 ,and some men succumb in the     
trial and lose their faith together with
 the argument which has hitherto        
supported it4 ,but the truth still      
stands in spite of the failure of some  
to keep their belief in it1 and in spite
 of the impossibility of supporting it  
by the old arguments4  ,and when men    
have become accustomed to rest their    
belief on new grounds the loss of the   
old arguments is never found to be a    
very serious matter4 ,belief in         
revelation has been shaken again and    
again by this very increase of          
knowledge4 ,it was unquestionably a     
dreadful blow to many in the days of    
,galileo to find that the language of   
the ,bible in regard to the movement of 
the earth and sun was not scientifically
 correct4 ,it was a dreadful blow to    
many in the days of the ,reformation to 
find that they had been misled by what  

they believed to be an infallible       
,church4  ,such shocks to faith try the 
mettle of men's moral and spiritual     
conviction1 and they often refuse       
altogether to hold what they can no     
longer establish by the arguments which 
have hitherto been to them the decisive1
 perhaps the sole decisive1 proofs4     
,and yet in spite of these shocks belief
 in revelation is strong still in men's 
souls1 and is clearly not yet going to  
quit the world4  ,but let us go on to   
consider how far it is true that the    
arguments which have hitherto been      
regarded as proving the existence of a  
,supreme ,creator are really affected   
very gravely by this doctrine of        
,evolution4  ,the main argument1 which  
at first appears to be thus set aside1  
is that which is founded on the marks of
 design1 and which is worked out in his 
own way with marvellous skill by ,paley 
in his ,natural ,theology4 ,paley's     
argument rests as is well known on the  
evidence of design in created things1   

and these evidences he chiefly finds in 
the frame-work of organised living      
creatures4 ,he traces with much most    
interesting detail the many marvellous  
contrivances by which animals of various
 kinds are adapted to the circumstances 
in which they are to live1 the mechanism
 which enables them to obtain their     
food1 to preserve their species1 to     
escape their enemies1 to remove         
discomforts4 ,all nature thus examined1 
and particularly all animated nature1   
seems full of means towards ends1 and   
those ends invariably such as a         
beneficent ,creator might well be       
supposed to have in view4 ,and whilst   
there is undeniably one great objection 
to his whole argument1 namely that the  
,creator is represented as an ,artificer
 rather than a ,creator1 as overcoming  
difficulties which stood in ,his way    
rather than as an ,almighty ,being      
fashioning things according to ,his     
,will1 yet the argument thus drawn from 
evidence of design remains exceedingly  

powerful1 and it has always been        
considered a strong corroboration of the
 voice within which bids us believe in a
 ,god4 ,now it certainly seems at first 
as if this argument were altogether     
destroyed4 ,if animals were not made as 
we see them1 but evolved by natural law1
 still more if it appear that their     
wonderful adaptation to their           
surroundings is due to the influence of 
those surroundings1 it might seem as if 
we could no longer speak of design as   
exhibited in their various organs2 the  
organs we might say grow of themselves1 
some suitable1 and some unsuitable to   
the life of the creatures to which they 
belonged1 and the unsuitable have       
perished and the suitable have survived4
  ,but ,paley has supplied the clue to  
the answer4 ,in his well-known          
illustration of the watch picked up on  
the heath by the passing traveller1 he  
points out that the evidence of design  
is certainly not lessened if it be found
 that the watch was so constructed that1

 in course of time1 it produced another 
watch like itself4 ,he was thinking not 
of ,evolution1 but of the ordinary      
production of each generation of animals
 from the preceding4 ,but his answer can
 be pushed a step further1 and we may   
with equal justice remark that we should
 certainly not believe it a proof that  
the watch had come into existence       
without design if we found that it      
produced in course of time not merely   
another watch but a better4 ,it would   
become more marvellous than ever if we  
found provision thus made not merely for
 the continuance of the species but for 
the perpetual improvement of the        
species4 ,it is essential to animal life
 that the animal should be adapted to   
its circumstances2 if besides provision 
for such adaptation in each generation  
we find provision for still better      
adaptation in future generations1 how   
can it be said that the evidences of    
design are diminished8 ,or take any     
separate organ1 such as the eye4 ,it is 

impossible not to believe until it be   
disproved that the eye was intended to  
see with4 ,we cannot say that light was 
made for the eye1 because light         
subserves many other purposes besides   
that of enabling eyes to see4 ,but that 
the eye was intended for light there is 
so strong a presumption that it cannot  
easily be rebutted4 ,if indeed it could 
be shown that eyes fulfilled several    
other functions1 or that species of     
animals which always lived in the dark  
still had fully-formed eyes1 then we    
might say that the connexion between the
 eye of an animal and the light of      
heaven was accidental4 ,but the contrary
 is notoriously the case2 so much the   
case that some philosophers have        
maintained that the eye was formed by   
the need for seeing1 a statement which  
,i need take no trouble to refute1 just 
as those who make it take no trouble to 
establish1 ,i will not say its truth1   
but even its possibility4 ,but the fact1
 if it be a fact1 that the eye was not  

originally as well adapted to see with  
as it is now1 and that the power of     
perceiving light and of things in the   
light grew by degrees1 does not show1   
nor even tend to show1 that the eye was 
not intended for seeing with4  ,the fact
 is that the doctrine of ,evolution does
 not affect the substance of ,paley's   
argument at all4 ,the marks of design   
which he has pointed out remain marks of
 design still even if we accept the     
doctrine of ,evolution to the full4     
,what is touched by this doctrine is not
 the evidence of design but the mode in 
which the design was executed4 ,paley1  
no doubt1 wrote on the supposition 7and 
at that time it was hardly possible to  
admit any other supposition7 that we    
must take animals to have come into     
existence very nearly such as we now    
know them3 and his language1 on the     
whole1 was adapted to that supposition4 
,but the language would rather need     
supplementing than changing to make it  
applicable to the supposition that      

animals were formed by ,evolution4 ,in  
the one case the execution follows the  
design by the effect of a direct act of 
creation2 in the other case the design  
is worked out by a slow process4 ,in the
 one case the ,creator made the animals 
at once such as they now are2 in the    
other case ,he impressed on certain     
particles of matter which1 either at the
 beginning or at some point in the      
history of ,his creation ,he endowed    
with life1 such inherent powers that in 
the ordinary course of time living      
creatures such as the present were      
developed4 ,the creative power remains  
the same in either case2 the design with
 which that creative power was exercised
 remains the same4 ,he did not make the 
things1 we may say2 no1 but ,he made    
them make themselves4 ,and surely this  
rather adds than withdraws force from   
the great argument4 ,it seems in itself 
something more majestic1 something more 
befitting ,him to ,whom a thousand years
 are as one day and one day as a        

thousand years1 thus to impress ,his    
,will once for all on ,his creation1 and
 provide for all its countless variety  
by this one original impress1 than by   
special acts of creation to be          
perpetually modifying what ,he had      
previously made4 ,it has often been     
objected to ,paley's argument1 as ,i    
remarked before1 that it represents the 
,almighty rather as an artificer than a 
creator1 a workman dealing with somewhat
 intractable materials and showing      
marvellous skill in overcoming          
difficulties rather than a beneficent   
,being making all things in accordance  
with the purposes of ,his love4 ,but    
this objection disappears when we put   
the argument into the shape which the   
doctrine of ,evolution demands and look 
on the ,almighty as creating the        
original elements of matter1 determining
 their number and their properties1     
creating the law of gravitation whereby 
as seems probable the worlds have been  
formed1 creating the various laws of    

chemical and physical action1 by which  
inorganic substances have been combined1
 creating above all the law of life1 the
 mysterious law which plainly contains  
such wonderful possibilities within     
itself1 and thus providing for the      
ultimate development of all the many    
wonders of nature4  ,what conception of 
foresight and purpose can rise above    
that which imagines all history gathered
 as it were into one original creative  
act from which the infinite variety of  
the ,universe has come and more is      
coming even yet8  ,and yet again1 it is 
a common objection to ,paley's and      
similar arguments that1 in spite of all 
the tokens of intelligence and          
beneficence in the creation1 there is so
 much of the contrary character4 ,how   
much there is of apparently needless    
pain and waste6 ,and ,john ,stuart ,mill
 has urged that either we must suppose  
the ,creator wanting in omnipotence or  
wanting in kindness to have left ,his   
creation so imperfect4 ,the answer      

usually given is that our knowledge is  
partial1 and1 could we see the whole1   
the objection would probably disappear4 
,but what force and clearness is given  
to this answer by the doctrine of       
,evolution which tells us that we are   
looking at a work which is not yet      
finished1 and that the imperfections are
 a necessary part of a large design the 
general outlines of which we may already
 trace1 but the ultimate issue of which1
 with all its details1 is still beyond  
our perception6 ,the imperfections are  
like the imperfections of a             
half-completed picture not yet ready to 
be seen2 they are like the bud which    
will presently be a beautiful flower1 or
 the larva of a beautiful and gorgeous  
insect2 they are like the imperfections 
in the moral character of a saint who   
nevertheless is changing from glory to  
glory4  ,to the many partial designs    
which ,paley's ,natural ,theology points
 out1 and which still remain what they  
were1 the doctrine of ,evolution adds   

the design of a perpetual progress4     
,things are so arranged that animals are
 perpetually better adapted to the life 
they have to live4 ,the very phrase     
which we commonly use to sum up         
,darwin's teaching1 the survival of the 
fittest1 implies a perpetual diminution 
of pain and increase of enjoyment for   
all creatures that can feel4 ,if they   
are fitter for their surroundings1 most 
certainly they will find life easier to 
live4 ,and1 as if to mark still more    
plainly the beneficence of the whole    
work1 the less developed creatures1 as  
we have every reason to believe1 are    
less sensible of pain and pleasure2 so  
that enjoyment appears to grow with the 
capacity for enjoyment1 and suffering   
diminishes as sensitivity to suffering  
increases4 ,and there can be no doubt   
that this is in many ways the tendency  
of nature4 ,beasts of prey are          
diminishing2 life is easier for man and 
easier for all animals that are under   
his care3 many species of animals perish

 as man fills and subjugates the globe1 
but those that remain have far greater  
happiness in their lives4 ,in fact1 all 
the purposes which ,paley traces in the 
formation of living creatures are not   
only fulfilled by what the ,creator has 
done1 but are better fulfilled from age 
to age4 ,and though the progress may be 
exceedingly slow1 the nature of the     
progress cannot be mistaken4  ,if the   
,natural ,theology were now to be       
written1 the stress of the argument     
would be put on a different place4      
,instead of insisting wholly or mainly  
on the wonderful adaptation of means to 
ends in the structure of living animals 
and plants1 we should look rather to the
 original properties impressed on matter
 from the beginning1 and on the         
beneficent consequences that have flowed
 from those properties4 ,we should dwell
 on the peculiar properties that must be
 inherent in the molecules of the       
original elements to cause such results 
to follow from their action and reaction

 on one another4 ,we should dwell on the
 part played in the ,universe by the    
properties of oxygen1 the great         
purifier1 and one of the great          
heat-givers2 of carbon1 the chief       
light-giver and heat-giver2 of water1   
the great solvent and the storehouse of 
heat2 of the atmosphere and the vapours 
in it1 the protector of the earth which 
it surrounds4 ,we should trace the      
beneficent effects of pain and pleasure 
in their subservience to the            
purification of life4 ,the marks of a   
purpose impressed from the first on all 
creation would be even more visible than
 ever before4  ,and we could not        
overlook the beauty of ,nature and of   
all created things as part of that      
purpose coming in many cases out of that
 very survival of the fittest of which  
,darwin has spoken1 and yet a distinct  
object in itself4 ,for this beauty there
 is no need in the economy of nature    
whatever4 ,the beauty of the starry     
heavens1 which so impressed the mind of 

,kant that he put it by the side of the 
,moral ,law as proving the existence of 
a ,creator1 is not wanted either for the
 evolution of the world or for the      
preservation of living creatures4 ,our  
enjoyment of it is a super-added gift   
certainly not necessary for the         
existence or the continuance of our     
species4 ,the beauty of flowers1        
according to the teaching of the        
doctrine of ,evolution1 has generally   
grown out of the need which makes it    
good for plants to attract insects4 ,the
 insects carry the pollen from flower to
 flower1 and thus as it were mix the    
breed2 and this produces the stronger   
plants which outlive the competition of 
the rest4 ,the plants1 therefore1 which 
are most conspicuous gain an advantage  
by attracting insects most4 ,that       
successive generations of flowers should
 thus show brighter and brighter colours
 is intelligible4 ,but the beauty of    
flowers is far more than mere           
conspicuousness of colours even though  

that be the main ingredient4 ,why should
 the wonderful grace1 and delicacy1 and 
harmony of tint be added8 ,is all this  
mere chance8 ,is all this superfluity   
pervading the whole world and           
perpetually supplying to the highest of 
living creatures1 and that too in a real
 proportion to his superiority1 the most
 refined and elevating of pleasures1 an 
accident without any purpose at all8 ,if
 ,evolution has produced the world such 
as we see and all its endless beauty1 it
 has bestowed on our own dwelling-place 
in lavish abundance and in marvellous   
perfection that on which men spend their
 substance without stint1 that which    
they value above all but downright      
necessities1 that which they admire     
beyond all except the ,law of ,duty     
itself4 ,we cannot think that this is   
not designed1 nor that the ,artist who  
produced it was blind to what was coming
 out of ,his work4  ,once more1 the     
doctrine of ,evolution restores to the  
science of ,nature the unity which we   

should expect in the creation of ,god4  
,paley's argument proved design1 but    
included the possibility of many        
designers4 ,not one design1 but many    
separate designs1 all no doubt of the   
same character1 but all worked out      
independently of one another1 is the    
picture that he puts before us4 ,but the
 doctrine of ,evolution binds all       
existing things on earth into one4      
,every mineral1 every plant1 every      
animal has such properties that it      
benefits other things beside itself and 
derives benefit in turn4 ,the insect    
developes the plant1 and the plant the  
insect2 the brute aids in the evolution 
of the man1 and the man in that of the  
brute4 ,all things are embraced in one  
great design beginning with the very    
creation4 ,he who uses the doctrine of  
,evolution to prove that no intelligence
 planned the world1 is undertaking the  
self-contradictory task of showing that 
a great machine has no purpose by       
tracing in detail the marvellous        

complexity of its parts1 and the still  
more marvellous precision with which all
 work together to produce a common      
result4  ,to conclude1 the doctrine of  
,evolution leaves the argument for an   
intelligent ,creator and ,governor of   
the world stronger than it was before4  
,there is still as much as ever the     
proof of an intelligent purpose         
pervading all creation4 ,the difference 
is that the execution of that purpose   
belongs more to the original act of     
creation1 less to acts of government    
since4 ,there is more divine foresight1 
there is less divine interposition2 and 
whatever has been taken from the latter 
has been added to the former4  ,some    
scientific students of ,nature may fancy
 they can deduce in the working out of  
the theory results inconsistent with    
religious belief2 and in a future       
,lecture these will have to be examined2
 and it is possible that the theory may 
be so presented as to be inconsistent   
with the teaching of ,revelation4 ,but  

whatever may be the relation of the     
doctrine of ,evolution to ,revelation1  
it cannot be said that this doctrine is 
antagonistic to ,religion in its        
essence4 ,the progress of ,science in   
this direction will assuredly end in    
helping men to believe with more        
assurance than ever that the ,lord by   
wisdom hath founded the earth1 by       
understanding hath ,he established the  
heavens4     ,,lecture ,v4              
,,revelation ,,the ,,means ,,of         
,,developing ,,and ,,completing         
,,spiritual ,,knowledge4  ,the evolution
 of ,knowledge4 ,does not affect the    
truth of ,science4 ,nor of ,religion4   
,special characteristic of evolution of 
,religious ,knowledge1 that it is due to
 ,revelation4 ,all higher ,religions    
have claimed to be ,revelations4 ,the   
evolution of ,religious ,knowledge in   
the ,old ,testament2 yet the ,old       
,testament a ,revelation4 ,still more   
the ,new ,testament4 ,the miraculous    
element in ,revelation4 ,its place and  

need4 ,harmony of this mode of evolution
 with the teaching of the ,spiritual    
,faculty4     ,,lecture ,v4             
,,revelation ,,the ,,means ,,of         
,,developing ,,and ,,completing         
,,spiritual ,,knowledge4       ',god1   
who at sundry times and in divers       
manners spake in time past      to the  
,fathers by the ,prophets1 hath in these
 last days spoken to      us by ,his    
,son4' ,hebrews i4 #a4  ,the doctrine of
 ,evolution has been applied not only to
 the formation of all created things1   
but to the development of human         
knowledge2 and this with perfect        
justice1 though with some risk of       
misunderstanding4 ,it is certain1 and1  
indeed1 it is obvious1 that knowledge   
grows4 ,the ordinary experience of      
mankind becomes larger and clearer in   
the course of time1 and the systematised
 experience which we call ,science makes
 the same progress in still greater     
measure and with more assurance4  ,our  
,science has been built on the labours  

of scientific men in past ages4 ,new    
generalisations imagined by one thinker1
 new crucial experiments devised by     
another1 new instruments of observation 
invented by another1--these have been   
the steps by which ,science has grown   
and established its authority and       
enlarged its dominion4 ,when or by whom 
the first steps were made we have no    
record4 ,no mathematician that ever     
lived showed greater natural power of   
intellect than he1 whoever he was1 who  
first saw that the singular contained   
the universal2 but we know neither his  
name nor his age1 nor his birthplace nor
 his race4 ,but after those first steps 
had been taken1 we know who have been   
the leaders in scientific advance4 ,and 
we know what they have done1 and what   
they are doing2 and we can conjecture   
the direction in which further advances 
will be made4 ,and so we can trace the  
development of this kind of knowledge1  
and in a certain and very real sense    
this development may be called an       

evolution4  ,but there is this          
difference between the evolution of     
nature and the evolution of the science 
of nature4 ,the evolution of nature     
results in the existence of forms which 
did not exist before2 the evolution of  
knowledge results in the perception of  
laws which were already in existence4   
,the knowledge grows1 but the things    
known remain4 ,the knowledge is not     
treated as if independent of the things 
known or believed to be known1 as a     
phenomenon belonging merely to the human
 mind1 with beginnings and laws and     
consequences and history of its own4    
,and1 consequently1 its having a regular
 growth is not used as an argument      
against its substantial truth4  ,the    
,science of ,mathematics1 for instance1 
has a history2 but no mathematician will
 admit that the fact that it has a      
history affects its claims to acceptance
 as truth4 ,we may ask1 how men have    
been brought to believe the deductions  
of the higher mathematics1 and we may   

answer our own question by tracing the  
steps2 but our conviction is not shaken 
that these deductions are true4  ,and   
so1 too1 we can trace the steps by which
 the great generalisations of ,science  
have been reached1 and we may show that 
,kepler grew out of ,copernicus1 and    
,newton out of ,kepler2 but the proof   
that the knowledge of one truth has been
 evolved out of the knowledge of        
another1 and that out of the knowledge  
of another1 is not used to show that all
 this ,science has nothing to do with   
truth at all1 but is only a natural     
growth of human thought4 ,science has   
grown through all manner of             
mistakes--mistakes made by the greatest 
thinkers and observers1 mistakes which  
men ignorantly laugh at now1 as their   
own mistakes will be no doubt laughed at
 in turn hereafter4 ,but we do not1     
therefore1 treat scientific thought as  
nothing more than one of the phenomena  
of humanity2 ways of thinking which     
necessarily grew out of the conditions  

in which men have existed1 but          
sufficiently accounted for by their     
origin and mode of growth having been   
shown1 and having no solidity of their  
own4  ,what has been said of ,science   
may be said also of ,religion4 ,religion
 also has had its development1 and in   
some respects a development parallel to 
that of ,science4  ,it is possible to   
trace the steps by which men have       
obtained an ever larger and fuller      
knowledge of the ,supreme ,law of       
,right1 a clearer perception of its     
application1 of its logical results1 of 
its relation to life1 to conduct1 to    
belief4 ,it has grown through mistakes  
as ,science has4 ,there has been false  
,religion1 as there has been false      
,science4 ,unsound principles of conduct
 have been inculcated in ,religion as   
unsound generalisations have been set up
 in ,science4 ,there have been improper 
objects of reverence in ,religion1 as   
there have been impossible aims proposed
 for scientific investigation4 ,ezekiel 

rises above the doctrine that the       
children are punished for the sins of   
their parents1 just as ,galileo rises   
above the doctrine that nature abhors a 
vacuum4 ,the parallel is all the more   
complete in that in many cases false    
religions have been also false sciences4
 ,the prayer to the fetish for rain is  
as contrary to true religion as it is   
contrary to true science4 ,many false   
religions are most easily overthrown by 
scientific instruction4 ,many false     
sciences begin to totter when the       
believers in them are taught true       
religion4 ,the ordinary superstitions   
which have so strong a hold on weak     
characters and uninstructed minds1 are  
as inconsistent with true faith in ,god 
as with reasonable knowledge of nature4 
,science grows1 but the facts1 whether  
laws or instances of the operations of  
those laws1 are not affected by that    
growth4 ,and ,religion grows1 but the   
facts of which it takes cognisance are  
not affected by that growth4 ,neither in

 the one case nor in the other is the   
fact that there has been a development  
any argument to show that the belief    
thus developed has no real foundation4  
,the pure subjectivity of ,religion1 to 
use technical language1 is no more      
proved by this argument than the pure   
subjectivity of ,science4  ,but there is
 one most important particular in which 
the development of ,religion entirely   
differs from the development of         
,science4 ,the leaders of scientific    
thought1 from the time that ,science has
 been conscious of itself1 have never   
claimed direct divine instruction4 ,for 
a long time1 indeed1 scientific thought 
rested largely on tradition1 and that   
tradition was handed on from generation 
to generation without any examination   
into its foundations4 ,the stores of    
past observations seemed so very much   
larger in quantity than any that men    
could add in their own day1 that it was 
natural to give more weight to what was 
received than to what was newly         

observed4 ,the experience of each       
generation in succession seemed nothing 
in comparison with the accumulated      
experience of all preceding generations4
 ,and in many cases old traditions      
stopped the growth of ,science by       
preventing the acceptance of            
observations inconsistent with them4    
,but such old traditions never claimed  
to rest on a revelation from ,god2 or1  
if such a claim was made here and there1
 it never had strength enough to root   
itself in ,science and form part of the 
recognised authority on which ,science  
stood4  ,science1 from the time when it 
recognised itself as ,science1 has owed 
its development to observation of       
nature1 and long before it shook off the
 fetters of unexamined tradition it had 
disclaimed1 even for that tradition1 any
 other basis than this4 ,but not so     
,religion4 ,many religions1 and among   
them the purer and higher religions1 in 
proportion to their nearer approach to  
perfection1 have claimed to rest on a   

,divine ,revelation1 and to be something
 more than either speculations of       
philosophic observers of nature1 or     
deductions from innate principles of    
reason or conscience4 ,not thinkers1 but
 prophets1 or men claiming to be        
prophets1 have given the purest         
religions to their disciples among      
mankind4 ,it has always been possible to
 bring all religious teaching to the bar
 of conscience2 it has been possible to 
put all religious teaching to logical   
examination2 to systematise its         
precepts1 whether of faith or conduct2  
to inquire into its fundamental         
principles1 and to ask for the authority
 on which the whole teaching rests4 ,but
 these applications of our intellectual 
faculties to ,religion have always been 
admitted as coming after1 not as        
preceding1 the teaching to which they   
are made4 ,the prophet does sometimes   
reason when he is deducing from         
principles already accepted1 new        
precepts1 or new prohibitions2 but he   

does not confine himself to such        
reasoning in the fulfilment of his      
mission4 ,he professes to have a message
 to give4 ,he will accredit it by such  
means as ,he supplies ,who has sent him 
with this message4 ,he will1 in order to
 open the consciences of his hearers1   
appeal to past revelations which they   
have already received1 and with which   
his new message is in thorough harmony2 
but he often appeals also to his power  
over nature to bear witness that the    
,lord of nature has sent him4 ,the      
,hebrew prophet will appeal to the      
teaching of the ,law1 will repeat the   
old revelation with its old unshaken and
 unshakeable precepts1 but he will not  
stop there3 he will also give signs from
 the ,lord to prove that he has a right 
to the title of prophet which he claims4
 ,armed with this title1 he will go on  
to predict the coming of the ,great     
,restorer1 the ,messiah2 he will insist 
on the judgment of all things1 sure to  
be passed in its appointed day2 he will 

hint at the immortality of the soul1 and
 the execution of the ,almighty justice 
on every man that lives4  ,it is        
probable enough that many of the        
inferior religions have grown up with no
 such claim at all4 ,the worship of     
ancestors1 where it has prevailed1 has  
very likely1 as has been suggested1     
grown out of dreams1 in which loving    
memory has brought back in sleep vivid  
images of the dead who were reverenced  
while they lived1 and cannot be readily 
forgotten after death4 ,such worship    
barely attains to what may be called in 
strictness a religion4 ,its connexion   
with the spiritual faculty1 the true    
seat of religion1 is weak and vague4 ,it
 is like the honour paid to a sovereign 
residing in a distant capital1 with only
 the difference that those who receive  
this worship are supposed to reside not 
in a distant capital1 but in another    
world4 ,so1 too1 the worship of         
fetishes1 of trees1 of serpents1 of the 
heavenly bodies1 while they have some of

 the inferior elements of religion in   
them1 yet hardly deserve to be called   
religions4 ,there is in them the        
sentiment of fear1 the acknowledgment of
 persons or some resemblance of persons 
imperceptible by the senses2 the        
acknowledgment of powers possessed by   
these persons4 ,but the central idea of 
a rule of holiness is either altogether 
wanting1 or so very feeble and          
indistinct as to contain no promise of  
developing into ultimate supremacy4     
,these religions do not often lay claim 
to a revelation from a supreme          
authority4 ,and they have withered away 
with the growth of knowledge and with   
clearer perceptions of what ,religion   
must be if it is to exist at all4  ,all 
the higher religions have claimed to    
rest on a divine revelation1 and the    
,christian ,religion on a series of such
 revelations4 ,the ,christian ,religion 
does not profess 7as does for instance  
the ,mahommedan7 to be wrapped up in one
 divine communication made to one man   

and admitting thereafter of no          
modifications4 ,though resting on divine
 revelation it is professedly a         
development1 and is thus in harmony with
 the ,creator's operations in nature4   
,whether we consider what is taught     
concerning the heavenly ,moral ,law1 or 
concerning human nature and its moral   
and spiritual needs1 or concerning      
,almighty ,god and ,his dealings with us
 ,his creatures1 it is undeniable that  
the teaching of the ,bible is quite     
different at the end from what it is at 
the beginning4  ,the ,new ,testament    
considered by itself as a body of       
teaching is such an advance on all that 
preceded it as to be quite unique in the
 history of the world4 ,the ideas       
conveyed in the ,old ,testament are     
absorbed1 transformed1 completed1 so as 
to make them as a whole entirely new2   
and to these are added entirely new     
ideas sufficient by themselves to form a
 whole system of doctrine4 ,and because 
of this it is difficult to speak of the 

new teaching as having grown out of the 
old4  ,but the ,old ,testament covers   
many centuries1 and within its range we 
can trace a steady growth1 and that     
growth always of the same character1 and
 always pointing towards what the       
,gospel finally revealed4 ,the strength 
of the moral sentiment in the earlier   
books is always assigned to the belief  
in1 and reverence for1 ,almighty ,god4  
,it is evidently held to be more        
important to believe in ,god and to fear
 ,him than to see the perfection of ,his
 holiness4 ,if we distinguish between   
,religion and ,morality1 ,religion is   
made the more important of the two4 ,it 
is more important to recognise that the 
holy ,god exists and reigns than to see 
clearly in what ,his holiness1 and      
indeed all holiness1 consists4 ,the     
sentiment of reverence is more important
 than the perception of that            
universality which we now know to be the
 essential characteristic of the ,moral 
,law4 ,in analysing the origin and      

nature of ,religion in the second of    
these ,lectures1 it was necessary to    
follow the order of thought1 and        
beginning with ,duty to end with ,god4  
,but the order of fact is not the same4 
,in actual fact man began with ,god and 
ends with a clearer perception of ,duty4
 ,hence in all the earlier stages the   
morality is imperfect4 ,the profaneness 
of ,esau is a serious offence4 ,the     
ungenerous temper1 the unfairness and   
duplicity of ,jacob are light in        
comparison4 ,truth is not an essential4 
,blood-shedding and impurity when in    
horrible excess are treated as most     
grievous sins2 but restrained within    
limits are easily condoned4 ,women are  
placed below their true and natural     
place2 polygamy if not distinctly       
allowed is certainly condoned2 divorce  
is permitted on one side1 not on the    
other4 ,slavery is allowed though put   
under regulation4 ,but the unity and    
spirituality of ,god are guarded with   
the strongest sanctions1 and nothing    

could be said against idolatry and      
polytheism now1 in sterner and clearer  
language than was used then4 ,the       
reverence for ,god required then was as 
great as the reverence required now4    
,but the conception of the holiness     
which is the main object of that        
reverence has changed2 has in fact been 
purified and cleared4 ,and the change is
 traceable in the ,old ,testament4 ,the 
prophets teach a higher morality than is
 found in the earlier books4 ,cruelty is
 condemned as it had not been before4   
,the heathen are not regarded as outside
 ,god's love1 and the future embraces   
them in ,his mercy even if the present  
does not4 ,conscience begins to be      
recognised and appealed to4 ,idolatry is
 not merely forbidden1 its folly is     
exposed2 it is treated not only with    
condemnation1 but with scorn4           
,individual responsibility is insisted  
on4 ,children are not held responsible  
for their fathers1 though the           
inheritance of moral evil and of the    

consequences of moral evil is never     
denied4 ,and even trust in ,god rises to
 a higher level in ,habakkuk's          
declaration that that trust shall never 
be shaken by any calamity that may      
befall him1 than in the earlier belief  
that calamities would never befall those
 who held fast that trust4  ,if we      
review this progress in moral teaching  
we recognise that it corresponds to the 
natural and for the most part           
unconscious working of that instinctive 
test which1 as was pointed out before1  
we apply to all moral questions1 the    
test of universality4 ,the pivots of all
 the prophetical teaching are the       
incessant inculcation of justice and    
mercy2 justice which requires us to     
recognise the rights of others side by  
side with our own2 mercy which demands  
our sympathy with the feelings of other 
creatures that can feel4  ,we are bound 
to recognise the claims of others to    
equal treatment with ourselves1 and any 
refusal or apparent refusal to do so    

must be justified by a universal rule   
applicable to all alike4 ,the perpetual 
attempt to justify exceptions in this   
way is sure to end in diminishing the   
number of those exceptions4 ,if we are  
compelled to think much of the position 
of woman in marriage1 we are sure at    
last to come to ,malachi's declaration  
that ,god hateth putting away4 ,if we   
are compelled to think of the position  
of slaves1 we cannot continue for ever  
to believe that there are some beings   
with consciences and free wills1 who    
nevertheless1 because of the accidents  
of their lives1 have no rights at all2  
and we acknowledge the righteousness of 
,jeremiah's denunciation of the breach  
of covenant when the nobles of ,judah   
re-enslaved those whom they had solemnly
 emancipated4 ,if we think of the nature
 of responsibility and the justification
 of punishment1 we find it impossible to
 believe that an innocent man shall be  
rightly punished for the wrong-doing of 
another1 even if that other be his      

father or his mother2 and we are        
convinced that ,ezekiel is speaking     
,god's words when he proclaims on ,god's
 behalf that 'the soul that sinneth it  
shall die2 the son shall not bear the   
iniquity of the father1 neither shall   
the father bear the iniquity of the     
son4' ,and once more1 whatever divine   
purpose gave the chosen people a        
priority among all peoples in knowledge 
of divine will and possession of divine 
favour1 it is impossible to find any    
rule by which this priority shall for   
ever exclude all other peoples from     
being within the range of ,god's        
manifested love2 and conscience cannot  
but accept as a divine message that the 
,gentiles also shall come to the        
,heavenly ',light1 and their kings to   
the brightness of ,his rising4' ,so     
again1 to turn from justice to mercy1 we
 recognise that we are bound to spare   
pain to all creatures that can feel1 and
 this duty can only be set aside by some
 higher duty which makes that pain the  

means to a higher moral end4 ,and if we 
are set by our consciences to seek for  
some rule of universal application for  
this purpose1 it becomes perpetually    
clearer that nothing can excuse cruel   
punishments inflicted on criminals or   
enemies1 or hard-hearted indifference to
 the poor and the weak4 ,our own nature 
cries out for kindness in our pain1 and 
that very cry from within compels our   
consciences to listen to the cry from   
without4 ,and the denunciations of      
cruelty and oppression we recognise as  
we hear them to be the voice of ,god4   
,but however true it be that this       
progress corresponds exactly throughout 
with the necessary working of the great 
moral principles implanted in the       
spiritual faculty1 it nevertheless      
remains true also that all this teaching
 in its successive stages is given by   
men who did not profess to be working   
out a philosophical system1 but who     
claimed to bring a message from ,god1 to
 speak by ,his authority1 and in many   

cases to be trusted with special powers 
in proof of possessing that authority4  
,looking back over it afterwards we can 
see that the teaching in its successive 
stages was a development1 but it always 
took the form of a revelation4 ,and its 
life was due to that fact4 ,as far as it
 is possible to judge1 that union       
between ,morality and ,religion1 between
 duty and faith1 without which both     
religion and morality soon wither out of
 human consciences1 can only be         
secured--has only been secured--by      
presenting spiritual truth in this form 
of a ,revelation4  ,when we pass to the 
,new ,testament1 all that has previously
 been taught in the ,old1 in so far as  
it is related to the new teaching at    
all1 is related as the bud to the       
flower4 ,the development1 if it be      
indeed a development1 is so great1 so   
sudden1 so strange1 that it seems       
difficult to recognise that it is a     
development at all4  ,first1 the        
morality is in form1 if not in          

substance1 absolutely new4 ,the duty of 
justice and mercy is pushed at once to  
its extreme limits1 even to the length  
of entire self-surrender4 ,the disciple 
has his own rights no doubt1 as every   
other man has his2 but he is required to
 leave his rights in ,god's hands and to
 think of the rights of others only4    
,the highest place is assigned to       
meekness in conduct and humility in     
spirit4 ,the humility of the ,sermon on 
the ,mount may possibly by careful      
analysis be shown to be identical at    
bottom with the magnanimity of          
,aristotle's ,ethics4 ,but the          
presentation of the two is so utterly   
opposed that in the effect on life the  
identity is altogether lost4 ,and as    
justice and mercy1 so too               
self-discipline is pushed as far as it  
can go4 ,instead of the enjoyment of    
life being an integral part of the aim  
set before the will1 hunger and thirst  
for righteousness1 and penitence for    
failure in keeping to it1 are to fill up

 the believer's hopes for himself4 ,of  
inward satisfaction and peace he is     
often assured2 but these1 and these     
only1 are the means to that peace4 ,the 
disciple's life is to consist in bearing
 the cross1 and bearing it cheerfully2  
in returning good for evil1 and love for
 indifference and even for hatred2 in   
detaching his affections from all the   
pleasures to be obtained from external  
things2 in fixing his trust and his love
 on his ,eternal ,father4 ,taken as a   
whole1 this is quite unlike all moral   
teaching that preceded it1 and there is 
no indication that any philosophy could 
ever have evolved it4 ,it has fastened  
on the human conscience from the day    
that it was uttered2 and whatever moral 
teaching since has not been inspired    
from this source has soon passed out of 
power and been forgotten4 ,we find when 
we examine that it exactly agrees with  
the fundamental teaching of the         
spiritual faculty when that teaching is 
applied to such creatures as we are1 and

 to such a ,god as the ,new ,testament  
sets before us4 ,but we find it         
impossible to assert that by any working
 of human thought this morality could   
have been obtained by the spiritual     
faculty unaided4 ,on the contrary1 it   
seems more near the truth to say that we
 could never have obtained so clear a   
conception of the great ,moral ,law1 if 
the teaching of the ,new ,testament had 
not enlightened and purified the        
spiritual faculty itself4 ,and to this  
is to be added that the moral teaching  
of the ,new ,testament recognises what  
we may now almost consider a proved     
necessity of our nature1 or at least a  
sure characteristic of the government of
 the world1 that perpetual progress     
without which nothing human seems to    
keep sweet and wholesome4 ,perfect as   
the ,new ,testament morality is in      
spirit1 it is nevertheless imperfect in 
actual precepts4 ,it leaves questions to
 be solved some of which have not been  
solved yet4 ,it left slavery untouched1 

though assuredly doomed4 ,it said       
nothing of patriotism4 ,it gave no clear
 command concerning the right use of    
wealth4 ,it laid down no principles for 
the government of states1 though such   
principles must have a moral basis4     
,there has been a perpetual growth in   
the understanding and in the application
 of this perfect teaching1 and there    
will yet be a growth4 ,of no            
philosophical system of morals is it    
possible to say the same4  ,but in the  
second place1 the ,new ,testament       
contains not only a new morality1 it    
contains also a new account of human    
nature4 ,the mystery of that discord    
which makes the noblest and best of     
human souls a scene of perpetual        
internal conflict is acknowledged and   
its counterpart in ,god's dealings with 
mankind is set forth4 ,the struggle     
between the spiritual faculty asserting 
its due supremacy1 and the lower        
passions and appetites1 impulses and    
inclinations1 is so described by ,saint 

,paul that none have ever since         
questioned his description with any     
effect4 ,and our ,lord's teaching of our
 absolute dependence on ,god and        
helplessness without ,him2 and ,saint   
,john's teaching that the whole world1  
outside ,christ1 'lieth in the wicked   
one1' lay down the same truth4 ,and as  
the mystery of moral evil in mankind is 
thus set forth1 so too the mystery of   
the remedy for that evil4 ,in the love  
of ,god shown in the ,cross of ,christ1 
in our union with ,god through that same
 ,death upon the ,cross is the power    
which conquers evil in the soul and     
carries a man ever upward to spiritual  
heights4 ,and as all profounder thinkers
 have confessed the truth of the account
 thus given of the internal             
contradiction of man's moral nature1 so 
have all believers borne witness 7and   
only they could bear witness7 to the    
account thus given of the solution of   
that contradiction and the renovation of
 that nature4 ,millions have lived and  

died in the ,christian faith since the  
teaching recorded in the ,new ,testament
 was given1 and among them have been the
 purest1 the justest1 the most          
self-sacrificing1 the most              
heavenly-minded of mankind4 ,and they   
all concur in saying that the one stay  
of all their spiritual lives has been   
communion with ,god through ,christ4    
,thirdly1 the ,new ,testament affirms   
with a clearness previously unknown the 
immortality of the soul and the future  
gift of that spiritual body which shall 
in some way spring from the natural body
 as the plant grows from the seed4      
,there had grown up1 no doubt quite     
naturally1 anticipations of this        
doctrine and ever stronger and more     
deeply-rooted persuasion that it must be
 true4 ,but it is revealed in the ,new  
,testament as it is taught nowhere else1
 and it is sealed by the ,resurrection  
of our ,lord1 ever since then the       
historical centre of the ,christian     
,faith4 ,how exactly it harmonises with 

the teaching of the spiritual faculty ,i
 have pointed out before4  ,and1 lastly1
 the ,new ,testament not only tells us  
what never was told before of man's     
nature as a spiritual being and of his  
destiny hereafter2 it tells also what   
was never told elsewhere of the nature  
of ,god and of the relations between    
,him and ,his creature man4 ,the unity  
and spirituality of the ,godhead so     
strenuously insisted on in the ,old     
,testament1 is no less insisted on in   
the ,new4 ,but the mysterious complexity
 embraced within that unity1 though     
darkly hinted at in the older teaching1 
is nowhere clearly set forth1 but in the
 latter4 ,we may find anticipations of  
the teaching of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4     
,john1 and of our ,lord ,himself as     
recorded by ,st4 ,john1 in the ,book of 
,proverbs1 in the ,prophets1 in the     
,rabbinical writers between the         
,prophets and the ,new ,testament1 and  
we can see in ,philo to what this       
finally came unaided by ,revelation4    

,but the ,christian teaching on our     
,lord's nature and on the ,incarnation  
is distinct from all this4 ,and it is in
 the ,christian form1 and only in that  
form1 that the doctrine has satisfied   
the spiritual needs of the great mass of
 believers4  ,now there cannot be any   
doubt that the hold which this teaching 
has had upon mankind has depended       
entirely on the extraordinary degree in 
which the teaching of the ,bible has    
satisfied the conscience4 ,without that 
no miracles however overwhelmingly      
attested1 no external evidence of       
whatever kind1 could have compelled     
intellects of the highest rank1 side by 
side with the most uncultivated and the 
most barren1 to accept it as divine1 nor
 could anything else have so often      
rekindled its old fire at times when    
faith in it had apparently withered     
away4 ,the teaching of the ,bible has   
always found and must always find its   
main evidence within the human soul4    
,and the fact that the teaching of the  

,bible1 though when examined afterwards 
it turns out to be development or       
evolution1 yet was always given at the  
time as a revelation1 so far from       
diminishing the force of this internal  
evidence adds to it still more force    
than it would otherwise have4 ,for what 
underlies the very conception of        
revelation is the doctrine that all     
progress in higher spiritual knowledge  
is bound up with conscious communion    
with ,god4 ,now it is an experience     
common to all believers that in that    
communion is to be found not only all   
strength but all enlightenment also4    
,the believer knows that he learns      
spiritual truth in proportion as he     
refers his life to ,god's judgment1     
prays to ,god for clearer vision of what
 is duty and what is right faith1 and   
makes it his one great aim to do ,god's 
will4 ,he uses all the faculties that   
,god has given him to understand the    
great divine law2 but he perpetually    
looks to ,god for instruction1 and      

whatever else may be said of that       
instruction his experience tells him    
that his advance in spiritual knowledge 
is in proportion to his nearness in     
thought and feeling to ,god ,himself4   
,that the progress of the human race in 
spiritual knowledge1 unlike progress in 
scientific knowledge1 should be due not 
to thinkers intellectually gifted1 but  
to ,prophets and ,apostles inspired by  
,god1 thus exactly corresponds with what
 the spiritually-minded man finds within
 his own soul4 ,and so too does it      
correspond with what he sees in others4 
,often and often the unlearned and      
untrained by sheer goodness of life     
attain to wonderful perception of       
spiritual truth1 and the holiness of the
 unlettered peasant reveals to his      
conscience the law of right conduct in  
circumstances which perplex the         
disciplined and well informed4 ,as the  
human race has learnt the highest       
spiritual truth by direct communication 
from ,god1 so too on communion with ,god

 far more than on intellectual power1   
depends the progress of spiritual       
knowledge in every human soul4  ,but    
though the hold of the ,bible on the    
faith of believers unquestionably       
depends on its satisfying the conscience
 in every stage of its enlightenment1 it
 is equally certain that those who gave 
the messages recorded in the ,bible     
claimed something more as proof of their
 authority than the approval of the     
conscience of their hearers4 ,they      
professed to prove their mission by the 
evidence of supernatural powers2 and the
 teaching of the ,bible cannot be       
dissociated from the miraculous element 
in it which is connected with that      
teaching4 ,if1 indeed1 the ,old         
,testament stood alone we might         
acknowledge that the miraculous element 
in it occupied comparatively so small a 
place1 and was so separable from the    
rest1 and the evidence for it was so    
rarely1 if ever1 contemporaneous1 that  
it might be left out of count4 ,but we  

cannot say this of the ,new ,testament1 
nor in particular of the account that   
has reached us of the sayings and doings
 of our ,lord4 ,the miracles are        
embedded in1 are indeed intertwined     
with1 the narrative4 ,many of our       
,lord's most characteristic sayings are 
so associated with narratives of        
miracles that the two cannot be torn    
apart3 ',i have not seen so great faith1
 no1 not in ,israel2' ',my ,father      
worketh hitherto1 and ,i work2' ',son1  
thy sins be forgiven thee2' ',beware of 
the leaven of the ,pharisees and the    
,sadducees2' ',it is not meet to take   
the children's bread and cast it to     
dogs2' ',this kind goeth not out but by 
prayer and fasting2' ',were there not   
ten cleansed1 but where are the nine8'  
',sin no more1 lest a worse thing come  
unto thee4' ,in fact1 there can be no   
real doubt that our ,lord believed that 
,he could work miracles1 and professed  
to work them1 and that ,his disciples   
believed that ,he worked many1 and      

included that fact in their meaning when
 they spoke of ,him as going about doing
 good4 ,and these disciples professed to
 work miracles themselves and believed  
that they did work them4 ,it is of      
course true that they had no strictly   
scientific conception of a miracle1 and 
would often have called by that name    
what was in reality extraordinary but   
not miraculous4 ,and it is true too     
that1 if we take each miracle by itself1
 there is but one miracle1 namely our   
,lord's ,resurrection1 for which clear  
and unmistakeable and sufficient        
evidence is given4 ,but while the       
exclusion of any one miracle as         
insufficiently attested is possible1 the
 exclusion of the miraculous element    
altogether is not possible without a    
complete surrender of the position taken
 by the first ,christian teachers4 ,as  
they claimed to be inspired and to have 
enlightenment which was not shared by   
mankind at large1 so did they claim1 if 
not each for himself1 yet certainly for 

our ,lord1 power not shared by ordinary 
men1 power to step out of the ordinary  
course of natural events1 and1 whether  
by virtue of some higher law operative  
only in rare instances1 or by direct    
interference of the ,almighty1 to prove 
a divine mission by exhibiting in fact  
what is an essential part of the        
supremacy of the ,moral ,law1 the       
dominion of that ,law over the physical 
world4  ,the teachers of other religions
 besides the ,christian have claimed    
supernatural powers1 and have professed 
to give a supernatural message4 ,this is
 a strong evidence of the deep-seated   
need in the human soul for such a direct
 communication from ,god to man4 ,men   
seem to need it so much that without it 
they are unable to accept the truth1 or 
to hold it long if they do accept it4   
,all who thus claim supernatural        
authority must1 of course1 justify their
 claim4 ,they must justify their message
 to the human conscience4 ,what they    
teach must be an advance towards1 and   

finally an expression of1 the ,supreme  
,moral ,law4 ,and if they profess to    
have miraculous power they must give    
reasonable evidence that such power is  
really theirs4 ,but if they fail in     
this1 still the fact remains that their 
very claim must answer to something in  
the spiritual nature of man1 or it would
 not be so invariably made nor so       
largely successful4  ,it seems as if1   
whatever may be the ground of belief    
when once revelation has penetrated into
 the soul1 the exercise of supernatural 
power was needed to procure that access 
in the first instance4 ,we believe      
because we find our consciences         
satisfied1 and we bring up our children 
in such discipline of conscience that   
they too shall have sufficient training 
to recognise and hold fast divine truth4
 ,and if we had lived at the time and   
could have had our eyes opened to see   
the spiritual power of the ,christian   
,faith1 we might have believed without  
any external evidence at all4 ,but the  

first receivers of the message1 to whom 
the revelation was new1 and1 as must    
have often happened and we actually know
 did happen1 to whom it was hard to     
reconcile that revelation with previous 
teaching1 how sure were they to need    
some other and outer evidence that it   
really came from ,god4 ,the supernatural
 in the form of miracles can never be   
the highest kind of evidence1 can never 
stand alone as evidence2 but it seems to
 have been needed for the first         
reception4 ,and there seem to be minds  
that need it still1 and to all it is a  
help to find that reasonable ground can 
be shown for holding that such evidence 
was originally given4  ,revelation1 in  
short1 takes a higher stand than belongs
 to all other teaching1 and except for  
its having taken that higher stand it   
does not appear that the highest        
teaching would have been possible4 ,to  
look back afterwards and say that we    
find a development or an evolution is   
easy4 ,and at first sight it seems to   

follow that1 being an evolution1 it may 
well be no more than the outcome of the 
working of the natural forces4 ,but look
 closer and you see the undeniable fact 
that all these developments by the      
working of natural forces have perished4
 ,not ,socrates1 nor ,plato1 nor        
,aristotle1 nor the ,stoics1 nor ,philo 
have been able to lay hold of mankind1  
nor have their moral systems in any     
large degree satisfied our spiritual    
faculty4 ,revelation1 and revelation    
alone1 has taught us2 and it is from the
 teaching of revelation that men have   
obtained the very knowledge which some  
now use to show that there was no need  
of revelation4 ,that altruism which is  
now to displace the command of ,god is  
nothing but the teaching of the ,sermon 
on the ,mount robbed of its heavenly    
power1 robbed of the great doctrine     
which underlies the whole sermon4 ,for  
that doctrine is the ,fatherhood of ,god
 which has been shown most especially in
 this1 that from the beginning ,he has  

never forgotten ,his children4          
,,lecture ,,vi4   ,,apparent ,,collision
 ,,between ,,religion ,,and ,,the       
,,doctrine ,,of ,,evolution4  ,evolution
 examined4 ,the formation of the        
habitable world4 ,the formation of the  
creatures which inhabit it4             
,transmission of characteristics4       
,variations perpetually introduced4     
,natural selection4 ,on the other side1 
life not yet accounted for by           
,evolution4 ,cause of variations not yet
 examined4 ,moral ,law incapable of     
being evolved4 ,account given in        
,genesis not at variance with doctrine  
of ,evolution4 ,evolution of man not    
inconsistent with dignity of humanity4  
,,lecture ,,vi4   ,,apparent ,,collision
 ,,between ,,religion ,,and ,,the       
,,doctrine ,,of ,,evolution4            
',know ye that the ,lord ,he is ,god3 it
 is ,he that hath made us1 and      not 
we ourselves4' ,psalm c4 #c4  ,religion 
is rooted in our spiritual nature and   
its fundamental truths are as           

independent of experience for their hold
 on our consciences as the truths of    
mathematics for their hold on our       
reason4  ,but as a matter of fact       
,religion has taken the form of a       
revelation4 ,and this introduces a new  
contact between ,religion and ,science1 
and of necessity a new possibility of   
collision4 ,there is not only possible  
opposition or apparent opposition of    
,science in what is revealed1 in what we
 may call the actual substance of the   
revelation2 but also in the accessories 
and evidences of the revelation1 which  
may be no actual part of the revelation 
itself1 but nevertheless are1 to all    
appearance1 inseparably bound up with   
it4 ,it is therefore no more than might 
have been expected that the general     
postulate of the uniformity of nature   
should appear to be contravened by the  
claim to supernatural power made on     
behalf of revelation1 and that the      
special1 but just at present leading    
scientific doctrine1 the doctrine of    

,evolution1 should be found inconsistent
 with parts1 or what appear to be parts1
 of the revelation itself4 ,and we have 
to consider the two questions1 ,what has
 ,revelation to say concerning          
,evolution8 and what has ,science to say
 concerning ,miracles8  ,concerning     
,evolution1 we have first to consider   
how much in this direction has been made
 fairly probable1 and what still remains
 to be determined4  ,it cannot then be  
well denied that the astronomers and    
geologists have made it exceedingly     
probable that this earth on which we    
live has been brought to its present    
condition by passing through a          
succession of changes from an original  
state of great heat and fluidity1       
perhaps even from a mixture mainly      
consisting of gases2 that such a body as
 the planet ,jupiter represents one of  
the stages through which it has passed1 
that such a body as the moon represents 
a stage toward which it is tending2 that
 it has shrunk as it cooled1 and as it  

shrank has formed the elevations which  
we call mountains1 and the depressions  
which contain the seas and oceans2 that 
it has been worn by the action of heat  
from within and water from without1 and 
in consequence of this action presents  
the appearance when examined below the  
surface of successive strata or layers2 
that different kinds of animal and      
vegetable life have followed one another
 on the surface1 and that some of their 
remains are found in these strata now2  
and that all this has taken enormous    
periods of time4 ,all this is           
exceedingly probable1 because it is the 
way in which1 as ,laplace first pointed 
out1 under well-established scientific  
laws of matter1 particularly the law of 
gravitation and the law of the radiation
 of heat1 a great fluid mass would      
necessarily change4 ,and the whole solar
 system may and probably did come into  
its present condition in this way4 ,it  
certainly could have been so formed1 and
 there is no reason for supposing that  

it was formed in any other way4  ,once  
more1 if we begin1 as it were1 at the   
other end1 and trace things backwards   
from the present1 instead of forwards   
from the remote past1 it cannot be      
denied that ,darwin's investigations    
have made it exceedingly probable that  
the vast variety of plants and animals  
have sprung from a much smaller number  
of original forms4  ,in the first place1
 the unity of plan which can be found   
pervading any great class of animals or 
plants seems to point to unity of       
ancestry4 ,why1 for instance1 should the
 vertebrate animals be formed on a      
common plan1 the parts of the framework 
being varied from species to species1   
but the framework as a whole always     
exhibiting the same fundamental type8   
,if they all descended from a common    
ancestor1 and the variations were       
introduced in the course of that        
descent1 this remarkable fact is at once
 accounted for4 ,but1 in the second     
place1 observation shows that slight    

variations ,,are perpetually being      
introduced with every successive        
generation1 and many of these variations
 are transmitted to the generations that
 follow4 ,in the course of time1        
therefore1 from any one parent stock    
would descend a very large variety of   
kinds4 ,but if1 in the third place1 it  
be asked why this variety does not range
 by imperceptible degrees from extreme  
forms in one direction to extreme forms 
in the other1 the answer is to be found 
in the enormous prodigality and the     
equally enormous waste of life and      
living creatures4 ,plants and animals   
produce far more descendants than ever  
come even to such maturity as to        
reproduce their kind4 ,and this is      
particularly the case with the lower    
forms of life4 ,eggs and seeds and germs
 are destroyed by millions1 and so in a 
less but still enormous proportion are  
the young that come from those that have
 not been destroyed4 ,there is no waste 
like the waste of life that is to be    

seen in nature4 ,living creatures are   
destroyed by lack of fit nourishment1 by
 lack of means of reproduction1 by      
accidents1 by enemies4 ,the inevitable  
operation of this waste1 as ,darwin's   
investigation showed1 has been to       
destroy all those varieties which were  
not well fitted to their surroundings1  
and to keep those that were4 ,one       
species of animal has been preserved by 
length of neck1 which enabled it to     
reach high-growing fruits and leaves2   
another by a thicker skin1 which made it
 difficult for enemies to devour2       
another by a colour which made it easier
 to hide4 ,one plant has been preserved 
by a bright flower which attracted      
insects to carry its pollen to other    
flowers of its kind2 another by a sweet 
fruit which attracted birds to scatter  
its seed4 ,meanwhile other animals and  
plants that had not these advantages    
perished for the lack of them4 ,the     
result would be to maintain1 and        
perpetually1 though with exceeding      

slowness1 more and more to adapt to the 
conditions of their life1 those species 
whose peculiarities gave them some      
advantage in the great struggle for     
existence4  ,here again we have the     
working of known laws of life1 capable  
of accounting for what we see4 ,and the 
high probability cannot be denied that  
by evolution of this kind the present   
races of living creatures have been     
formed4 ,and to these arguments the     
strongest corroboration is given by the 
frequent occurrence1 both in plants and 
animals1 of useless parts which still   
remain as indications of organs that    
once were useful and have long become   
useless4 ,animals that now live         
permanently in the dark have abortive   
eyes which cannot see1 but indicate an  
ancestor with eyes that could see4      
,animals that never walk have abortive  
legs hidden under their skin1 useless   
now but indicating what was useful once4
 ,our knowledge no doubt in this as in  
any other province of nature is but the 

merest fraction of what may be known    
therein4 ,but there is no evidence      
whatever to show that what we have      
observed is not a fair sample of the    
whole4 ,and so taking it1 we find that  
the mass of evidence in favour of the   
evolution of plants and animals is      
enormously great and increasing daily4  
,granting then the high probability of  
the two theories of ,evolution1 that    
which begins with ,laplace and explains 
the way in which the earth was fitted to
 be the habitation of living creatures1 
and that which owes its name to ,darwin 
and gives an account of the formation of
 the living creatures now existing1 we  
have to see what limitations and        
modifications are necessarily attached  
to our complete acceptance of both4     
,first1 then1 at the very meeting point 
of these two evolutions we have the     
important fact that all the evidence    
that we possess up to the present day   
negatives the opinion that life is a    
mere evolution from inorganic matter4   

,we know perfectly well the constituents
 of all living substances4 ,we know that
 the fundamental material of all plants 
and all animals is a compound called    
protoplasm1 or that1 in other words1    
organic matter in all its immense       
variety of forms is nothing but         
protoplasm variously modified4 ,and we  
know the constituent elements of this   
protoplasm1 and their proportions1 and  
the temperatures within which protoplasm
 as such can exist4 ,but we are quite   
powerless to make it1 or to show how it 
is made1 or to detect nature in the act 
of making it4 ,all the evidence we have 
points to one conclusion only1 that life
 is the result of antecedent life1 and  
is producible on no other conditions4   
,repeatedly have scientific observers   
believed that they have come on         
instances of spontaneous generation1 but
 further examination has invariably     
shown that they have been mistaken4 ,we 
can put the necessary elements together1
 but we cannot supply the necessary bond

 by which they are to be made to live4  
,nay1 we cannot even recall that bond   
when it has once been dissolved4 ,we can
 take living protoplasm and we can kill 
it4 ,it will be protoplasm still1 so far
 as our best chemistry can discover1 but
 it will be dead protoplasm1 and we     
cannot make it live again2 and as far as
 we know nature can no more make it live
 than we can4 ,it can be used as food   
for living creatures1 animals or plants1
 and so its substance can be taken up by
 living protoplasm and made to share in 
the life which thus consumes it2 but    
life of its own it cannot obtain4 ,now  
here1 as it seems1 the acceptance of the
 two evolutions lands us in acceptance  
of a miracle4 ,the creation of life is  
unaccounted for4 ,and it much more      
exactly answers to what we mean by a    
miracle than it did under the old theory
 of creation before ,evolution was made 
a scientific doctrine4 ,for under that  
old theory the creation of living       
creatures stood on the same footing as  

the creation of metals or other         
inorganic substances4 ,it was part of   
that beginning which had to be taken for
 granted1 and which for that reason lay 
outside of the domain of ,science       
altogether4 ,but if we accept the two   
evolutions1 the creation of life1 if    
unaccounted for1 presents itself as a   
direct interference in the actual       
history of the world4 ,there could have 
been no life when the earth was nothing 
but a mass of intensely heated fluid4   
,there came a time when the earth became
 ready for life to exist upon it4 ,and  
the life came1 and no laws of inorganic 
matter can account for its coming4 ,as  
it stands this is a great miracle4 ,and 
from this conclusion the only escape    
that has been suggested is to suppose   
that life came in on a meteoric stone   
from some already formed habitable      
world2 a supposition which transfers the
 miracle to another scene1 but leaves it
 as great a miracle as before4  ,nor1 if
 it was a miracle1 can we deny that     

there was a purpose in it worthy of     
miraculous interference4 ,for what      
purpose can rank side by side with the  
existence and development of life1 the  
primary condition of all moral and      
spiritual existence and action in this  
world8 ,in the introduction of life was 
wrapped up all that we value and all    
that we venerate in the whole creation4 
,the infinite superiority1 not in degree
 only1 but in kind1 of the living to the
 lifeless1 of a man to a stone1         
justifies us in believing that the main 
purpose of the creation that we see was 
to supply a dwelling-place and a scene  
of action for living beings4 ,we cannot 
say that the dignity of the ,moral ,law 
requires that creatures to be made      
partakers in the knowledge of it1 and   
even creatures of a lower nature but    
akin to them1 must have been the results
 of a separate and miraculous act of    
creation4 ,but we can say that there is 
a congruity in such a miracle1 with the 
moral purpose of all the world1 of which

 we are a part1 that removes all        
difficulty in believing it4 ,science1 as
 such1 cannot admit a miracle1 and can  
only say1 ',here is a puzzle yet        
unsolved4' ,nor can the most religious  
scientific man be blamed as undutiful to
 religion if he persists in endeavouring
 to solve the puzzle4 ,but he has no    
right to insist beforehand that the     
puzzle is certainly soluble2 for that he
 cannot know1 and the evidence is       
against him4  ,secondly1 if we look at  
the ,darwinian theory by itself1 we see 
at once that it is incomplete1 and the  
consideration of this incompleteness    
gravely modifies the conclusion which   
would otherwise be rightly drawn from   
it1 and which1 indeed1 ,darwin himself  
seems disposed to draw4 ,for the theory 
rests on two main pillars1 the          
transmission of characteristics from    
progenitor to progeny1 and the          
introduction of minute variations in the
 progeny with each successive           
generation4 ,now1 the former of these   

may be said to be well established1 and 
we recognise it as a law of life that   
all plants and animals propagate their  
own kind4 ,but the latter has1 as yet1  
been hardly examined at all4 ,each new  
generation shows special slight         
variations4 ,but what causes these      
variations8 and what determines what    
they shall be8 ,in ,darwin's            
investigations these questions are not  
touched4 ,the variations are treated as 
if they were quite indefinite in number 
and in nature4 ,he concerns himself only
 with the effect of these variations    
after they have appeared4 ,some have the
 effect of giving the plant or animal an
 advantage in the struggle of life2 some
 give no such advantage2 some are       
hurtful4 ,and hence follows the         
permanent preservation or speedy        
destruction of the plants and animals   
themselves4 ,but we are bound to look   
not only to their effects but to their  
causes1 if the theory is to be          
completed4 ,and then we cannot fail to  

see that these variations in the progeny
 cannot be due to something in the      
progenitors1 or otherwise the variations
 would be all alike1 which they         
certainly are not4 ,they must1          
therefore1 be due to external           
circumstances4 ,these slight variations 
are produced by the action of the       
surroundings1 by the food1 by the       
temperature1 by the various accidents of
 life in the progenitors4 ,now1 when we 
see this1 we see also how gravely it    
modifies the conclusions which we have  
to draw concerning the ancestry of any  
species now existing4 ,let us take1 for 
instance1 the great order of vertebrate 
animals4 ,at first sight the ,darwinian 
theory seems to indicate that all these 
animals are descended from one pair or  
one individual1 and that their unity of 
construction is due to that fact2 but if
 we go back in thought to the time at   
which the special peculiarities were    
introduced which really constituted the 
order and separated it from other       

animals1 we see that it is by no means  
clear that it originated with one pair  
or with one individual1 and that1 on the
 contrary1 the probabilities are the    
other way4 ,although the separation of  
this order from the rest must have taken
 place very early1 it cannot well have  
taken place until millions of animals   
had already come into existence4 ,the   
prodigality of nature in multiplying    
animal life is fully acknowledged by    
,darwin1 and that prodigality is        
apparently greatest in the lowest and   
most formless type of animal4 ,there    
being1 then1 these many millions of     
living creatures in existence1 the      
external surroundings introduce into    
them many variations1 and among these   
the special variations to which the     
vertebrate type is due4 ,it is quite    
clear that wherever the external        
surroundings were the same or nearly the
 same1 the variations introduced would  
be the same or nearly the same4 ,now1 it
 is far more probable that external     

surroundings should be the same or      
nearly the same in many places than that
 each spot should be absolutely unlike  
every other spot in these particulars4  
,the beginnings of the vertebrate order 
would show themselves simultaneously1 or
 at any rate independently1 in many     
places wherever external conditions were
 sufficiently similar4 ,and the unity of
 the plan in the vertebrata would be    
due1 not to absolute unity of ancestry1 
but to unity of external conditions at a
 particular epoch in the descent of     
life4 ,hence it follows that the        
separation of animals into orders and   
genera and even into species took place1
 if not for the most part yet very      
largely1 at a very early period in the  
history of organic evolution4 ,of course
 the descendants of any one of the      
original vertebrata might1 and probably 
in not a few cases did1 branch off into 
new subdivisions and yet again into     
further subdivisions1 and we are always 
justified in looking for unity of       

ancestry among all the species4 ,but it 
is also quite possible that any species 
may be regularly descended1 without     
branching off at all1 from one of the   
originals1 and that other species that  
resemble it may owe the resemblance     
simply to very great similarity of      
external conditions4 ,to find1 for      
instance1 the unity of ancestry between 
man and the other animals1 it will      
certainly be necessary to go back to a  
point in the history of life when living
 creatures were as yet formless1        
undeveloped--the materials1 as we may   
call them1 of the animal creation as we 
now see it1 and not in any but a        
strictly scientific sense1 what we mean 
when we ordinarily speak of animals4    
,the true settlement of such questions  
as these can only be obtained when long 
and patient study shall have completed  
,darwin's investigations by determining 
under what laws and within what limits  
the slight variations which characterise
 each individual animal or plant are    

congenitally introduced into its        
structure4 ,as things stand the         
probabilities certainly are that a      
creature with such especial             
characteristics as man has had a history
 altogether of his own1 if not from the 
beginning of all life upon the globe1   
yet from a very early period in the     
development of that life4 ,he resembles 
certain other animals very closely in   
the structure of his body2 but the part 
which external conditions had to play in
 the earliest stages of evolution of    
life must have been so exceedingly large
 that identity or close similarity in   
these external conditions may well      
account for these resemblances4 ,and the
 enormous gap which separates his nature
 from that of all other creatures known1
 indicates an exceedingly early         
difference of origin4  ,lastly1 it is   
quite impossible to evolve the ,moral   
,law out of anything but itself4        
,attempts have been made1 and many more 
will no doubt be made1 to trace the     

origin of the spiritual faculty to a    
development of the other faculties4 ,and
 it is to be expected that great success
 will ultimately attend the endeavours  
to show the growth of all the           
subordinate powers of the soul4 ,that   
our emotions1 that our impulses1 that   
our affections should have had a        
history1 and that their present working 
should be the result of that history1   
has nothing in it improbable4 ,there can
 be no question that we inherit these   
things very largely1 and that they are  
also very largely due to special        
peculiarities of constitution in each   
individual4 ,that large part of us which
 is rightly assigned to our nature as   
distinct from our own will and our own  
free action1 it is perfectly reasonable 
to find subject to laws of ,evolution4  
,much of this nature1 indeed1 we share  
with the lower animals4 ,they1 too1 can 
love2 can be angry or pleased2 can put  
affection above appetite2 can show      
generosity and nobility of spirit2 can  

be patient1 persevering1 tender1        
self-sacrificing2 can take delight in   
society3 and some can even organise it1 
and thus enter on a kind of             
civilisation4 ,the dog and the horse1   
man's faithful servants and companions1 
show emotions and affections rising as  
far as mere emotions and affections can 
rise to the human level4 ,ants show an  
advance in the arts of life well        
comparable to our own4 ,if the bare     
animal nature is thus capable of such   
high attainments by the mere working of 
natural forces1 it is to be expected    
that similar forces in mankind should be
 found to work under similar laws4 ,we  
are not spiritual beings only1 we are   
animals1 and whatever nature has done   
for other animals we may expect it to   
have done and to be doing for us4 ,and  
if their nature is capable of evolution1
 so too should ours be4 ,and the study  
of such evolution of our own nature is  
likely to be of the greatest value4     
,this nature is the main instrument1 put

 into the grasp as it were of that      
spiritual faculty which is our inmost   
essence1 to be used in making our whole 
life an offering to ,god4 ,it is good to
 know what can be done with this        
instrument and what cannot2 how it has  
been formed in the past1 and may be     
still further formed for the future4 ,it
 is good to study the evolution of      
humanity4 ,but all this does not touch  
the spiritual faculty itself1 nor the   
,moral ,law which that faculty proclaims
 to us4 ,the essence of that law is its 
universality2 and out of all this       
development1 when carried to its very   
perfection1 the conception of such      
universality cannot be obtained4        
,nothing in this evolution ever rises to
 the height of a law which shall bind   
even ,god ,himself and enable ,abraham  
to say1 ',shall not the ,judge of all   
the earth do right8' ,the very word     
right in this1 its fulness of meaning1  
cannot be used4  ,evolution may lead the
 creature to say what is hateful and    

what is loveable1 what is painful and   
what is delightful1 what is to be feared
 and what is to be sought2 it may       
develope the sentiment which comes      
nearest of all to the sentiment of      
reverence1 namely1 the sentiment of     
shame2 but it cannot reveal the eternal 
character of the distinction between    
right and wrong4 ,nay1 there may be1 as 
was pointed out in the last ,lecture1 an
 evolution in our knowledge even of the 
,moral ,law1 just as there is an        
evolution in our knowledge of           
mathematics4 ,the fulness of its meaning
 can become clearer and ever clearer as 
generation learns from generation4 ,but 
the principle of the ,moral ,law1 its   
universality1 its supremacy1 cannot come
 out of any development of human nature 
any more than the necessity of          
mathematical truth can so come4 ,it     
stands not on experience1 and is its own
 evidence4 ,nor indeed have any of the  
attempts to show that everything in man 
7religion included7 is the product of   

,evolution ever touched the question how
 this conception of universal supremacy 
comes in4 ,it is treated as if it were  
an unauthorised extension from our own  
experience to what lies beyond all      
experience4 ,this1 however1 is to deny  
the essence of the ,moral ,law          
altogether3 that ,law is universal or it
 is nothing4  ,now1 when we compare the 
account of the creation and of man given
 by the doctrine of ,evolution with that
 given in the ,bible1 we see at once    
that the two are in different regions4  
,the purpose of giving the accounts is  
different2 the spirit and character of  
the accounts is different2 the details  
are altogether different4 ,the          
comparison must take note of the        
difference of spirit and aim before it  
can proceed at all4  ,it is then quite  
certain1 and even those who contend for 
the literal interpretation of this part 
of the ,bible will generally admit1 that
 the purpose of the revelation is not to
 teach ,science at all4 ,it is to teach 

great spiritual and moral lessons1 and  
it takes the facts of nature as they    
appear to ordinary people4 ,when the    
creation of man is mentioned there is   
clearly no intention to say by what     
processes this creation was effected1 or
 how much time it took to work out those
 processes4 ,the narrative is not       
touched by the question1 ,was this a    
single act done in a moment1 or a       
process lasting through millions of     
years8 ,the writer of the ,book of      
,genesis sees the earth peopled1 as we  
may say1 by many varieties of plants and
 animals4 ,he asserts that ,god made    
them all1 and made them resemble each   
other and differ from each other4 ,he   
knows nothing and says nothing of the   
means used to produce their resemblances
 or their differences4 ,he takes them as
 he sees them1 and speaks of their      
creation as ,god's work4 ,had he been   
commissioned to teach his people the    
science of the matter1 he would have had
 to put a most serious obstacle in the  

way of their faith4 ,they would have    
found it almost impossible to believe in
 a process of creation so utterly unlike
 all their own experience4 ,and it would
 have been quite useless to them        
besides1 since their science was not in 
such a condition as to enable them to   
coordinate this doctrine with any other4
 ,as science it would have been dead2   
and as spiritual truth it would have    
been a hindrance4  ,but he had1         
nevertheless1 great ideas to            
communicate1 and we can read them still4
  ,he had to teach that the world as we 
see it1 and all therein contained1 was  
created out of nothing2 and that the    
spiritual1 and not the material1 was the
 source of all existence4 ,he had to    
teach that the creation was not merely  
orderly1 but progressive2 going from the
 formless to the formed2 from the       
orderless to the ordered2 from the      
inanimate to the animate2 from the plant
 to the animal2 from the lower animal to
 the higher2 from the beast to the man2 

ending with the rest of the ,sabbath1   
the type of the highest1 the spiritual1 
life4 ,nothing1 certainly1 could more   
exactly match the doctrine of ,evolution
 than this4 ,it is1 in fact1 the same   
thing said from a different point of    
view4 ,all this is done by casting the  
account into the form of a week of work 
with the ,sabbath at the end4 ,in so    
constructing his account1 the writer    
made use of a mode of teaching used     
commonly enough in the ,bible4 ,the     
symbolical use of the number seven is   
common in other inspired writers4 ,the  
symbolical use of periods of time is not
 without example4 ,that the purpose of  
the account was not to teach great      
truths1 but to give men information upon
 scientific questions1 is incredible4   
,and1 in fact1 if we look in this       
account for literal history1 it becomes 
very difficult to give any meaning to   
what is said of the seventh day1 or to  
reconcile the interpretation of it with 
our ,lord's words concerning the        

,sabbath1 ',my ,father worketh hitherto1
 and ,i work4' ,there is no more reason 
for setting aside ,geology1 because it  
does not agree in detail with ,genesis1 
than there is for setting aside         
,astronomy because all through the ,old 
,testament the sun is spoken of as going
 round the earth4  ,and when the writer 
of ,genesis passes from creation in     
general to man in particular1 it is     
still clear that he has no mission to   
tell those for whom he was writing by   
what processes man was formed1 or how   
long those processes lasted4 ,this was  
as alien from his purpose as it would   
have been to tell what every            
physiologist now knows of the processes 
by which every individual man is        
developed from a small germ to a        
breathing and living infant4 ,he takes  
men--and he could not but take men as he
 sees them--with their sinful nature1   
with their moral and spiritual capacity1
 with their relations of sex1 with their
 relations of family4 ,he has to teach  

the essential supremacy of man among    
creatures1 the subordination in position
 but equality in nature of woman to man1
 the original declension of man's will  
from the divine path1 the dim and       
distant but sure hope of man's          
restoration4 ,these are not1 and cannot 
be1 lessons of science4 ,they are worked
 out into the allegory of the ,garden of
 ,eden4 ,but in this allegory there is  
nothing whatever that crosses the path  
of science1 nor is it for reasons of    
science that so many great ,christian   
thinkers from the earliest age of the   
,church downwards have pronounced it an 
allegory4 ,the spiritual truth contained
 in it is certainly the purpose for     
which it is told2 and evolution such as 
science has rendered probable had done  
its work in forming man such as he is   
before the narrative begins4  ,it may be
 said that it seems inconsistent with   
the dignity of man's nature as described
 in the ,bible to believe that his      
formation was effected by any process of

 evolution1 still more by any such      
process of evolution as would represent 
him to have been an animal before he    
became a man4  ,but1 in the first place1
 it is to be observed that ,science does
 not yet assert1 and there is no reason 
to believe that it ever will assert1    
that man became a fully developed       
animal1 with the brute instincts and    
inclinations1 appetites and passions1   
fully formed1 an animal such as we see  
other animals now1 before he passed on  
into a man such as man is now4 ,his body
 may have been developed according to   
the theory of ,evolution1 yet along a   
parallel but independent line of its    
own2 but at any rate it branched off    
from other animals at a very early point
 in the descent of animal life4 ,and1   
further1 as ,science cannot yet assert  
that life was not introduced into the   
world when made habitable by a direct   
creative act1 so too ,science cannot yet
 assert1 and it is tolerably certain    
will never assert1 that the higher and  

added life1 the spiritual faculty1 which
 is man's characteristic prerogative1   
was not given to man by a direct        
creative act as soon as the body which  
was to be the seat and the instrument of
 that spiritual faculty had been        
sufficiently developed to receive it4   
,that the body should have been first   
prepared1 and that when it was prepared 
the soul should either have been then   
given1 or then first made to live in the
 image of ,god1--this is a supposition  
which is inconsistent neither with what 
the ,bible tells nor with what ,science 
has up to this time proved4  ,and to    
this must be added that it is out of    
place for us to define what is          
consistent or inconsistent with the     
dignity of man in the process or method 
by which he was created to be what he   
is4 ,his dignity consists in his        
possession of the spiritual faculty1 and
 not in the method by which he became   
possessed of it4 ,we cannot tell1 we    
never can tell1 and the ,bible never    

professes to tell1 what powers or gifts 
are wrapped up in matter itself1 or in  
that living matter of which we are made4
 ,how absolutely nothing we know of the 
mode by which any single soul is        
created6 ,the germ which is to become a 
man can be traced by the physiologist   
through all the changes that it has to  
undergo before it comes to life4 ,is the
 future soul wrapped up in it from the  
first1 and dormant till the hour of     
awakening comes8 or is it given at some 
moment in the development8 ,we see in   
the infant how its powers expand1 and we
 know that the spiritual faculty1 the   
very essence of its being1 has a        
development like the other faculties4   
,it has in it the gift of speech1 and   
yet it cannot speak4 ,judgment1 and     
taste1 and power of thought2            
self-sacrifice and unswerving truth2    
science and art1 and spiritual          
understanding1 all may be there in      
abundant measure and yet may show no    
sign4 ,all this we know2 and because it 

is common and well known we see nothing 
inconsistent with the dignity of our    
nature in this concealment of all that  
dignity1 helpless and powerless1 within 
the form of an infant in arms4 ,with    
this before us it is impossible to say  
that anything which ,science has yet    
proved1 or ever has any chance of       
proving1 is inconsistent with the place 
given to man in ,creation by the        
teaching of the ,bible4  ,in conclusion1
 we cannot find that ,science1 in       
teaching ,evolution1 has yet asserted   
anything that is inconsistent with      
,revelation1 unless we assume that      
,revelation was intended not to teach   
spiritual truth only1 but physical truth
 also4 ,here1 as in all similar cases1  
we find that the writer of the ,book of 
,genesis1 like all the other writers in 
the ,bible1 took nature as he saw it1   
and expressed his teaching in language  
corresponding to what he saw4 ,and the  
doctrine of ,evolution1 in so far as it 
has been shown to be true1 does but fill

 out in detail the declaration that we  
are 'fearfully and wonderfully made2    
marvellous are ,thy works2 and that my  
soul knoweth right well4' ,there is     
nothing in all that ,science has yet    
taught1 or is on the way to teach1 which
 conflicts with the doctrine that we are
 made in the ,divine ,image1 rulers of  
the creation around us by a ,divine     
superiority1 the recipients of a        
,revelation from a ,father in ,heaven1  
and responsible to judgment by ,his     
,law4 ,we know not how the first human  
soul was made1 just as we know not how  
any human soul has been made since2 but 
we know that we are1 in a sense in which
 no other creatures living with us are1 
the children of ,his special care4      
,,lecture ,,vii4   ,,apparent           
,,collision ,,of ,,science ,,with ,,the 
,,claim ,,to ,,supernatural ,,power4    
,the claim to work miracles parallel to 
the freedom of the will4 ,the miracles  
of ,revelation need not be miracles of  
,science4 ,our ,lord's ,resurrection1   

and ,his miracles of healing1 possibly  
not miraculous in the scientific sense4 
,different aspect of miracles now and at
 the time when the ,revelation was      
given4 ,miracles attested by the        
,apostles1 by our ,lord's character1 by 
our ,lord's power4 ,nature of evidence  
required to prove miracles2 not such as 
to put physical above spiritual         
evidence2 not such as to be unsuited to 
their own day4 ,impossibility of        
demonstrating universal uniformity4     
,revelation no obstacle to the progress 
of ,science4     ,,lecture ,,vii4       
,,apparent ,,collision ,,of ,,science   
,,with ,,the ,,claim ,,to ,,supernatural
 ,,power4       ',believe ,me that ,i am
 in the ,father1 and the ,father in ,me3
 or else      believe ,me for the very  
works' sake4' ,st4 ,john xiv4 #aa4      
,science and ,religion come into        
apparent collision on the question of   
the freedom of the will4 ,science and   
,revelation come into a similar apparent
 collision on the possibility of        

miracles4 ,the cases are precisely      
parallel4 ,in each individual man the   
uniformity of nature is broken to leave 
room for the moral force of the will to 
assert its independent existence4 ,this 
breach of uniformity is within very     
narrow limits1 and occurs much more     
rarely than appears at first sight4 ,but
 the demand to admit not only the       
possibility but the fact of this breach 
is imperative1 and to deny it is to turn
 the command of the ,moral ,law as      
revealed in the conscience into a       
delusion4 ,so1 too1 ,revelation asserts 
its right to set aside the uniformity of
 nature to leave room for a direct      
communication from ,god to man4 ,it is  
an essential part of the ,divine ,moral 
,law to claim supremacy over the        
physical world4 ,unless somehow or other
 the moral ultimately rules the         
physical1 the ,moral ,law cannot rightly
 claim our absolute obedience4          
,revelation as given to us maintains    
that this superiority has been asserted 

in fact here in the world of phenomena4 
,to deny this is very nearly equivalent 
to denying that any revelation has been 
made4 ,in this way ,revelation asserts1 
for ,god's message to the human race    
precisely the same breach of uniformity 
which every man's conscience claims for 
himself in regard to his own conduct4   
,it is1 however1 necessary to point out 
that when we speak of a breach of       
uniformity we are never in a position to
 deny that the breach of uniformity may 
be physical only and perhaps apparent   
only4 ,it may be found1 it probably will
 be found1 at last that the ,moral ,law 
has in some way always maintained its   
own uniformity unbroken4 ,the ,moral    
,law has in its essence an elasticity   
which the physical law has not4 ,it     
often takes the form1 that1 given       
certain conduct1 there will follow      
certain consequences2 and the law is    
kept though the conduct is free4 ,it is 
further possible1 and ,revelation has no
 interest in denying it1 that the       

intervention which has apparently       
disturbed the sequence of phenomena is1 
after all1 that of a higher physical law
 as yet unknown4 ,for instance1 the     
miraculous healing of the sick may be no
 miracle in the strictest sense at all4 
,it may be but an instance of the power 
of mind over body1 a power which is     
undeniably not yet brought within the   
range of ,science1 and which            
nevertheless may be really within its   
domain4 ,in other ways what seems to be 
miraculous may be simply unusual4 ,and  
it must therefore be always remembered  
that ,revelation is not bound by the    
scientific definition of a miracle1 and 
that if all the miraculous events       
recorded in the ,bible happened exactly 
as they are told1 and if ,science were  
some day able to show that they could be
 accounted for by natural causes working
 at the time in each case1 this would   
not in any way affect their character1  
as regards the ,revelation which they   
were worked to prove or of which they   

form a part4 ,revelation uses these     
events for its own purposes4 ,some of   
these events are spoken of as evidences 
of a divine mission4 ,some of them are  
substantive facts embraced in the       
message delivered4 ,and if for these    
purposes they have served their turn1 if
 they have arrested attention which     
would not otherwise have been arrested1 
if they have overcome prejudices1 if    
they have compelled belief1 the fact    
that they are afterwards discovered to  
be no breach of the law of uniformity   
has no bearing at all on the ,revelation
 to which they belong4 ,the miracle     
would in that case consist in the       
precise coincidence in time with the    
purpose which they served1 or in the    
manner and degree in which they marked  
out the ,man who wrought them from all  
other men1 or in the foreshadowing of   
events which are in the distant future4 
,thus1 for instance1 it is quite        
possible that our ,lord's ,resurrection 
may be found hereafter to be no miracle 

at all in the scientific sense4 ,it     
foreshadows and begins the general      
,resurrection2 when that general        
,resurrection comes we may find that it 
is1 after all1 the natural issue of     
physical laws always at work4  ,there is
 nothing at present to indicate anything
 of the sort2 but a general resurrection
 in itself implies not a special        
interference but a general rule4 ,if1   
when we rise again1 we find that this   
resurrection is and always was a part of
 the ,divine purpose1 and brought about 
at last by machinery precisely the same 
in kind as that which has been used in  
making and governing the world1 we may  
also find that our ,lord's ,resurrection
 was brought about by the operation of  
precisely the same machinery4 ,we may   
find that even in the language of strict
 science ',he was the first fruits of   
them that slept1' and that ,his         
,resurrection was not a miracle1 but the
 first instance of the working of a law 
till the last day quite unknown1 but on 

that last day operative on all that ever
 lived4  ,let us compare the general    
resurrection with the first introduction
 of life into the world4 ,as far as     
scientific observation has yet gone that
 first introduction of life was a       
miracle4 ,no one has ever yet succeeded 
in tracing it to the operation of any   
known laws4 ,if it is a miracle it is a 
miracle precisely similar in kind to the
 miracle which believers are expecting  
at the last day4 ,and assuredly if a    
miracle was once worked to introduce    
life into this habitable world1 there is
 very good reason to expect that another
 miracle will be worked hereafter to    
restore life to those that have lived4  
,but there are scientific men who think 
that the introduction of life was not a 
miracle1 that it came at the fitting    
moment by the working of natural laws2  
or1 in other words1 that such properties
 are inherent in the elements of which  
protoplasm is made that in certain      
special circumstances these elements    

will not only combine but that the      
product of their combination will live4 
,if this be so1 it is assuredly no such 
very strange supposition that there may 
be such properties inherent in our      
bodies or in certain particles1 whether 
particles of matter or not1 belonging to
 our bodies1 that in certain special    
circumstances these particles will      
return to life4 ,and if this be so the  
general resurrection may be no miracle1 
but the result of the properties        
originally inherent in our bodies and of
 the working of the laws of those       
properties4 ,and as the general         
resurrection so our ,lord's             
,resurrection may in this way turn out  
to be no breach of the uniformity of    
nature4  ,but this new discovery1 if    
then made1 would not affect the place   
which our ,lord's ,resurrection holds in
 the records of ,revelation4 ,it is not 
the purpose of ,revelation to interfere 
with the course of nature2 if such      
interference be needless1 and the work  

of revealing ,god to man can be done    
without it1 there is no reason whatever 
to believe that any such interference   
would take place4  ,or1 take again any  
of our ,lord's miracles of healing4     
,there is no question at all that the   
power of mind over body is exceedingly  
great1 and has never yet been thoroughly
 examined4 ,we know almost nothing of   
the extent of this power1 of its laws1  
of its limits4 ,marvellous recoveries   
often astonish the physician1 and he    
cannot account for them except by       
supposing that in some way the powers of
 the mind have been roused to interfere 
with the working of the nervous system4 
,and some men1 on the other hand1 have  
died or their health has been shattered 
by mere imaginations4 ,some men of note 
have attributed the recoveries claimed  
for homoeopathy to this cause4 ,some    
have assigned to this cause the         
extraordinary cures that have been      
undeniably wrought at the shrines1 or on
 sight or touch of the relics1 of ,roman

 ,catholic saints4 ,the different       
impostures that have on many occasions  
prevailed for a time and then lost their
 reputation and passed out of fashion1  
are generally supposed to have owed     
their short-lived success to the same   
obscure working of unknown natural laws4
 ,they have been tested by their        
successes and their failures4 ,they have
 succeeded1 and for a time continued to 
succeed2 but at last they have ceased to
 work because faith in them for some    
reason or other has been shaken down4   
,their falsehood has thus been detected2
 but nevertheless their genuine success 
for a time has been enough to show that 
they rested on a reality1 and that      
reality seems to have consisted in the  
strange power of mind over body4 ,in    
this region all is at present           
unexamined2 and all operations are      
tentative1 and for that reason most are 
only successful for a time4 ,now our    
,lord's miracles are never tentative2   
that is not the character given to them 

either by friend or by foe4 ,nor is     
there any instance recorded either by   
friend or by foe of an attempted miracle
 not accomplished4 ,nowhere is there any
 record given us by the assailants of   
the ,gospel of any instance of ,his     
action parallel to the record given in  
the ,acts of the ,apostles of the seven 
sons of ,sceva the ,jew4 ,the accounts  
of his enemies charge ,him with deceit1 
which is identical with saying that they
 did not believe ,him4 ,but they do not 
ever charge ,him with failure4          
,nevertheless it is quite conceivable   
that many of ,his miracles of healing   
may have been the result of this power  
of mind over body which we are now      
considering4 ,it is possible that they  
may be due not to an interference with  
the uniformity of nature1 but to a      
superiority in ,his mental power to the 
similar power possessed by other men4   
,men seem to possess this power both    
over their own bodies and over the      
bodies of others in different degrees4  

,some can influence other men's bodies  
through their minds more2 some less4    
,possibly ,he may have possessed this   
power absolutely where others possessed 
it conditionally4 ,he may have possessed
 it without limit2 others within limits4
 ,if this were so1 these acts of healing
 would not be miracles in the strictly  
scientific sense4 ,they would imply very
 great superiority in ,him to other men4
 ,but they would be in themselves under 
the law of uniformity4 ,now it is clear 
that if this should turn out to be so1  
though these acts would not be miracles 
for the purposes of ,science1 they would
 still be miracles for the purposes of  
,revelation4 ,they would do their work  
in arresting attention1 and still more  
in accrediting both the message and the 
,messenger4 ,they would separate ,him   
from ordinary men4 ,they would prove    
,him to be possessed of credentials     
worth examining4 ,to the believer it    
would make no difference whether        
,science called them miracles or not4   

,to him it would still remain the fact  
that here was a ,messenger whom ,god had
 seen fit to endow with powers which no 
other man ever possessed in such degree 
and such completeness1 though others may
 have possessed some touch of them      
greater or less4  ,further1 it is       
necessary to repeat what was briefly    
remarked in a previous ,lecture1 that   
the position which miracles take as     
regards us who read them many centuries 
after1 and as regards those who         
witnessed and recorded them at the time1
 is quite different4 ,to them the       
miracles were the first and often the   
chief proof that the man who wrought    
them had been sent by ,god1 and that    
,his message was a revelation1 not an   
imposture2 to us they are1 if accepted  
at all1 accepted as a part of the       
revelation itself4 ,there are no doubt a
 few minds that are convinced by        
,paley's argument1 and beginning with   
accepting the miracles as proved by     
sufficient external evidence1 go on to  

accept the conclusion that therefore the
 teaching that was thus accompanied must
 be divine4 ,but most men are quite     
unable to take to pieces in this way the
 records in which ,revelation is        
contained1 and to go from external      
evidence taken alone to the messengers  
who thus proved their mission1 and      
thence to the substance of the message  
which they taught4 ,to most of us1 on   
the contrary1 the ,revelation is a      
whole1 capable of being looked at from  
many sides1 and found to be divine from 
whatever side it is seen2 and one of its
 aspects is this supernatural character 
by which it appears to assert its       
identity with that ,moral ,law which    
claims absolute supremacy over all the  
physical world4 ,the main evidence of   
the ,revelation to us consists in its   
harmony with the voice of the spiritual 
faculty within us2 and the claim which  
it asserts to have come through teachers
 endowed with supernatural power is so  
far corroborative evidence as it falls  

in with the essential character of the  
,moral ,law4 ,that eternal law claims   
supremacy over the physical world and   
actually asserts it in the freedom of   
the human will2 and a ,revelation which 
comes from ,him ,who in ,his own        
essential ,being is that very law       
personified1 might be expected to       
exhibit the same claim in actual        
manifestation in its approach to men4   
,bearing these limitations and          
characteristics of the miraculous       
element in the ,bible in mind1 let us   
ask how that miraculous element is      
therein presented4  ,first1 in the      
account of the creation1 it is taught   
that the original existence of all      
matter flows from a spiritual source4   
,we do not define ,god as the cause1    
meaning that that is ,his essence1 and  
that except as causing other things to  
exist ,he does not exist ,himself4 ,but 
we describe ,him as the ,cause1 meaning 
that all things exist by ,his ,will1 and
 that without ,his ,will nothing could  

ever have existed4 ,and as the          
,revelation tells us that ,he is the    
source of all existence1 the ,creator of
 the substance of things1 so too does it
 assert that ,he gave all things their  
special properties and the laws of those
 properties1 and that not only the      
original creation1 but all the          
subsequent history of all things has    
been the outcome of ,his design1 and    
that ,he has thus prescribed the        
government of the whole universe4 ,and  
yet again the ,revelation from the      
beginning to the end maintains ,his     
living ,presence in and over all things 
that ,he has thus formed1 and denies    
that ,he has parted with ,his power to  
do fresh acts of creation1 fresh acts of
 government1 whenever and wherever ,he  
sees fit4 ,for ,he is necessarily free  
and cannot be restrained by anything but
 ,his own holiness4 ,and unless ,he     
expressly revealed to us that ,his own  
holiness prevented ,him from interfering
 with ,his own creation1 we could not   

put limits to what ,he could do4 ,the   
,revelation that ,he has given us says  
just the contrary1 and from end to end  
implies that ,he is present in the      
government of the creation which ,he has
 made4  ,what evidence1 then1 is there  
in the world of phenomena that ,he has  
ever thus interfered8 ,putting aside as 
untenable all idea of a priori          
impossibility1 admitting that ,god can  
work a miracle if ,he will1 admitting   
that a miracle avowedly worked in the   
interest of a divine revelation stands  
on a totally different footing from a   
miracle avowedly worked in any other    
interest1 putting the breach of the law 
of uniformity made by a miracle on the  
same footing as the breach of the same  
law made by a human will2 we have to ask
 what evidence can be given that any    
such miracles as are recorded in the    
,bible have ever been worked8  ,it is   
plain at once that the answer must be   
given by the ,new ,testament4 ,no such  
evidence can now be produced on behalf  

of the miracles in the ,old ,testament4 
,the times are remote2 the date and     
authorship of the ,books not established
 with certainty2 the mixture of poetry  
with history no longer capable of any   
sure separation into its parts2 and1 if 
the ,new ,testament did not exist1 it   
would be impossible to show such a      
distinct preponderance of probability as
 would justify us in calling on any to  
accept the miraculous parts of the      
narrative as historically true4  ,but in
 the ,new ,testament we stand on        
different ground4 ,and we have here     
first the evidence which ,paley has put 
together to show that the early         
,christians spent their lives and       
finally surrendered their lives as      
witnesses to a ,gospel which included   
miracles both among its evidences and as
 part of its substance4 ,it is not      
possible to get rid of miracles nor the 
belief in miracles from the history of  
the ,apostles4 ,they testify to our     
,lord's ,resurrection as to an actual   

fact1 and make it the basis of all their
 preaching4 ,they testify to our ,lord's
 miracles as part of the character of   
,his life4 ,it is necessary to maintain 
that they were mere fanatics with no    
claim to respect but rather to the pity 
which we feel for utterly ignorant      
goodness1 if we are to hold that no     
miracle was ever wrought by our ,lord4  
,it is difficult to maintain even their 
honesty if they preached the            
,resurrection of our ,lord without any  
basis of fact to rest on4 ,no man who is
 not determined to uphold an opinion at 
all hazards can question that ,st4 ,paul
 and ,st4 ,peter believed that our ,lord
 rose from the dead1 and that they died 
for and in that belief4  ,but1 in the   
second place1 behind the ,apostles      
stands our ,lord ,himself1 and whatever 
may be said of the documents that       
compose the ,new ,testament1 they are at
 any rate sufficient to show that our   
,lord was universally believed by ,his  
disciples to have the power of working  

miracles and to have often worked them4 
,there is no hesitation in regard to    
this2 no hint of any doubt4 ,but not    
only so1 there is no hint of any        
disclaimer on ,his part4 ,he must have  
known whether ,he could work miracles or
 not4 ,he must have known that ,his     
disciples believed ,him to possess the  
power4 ,there is not the slightest trace
 of ,his ever having implied that this  
was a misconception4 ,he did sometimes  
disclaim what was ascribed to ,him1 even
 when what was ascribed to ,him was     
truly ,his1 but was ascribed to ,him    
without real knowledge of what it       
implied4 ',why callest thou ,me good8   
,there is none good but ,one1 that is1  
,god1' we ,,do find4 ,but ',why askest  
thou ,me to do this8 ,there is none that
 can do this but ,one1 that is ,god1' we
 do ,,not find4 ,it is plain that ,he   
accepted the belief that assigned ,him  
powers above those of other men--powers 
given ,him by ,his ,father in           
heaven--and never discouraged it4 ,nay1 

,he demanded it4 ,take the lowest       
ground1 and admit for argument's sake   
that the ,new ,testament contains a     
legendary element1 and still you cannot 
cut the miracles out of the ,gospels and
 ,epistles without altering them beyond 
recognition4 ,the ,jesus ,christ        
presented to us in the ,new ,testament  
would become a different person if the  
miracles were removed4 ,and if ,he      
claimed to possess and exercise this    
power1 the evidence becomes the evidence
 of ,one ,who must have known and ,whom 
we cannot disbelieve4  ,and this claim1 
which ,he has thus made1 and which was  
thus accepted by ,his disciples1 is     
corroborated by the power1 different in 
form but similar in kind1 which ,he     
exerted then on the men of ,his own day1
 and has ever since continued to exert  
on all succeeding generations4 ,the     
first disciples were under ,his absolute
 dominion4 ,they preached ,christ and   
not themselves4 ,they referred          
everything to ,him1 and professed to    

have no power but from ,him4 ,st4 ,paul 
with all his genius and marvellous power
 of influence1 yet professes to be      
nothing without ,christ and to be       
everything in ,christ4 ,our ,lord left  
no writing behind ,him1 but committed   
,his ,revelation to ,his ,apostles1 and 
we only know ,him through them4 ,but    
they are not like ordinary disciples of 
a great teacher2 philosophers succeeding
 a philosopher2 prophets succeeding a   
prophet4 ,to no one of them does it     
occur for a moment to teach anything    
except as from ,him4 ,st4 ,paul gives   
advice sometimes which he does not      
profess to be giving by our ,lord's     
command1 but when he does so1 he puts   
the mark of his own inferiority on what 
he says1 and claims for it no such      
authority as belongs to a word from     
,christ4 ,a word from ,christ was final 
on all subjects4  ,and this power over  
men has never weakened from that day to 
this4 ,there is no other power like it  
in the world4 ,science proceeds in far  

the majority of cases by trial of some  
theory as a working hypothesis4 ,such   
too has been the procedure of ,christian
 ,faith4 ,trust ,christ2 stake your     
happiness on ,him2 stake your hope of   
satisfying all spiritual aspirations on 
,him2 stake your power of winning the   
victory over temptation on ,him--this is
 the exhortation of ,apostle1 and       
martyr1 and saint1 and evangelist1 and  
pastor1 and teacher4 ,and those who have
 thus tried the strength of the         
,christian hypothesis have not failed4  
,the ,christian ,church has been stained
 with many a blot4 ,ill deeds have been 
wrought in the name of ,christ4 ,evil   
laws have been passed4 ,strange         
superstitions have prevailed4 ,but no   
other body can show such saints1 no     
other body can produce so great a cloud 
of witnesses4 ,it is certain that the   
lives and the deaths1 the characters and
 the aims1 of those who have trusted    
their all to ,christ have made them what
 ,he bade them be1 the salt of the      

earth4 ,and they testify with one voice 
that they know no other power which has 
upheld them but the power of ,christ    
whom they have taken for their ,lord4   
,others have sometimes been set up as in
 some sort rivals to ,him as teachers or
 as examples2 but here there is no rival
 even pretended4 ,in no other man have  
men been called on to believe as a      
living present power1 able to give      
strength and victory in the conflicts of
 the soul4 ,the ,church1 too1 has passed
 through times of spiritual depression1 
we may almost say of degradation4 ,and  
in the worst of times within the ,church
 there has always remained a wonderful  
recuperative power1 which has shaken off
 inconsistencies and defects in the     
past1 and will do so yet more in the    
future4 ,but this recuperative power has
 always shown itself in one form1 and in
 one form only1 namely1 a return to     
,christ and to trust in ,him1 a trust   
which has never been falsified4  ,the   
martyrdom of our ,lord's disciples is   

enough to prove that belief in ,his     
supernatural powers and in ,his exercise
 of those powers was no gradual growth  
of later times1 but from the very       
beginning rooted in the convictions of  
those who must have known the truth4    
,the character of our ,lord as revealed 
in the ,gospels makes it impossible to  
disbelieve ,his claims whatever they may
 be4 ,his power attested by generations 
of believers ever since corroborates    
those claims by the persistent evidence 
of eighteen centuries4  ,against this   
evidence what is to be said8  ,it is    
said that the evidence for the          
uniformity of nature is so overwhelming 
that nothing can set it aside4 ,and     
further it is said1 that1 even if it be 
conceded that it might be set aside1 no 
evidence sufficient for the purpose has 
yet been produced4  ,now to deal with   
this second assertion first1 we must ask
 what is the nature of the evidence that
 would be deemed sufficient8 ,if the    
inquirer does not believe that ,god     

created and still governs the world1    
assuredly no evidence will ever be      
sufficient to convince him that ,god has
 worked a miracle4 ,the existence of    
,god is certainly not to be proved by   
,his interference with nature4 ,had ,he 
desired to reveal ,himself to us        
primarily in that way1 ,he would have   
wrought many more miracles than we now  
know of1 and would have kept our faith  
alive by perpetual and unmistakeable    
manifestations of ,his presence and     
power4 ,but ,he has not so willed4 ,he  
has made our belief in ,him rest mainly 
on the voice within ourselves1 in order 
that we might walk by faith and not by  
sight4 ,it will be a hopeless task to   
convince men that there is a ,god by    
pointing1 not to ,his creation but to   
,his interference with creation4 ,but if
 a man do believe there is a ,god1 what 
kind of evidence ought he to expect to  
show him that ,god has interfered in the
 course of the creation8  ,in the first 
place1 he must not expect that the      

physical evidence1 that is the          
miraculous evidence1 for ,revelation    
should be of such a character as to     
stand above the spiritual evidence4     
,just as the fundamental evidence for   
the existence of a ,god is to be found  
in the voice of conscience1 and the     
arguments from design and from the order
 and beauty and visible purpose of the  
creation are secondary--corroborative   
not demonstrative--so too the primary   
evidence of a ,revelation from ,god must
 be found in the harmony of that        
,revelation with the voice of           
conscience1 and only the secondary and  
corroborative evidence is to be looked  
for in miracles4 ,and in both cases the 
reason is the same4 ,for it is not      
,god's purpose to win the intellectually
 gifted1 the wise1 the cultivated1 the  
clever1 but to win the spiritually      
gifted1 the humble1 the tender-hearted1 
the souls that are discontented with    
their own shortcomings1 the souls that  
have a capacity for finding happiness in

 self-sacrifice4 ,it would defeat the   
purpose of the ,revelation made to us if
 the hard-headed should have an         
advantage in accepting it over the      
humble-minded4 ,the evidence must be    
such that spiritual character shall be  
an element in the acceptance of it4     
,there would be a contradiction1 if the 
faculty whereby we mainly recognised    
,god were the spiritual faculty1 and the
 faculty whereby we mainly recognised   
,his ,revelation were the scientific    
faculty4  ,and1 in the second place1 we 
have no right to expect that the        
evidence for miracles wrought in one age
 should be such evidence as properly    
belongs to another age4 ,it is sometimes
 urged that the evidence supplied by the
 testimony of the early ,christians is  
of little value because it was never    
cross-examined4 ,no such precautions    
surrounded the evidence as would now be 
required to give any value to evidence  
of similar events4 ,the witnesses gave  
up their lives to attest what they      

taught2 but there was no one to         
scrutinise what they asserted4 ,st4     
,paul's evidence on our ,lord's         
,resurrection cannot now be put to the  
test of searching questions4 ,but to    
make such objections as these is to make
 what is on the face of it an absurd    
demand4 ,it is to ask that the          
scientific processes of the nineteenth  
century should have been anticipated in 
the first1 that men should be           
miraculously guided to supply a kind of 
evidence which would be utterly         
superfluous at the time in order to be  
convincing eighteen hundred years       
afterwards4 ,this would indeed have put 
the miraculous incidents in the ,new    
,testament narrative altogether out of  
place1 and made the miracles more       
important than the ,revelation which    
they were worked to introduce4  ,now1 if
 these two conditions are borne in mind1
 it is difficult to see what better     
evidence could be obtained of a         
miraculous life than we possess         

concerning the life of our ,lord4  ,the 
moral and spiritual evidence is ,his own
 character which intentionally          
overshadows all the rest1 and it is     
inconceivable that ,he should have made 
a false claim4 ,and the material        
evidence is the testimony of men who    
freely gave their lives in proof of what
 they said4 ,nor has anything yet been  
said or written to shake ,paley's       
argument on this point4  ,but1 if we    
pass on to the other objection1 that no 
evidence can ever be sufficient to prove
 a miracle because the evidence for the 
uniformity of nature is so overwhelming1
 we can only see in such an assertion an
 instance of that inability to get out  
of an accustomed groove against which   
,science has perpetually to guard4 ,in  
,science the uniformity of nature is so 
indispensable a postulate1 that without 
it we cannot stir a step4 ,and if the   
student of ,science is to admit a       
breach1 it can only be by stepping      
outside of his science for the time and 

conceiving the possibility that there is
 some other truth beside scientific     
truth1 and some other kind of evidence  
beside scientific evidence4 ,we have all
 heard of the need of guarding against  
the bondage in which custom binds the   
mind4 ,we have heard of the student who 
when first he saw a locomotive looked   
perseveringly for the horses that       
impelled it1 because he had never known1
 and consequently could not imagine any 
other mode of producing such motion4    
,but this danger attends not only the   
separate investigations which ,science  
makes into phenomena2 it attends        
,science as a whole4 ,and it is         
necessary repeatedly to insist on the   
fact that ,science has not proved and   
cannot prove that the scientific domain 
is co-extensive with nature itself4     
,the evidence for the uniformity of     
nature consists in the fact that from   
the beginning of ,science the known     
reign of physical law has been steadily 
extending without a check2 that instance

 after instance of apparent exception   
has been brought by further examination 
within its province2 that the hypothesis
 of uniformity has now been long on     
trial and has never yet been found to   
fail2 that no one who has so tried it   
has the slightest hesitation in trusting
 it for the future1 as he has proved it 
in the past4 ,but clearly as this       
evidence proves a general1 it never gets
 beyond a general1 uniformity4 ,it has  
not succeeded in showing that the human 
will comes under the same rule4 ,it has 
not succeeded in silencing the voice    
within us1 which claims superiority for 
the moral over the physical4 ,and when  
the utmost extent of human knowledge is 
compared with the vastness of nature1   
the claim to extend the induction from  
generality to universality is seen to be
 utterly untenable4 ,so much as this1   
indeed1 ,science has rendered highly    
probable1 that the uniformity of nature 
is never broken except for a moral      
purpose4 ,it is only for such a purpose 

that the will is ever free4 ,it is only 
for such a purpose that ,revelation has 
ever claimed to be superior to nature4  
,but beyond this ,science cannot go4    
,let it be granted that the claim for   
freedom of the will has been often      
unduly pushed far beyond this limit1 and
 let it be granted that religions       
professing to be revelations have       
included records of miracles which had  
no moral purpose4 ,this does not affect 
the general conclusion that the evidence
 for uniformity has never succeeded1 and
 can never succeed in showing1 that the 
,god who made and rules the universe    
never sets aside a physical law for a   
moral purpose1 either by working through
 the human will or by direct action on  
external nature4  ,science will continue
 its progress1 and as the thoughts of   
men become clearer it will be           
perpetually more plainly seen that      
nothing in ,revelation really interferes
 with that progress4 ,it will be seen   
that devout believers can observe1 can  

cross-question nature1 can look for     
uniformity and find it1 with as keen an 
eye1 with as active an imagination1 with
 as sure a reasoning1 as those who deny 
entirely all possibility of miracles and
 reject all ,revelation on that account4
 ,the belief that ,god can work miracles
 and has worked them1 has never yet     
obstructed the path of a single student 
of ,science2 nor has any student who    
repudiated that belief found any aid in 
his study from that repudiation4 ,the   
rush of ,science of late years has for  
the time made many men fancy that       
,science is everything2 and believers in
 ,revelation have helped this fancy by  
insisting on their part that ,revelation
 is everything2 but such waves of       
opinion1 resting really on feeling1 are 
sure to pass away1 and scientific men   
will learn that there are other kinds of
 knowledge besides scientific knowledge1
 as believers are already learning that 
,god teaches us by other methods besides
 the method of ,revelation4 ,the        

students of the ,bible will certainly   
learn that ,revelation need not fear the
 discoveries of ,science1 not even such 
doctrines as that of ,evolution4 ,and   
the students of nature will certainly   
learn that ,science has nothing to fear 
from the teaching of ,revelation1 not   
even from the claim to miraculous power4
 ,for most certainly both ,science and  
,revelation come from one and the same  
,god2 'the heavens declare ,his glory1  
and the firmament showeth ,his          
handywork2 ,his law is perfect1         
converting the soul2 ,his testimony is  
sure1 making wise the simple4'          
,,lecture ,,viii4   ,,the ,,conclusion  
,,of ,,the ,,argument4  ,uniformity of  
nature not demonstrated1 but            
established1 except in two cases2 the   
interference of human will and of       
,divine ,will4 ,the exception no bar to 
the progress of ,science4 ,unity to be  
found not in the physical world1 but in 
the physical and moral combined4 ,the   
,moral ,law rests on itself4 ,our       

recognition of it on our own character  
and choice4 ,but we expect it to show   
its marks in the physical world3 and    
these are the purpose visible in        
,creation1 the effects produced by      
,revelation4 ,nevertheless a demand for 
more physical evidence2 but the physical
 cannot be allowed to overshadow the    
spiritual4 ,dangers to believers from   
leaning this way3 superstition2         
blindness2 stagnation4 ,the guarantee   
for spiritual perceptiveness3 to take   
,jesus as the ,lord of the conscience1  
the heart1 the will4     ,,lecture      
,,viii4   ,,the ,,conclusion ,,of ,,the 
,,argument4       ',no man can say that 
,jesus is the ,lord1 but by the ,holy   
,ghost4'      #a ,cor4 xii4 #c4  ,it is 
now the proper time to review the       
argument of these ,lectures1 and to     
endeavour to trace1 if possible1 the    
source of the estrangement which just at
 present separates ,religion and        
,science4  ,the postulate of ,science is
 admitted on all hands to be the        

uniformity of nature1 and the proof of  
this postulate has been found to consist
 in an induction from the facts which   
nature presents and our senses observe4 
,uniformity is quickly noticed1 and     
after it has been noticed for some time 
it is instinctively used as a working   
hypothesis4 ,so used it accumulates     
perpetually increasing evidence of its  
truth1 and if we except two great       
classes of facts1 we never find any     
instance of its failure4 ,the two       
classes of facts which are thus excepted
 are the acts of the human will and the 
miraculous element in ,revelation1 both 
of them instances of one thing1 namely1 
the interference of the moral with the  
physical4 ,to complete the induction and
 to deprive the denial of universal     
uniformity of all evidence to rest on1  
all that is necessary is to get rid of  
these two exceptions4 ,if ,science could
 get rid of these exceptions1 though it 
could not be said that the fundamental  
postulate was demonstrated1 it could be 

said that all the evidence was in its   
favour and absolutely no evidence       
against it4 ,and although scientific    
belief would then still rank below      
mathematical belief1 it would           
nevertheless have a cogency quite       
irresistible4 ,science would not thereby
 gain in power of progress1 in practical
 acceptance1 or in utility to man4 ,but 
men are so constituted that completeness
 gives a special kind of satisfaction   
not to be got in any other way4 ,if     
,science could but be complete it would 
seem to gain in dignity1 if it gained in
 nothing else4 ,and it is easy to foster
 a kind of passion for this completeness
 until every attempt to question it is  
resented4 ,i have seen a boy first      
learning mechanics show a dislike to    
consider the effect of friction as      
marring the symmetry and beauty of      
mechanical problems2 too vague1 too     
uncertain1 too irregular to be allowed  
any entrance into a system which is so  
rounded and so precise without it4 ,and 

something of the same temper can        
sometimes be seen in students of        
,science at the very thought of there   
being anything in the world not under   
the dominion of the great scientific    
postulate4 ,the world which thus        
contains something which ,science cannot
 deal with is pronounced forthwith to be
 not the world that we know1 not the    
world with which we are concerned2 a    
conceivable world if we choose to       
indulge our imagination in such dreams1 
but not a real world either now or at   
any time before or after4 ,and yet the  
freedom of the human will and the sense 
which cannot be eradicated of the       
responsibility attaching to all human   
conduct1 perpetually retorts that this  
world in which we live contains an      
element which cannot be subdued to      
obedience to the scientific law1 but    
will have a course of its own4 ,the     
sense of responsibility is a rock which 
no demand for completeness in ,science  
can crush4 ,all attempts at reconciling 

the mechanical firmness of an unbroken  
law of uniformity with the voice within 
that cannot be silenced telling us that 
we must answer for our action1 have     
failed1 and we know that they will for  
ever fail4  ,if indeed it could be said 
that the progress of ,science was really
 barred by this inability to make the   
induction complete1 and to assert the   
unbroken uniformity of all nature2 if it
 could be said that any uncertainty was 
thus cast over scientific conclusions1  
or any false or misleading lights thus  
held up to draw inquirers from the true 
path1 it would undoubtedly become a duty
 to examine1 and to examine anxiously1  
whether indeed it could be true that our
 faculties were thus hopelessly at      
variance with each other1 the scientific
 faculty1 imposing on us one belief1 and
 the spiritual faculty another1 and the 
two practically irreconcileable4 ,but   
there is no reason whatever for thinking
 this4 ,newton's investigations were    
unquestionably pursued1 as all true     

scientific investigations must ever be  
pursued1 in reliance on the truth of the
 uniformity of nature1 and yet he never 
felt it the slightest hindrance to his  
progress that he always tacitly and     
often expressly acknowledged that ,god  
had reserved to ,himself the power of   
setting this uniformity aside1 and      
indeed believed that ,he had used this  
power4 ,the believer who asserts the    
universality of a law except when ,god  
works a miracle to set it aside is      
certainly at no real disadvantage in    
comparison with an unbeliever who makes 
the same assertion with no qualification
 at all4 ,it is granted on all hands    
that miracles are1 and ever have been1  
exceedingly rare1 and for that reason   
need not be taken into account in the   
investigation of nature4 ,it is granted 
that the freedom of the human will works
 within narrow limits1 and very slowly  
and slightly affects the great mass of  
human conduct and what depends on human 
conduct4 ,and ,science has often to deal

 with approximations when nothing but   
approximations can be obtained4 ,we     
perpetually meet in nature with         
quantities and relations that cannot be 
accurately expressed nor accurately     
ascertained1 and we have to be content  
with approximations1 and we know how to 
use them in ,science4 ,many chemical    
properties can only be so expressed2    
many primary facts1 such as the         
distances1 the volumes1 the weights of  
heavenly bodies2 and yet the            
approximations serve our purpose4 ,and  
so too1 if there be a reserve still     
uncovered by the scientific postulate1  
that will not in any degree affect our  
investigation of what is so covered4    
,in short1 the unity of all things which
 ,science is for ever seeking will be   
found not in the physical world alone1  
but in the physical and spiritual       
united4 ,that unity embraces both4 ,and 
the uniformity which is the expression  
of that unity is not a uniformity       
complete in nature1 taken by itself1 but

 complete when the two worlds are taken 
together4 ,and this ,science ought to   
recognise4  ,let us turn from the       
physical to the spiritual4  ,the voice  
within us which demands our acceptance  
of religion makes no direct appeal to   
the evidence supplied by the senses4 ,we
 are called on to believe in a supreme  
law of duty on pain of being lowered    
before our own consciences4 ,and this   
law of duty goes on to assert its own   
supremacy over all things that exist1   
and that not as an accidental fact1 but 
as inherent in its essence4 ,and this   
supremacy cannot be other than an       
accidental fact unless it be not only   
actual but intended4 ,and intention     
implies personality2 and the law thus   
shows itself to be a ,supreme ,being1   
claiming our reverence1 and asserting   
,himself to be the ,creator1 the ,ruler1
 and the ,judge of all things that are4 
,and this same voice within us asserts  
that we are responsible to ,him for all 
our conduct1 and are capable of that    

responsibility because free to choose   
what that conduct shall be4 ,we are to  
believe not because the truth of this   
voice is proved independently of itself1
 but simply because we are commanded4   
,corroborative evidence may be looked   
for elsewhere1 but the main1 the primary
 evidence is within the soul4  ,hence   
the strength of this belief depends on  
ourselves and on our own character4 ,to 
every man the voice speaks4 ,but its    
authority is felt in proportion to the  
spirituality of each who hears4 ,its    
acceptance is bound up in some way with 
our own wills4 ,how far it is a matter  
of choice to believe or to disbelieve it
 is not possible to define4 ,the will   
lies hidden as it were behind the       
emotions1 the affections1 the nobler    
impulses4 ,the conscience shades off    
into the other faculties1 and we cannot 
always isolate it from the rest4 ,but   
though it be impossible to say precisely
 how the will is concerned in the       
spiritual belief1 there can be no doubt 

that it always takes its part in such   
belief4 ,it is the keen conscience1 it  
is the will that can be moved to its    
depths by the conscience1 that grasp    
most strongly the certainty of the law  
of duty4 ,it is the man with the        
strongest and noblest aspirations1 the  
man who sees the beauty of humility1 the
 man who feels most strongly the deep   
peace of self-sacrifice1 that is the man
 who finds the voice within most        
irresistible4 ,it is not by any means   
always the man who lives the most       
correct life2 correctness of life may be
 due to natural and not to spiritual    
causes4 ,and the man whom we should find
 faultless in point of morals may yet be
 wanting in spiritual depth1 and not    
have as yet1 and perhaps may not have to
 the last1 the spiritual faculty strong 
within him4 ,but the man1 even if he    
have many and grievous faults1 who      
nevertheless is keenly susceptible of   
higher things1 is the one to whom the   
voice within speaks with authority not  

to be gainsaid1 and to him that voice is
 final4  ,it is this fact that the      
perception of things spiritual varies   
from man to man1 and depends on         
character1 and involves action of the   
will1 that makes it always possible to  
represent our knowledge of the law of   
duty as in itself standing on a less    
sure foundation than our knowledge of   
scientific truth4 ,whether a man has or 
has not the necessary power of mind to  
comprehend scientific reasoning is      
tested with comparative ease4 ,and if he
 have that power1 the reasoning is      
certain in course of time to be         
understood1 and when it is understood it
 compels assent so long as it keeps     
within its own proper domain4 ,but the  
perception of spiritual truth depends on
 a faculty whose power or weakness it is
 far more difficult to test2 and it     
involves the will which may be exerted  
on either side4 ,and for this reason men
 sometimes dismiss this truth as being  
no more than an imagination1 needed by  

some men to satisfy an emotional nature1
 but having no substance that can be    
brought to an external test4 ,the       
believer in ,god knows that the truth   
which he holds is as certain as the     
axioms of mathematics2 but he cannot    
make others know this whose spiritual   
faculty is not awake2 and he is liable  
to be asked for proof not of the        
spiritual but of the physical kind4     
,now this much must be acknowledged1    
that we cannot but expect the claim to  
supremacy over all things to show itself
 in some way in the creation which has  
come from ,him who makes that claim4 ,it
 would1 no doubt1 be a serious          
difficulty if things physical and things
 spiritual were cut off from one another
 by an absolute gulf2 if we were        
required to believe that ,god had       
created and now ruled everything1 and   
yet we could trace not the slightest    
evidence of ,his hand either in the     
creation or in the history of the world4
  ,there are then two ways in which we  

are able to recognise ,him even in this 
world of phenomena4 ,for in the first   
place1 the creation in its order and its
 beauty and its marvellous adaptation of
 means to ends1 confirms the assertion  
of the spiritual faculty that it owes   
its origin to an intelligent and        
benevolent purpose1 exhibited in the    
form in which purpose is always         
exhibited4 ,it works towards ends which 
we should expect a holy and benevolent  
,creator to have in view1 and it        
accomplishes those ends in so large a   
proportion that1 making allowance for   
the limited range of our knowledge1 the 
general aim of the whole is seen with   
sufficient clearness4 ,the argument is  
not strong enough to compel assent from 
those who have no ears for the inward   
spiritual voice1 but it is abundantly   
sufficient to answer those who argue    
that there cannot be a ,creator because 
they cannot trace ,his action4 ,and the 
scientific doctrine of ,evolution1 which
 at first seemed to take away the force 

of this argument1 is found on           
examination to confirm it and expand it4
 ,the doctrine of ,evolution shows that 
with whatever design the world was      
formed1 that design was entertained at  
the very beginning and impressed on     
every particle of created matter1 and   
that the appearances of failure are not 
only to be accounted for by the         
limitation of our knowledge1 but also by
 the fact that we are contemplating the 
work before it has been completed4  ,and
 in the second place1 while the         
creation1 the more closely it is        
examined the more distinctly shows the  
marks of the wisdom and goodness of the 
,creator1 so the history of the world   
exhibits in the ,revelation made to man 
clear proofs of that heavenly love which
 corresponds to the character of ,him   
who has put love at the head of all the 
requirements of ,his law4 ,the          
,revelation given to us has undeniably  
made a real mark on the world4 ,it has  
upheld millions of men in a holiness of 

life corresponding in a very real degree
 to the holiness required by the law of 
duty4 ,it has perpetually more and more 
cleared up the true teaching of that    
law4 ,it is still continuing the same   
process1 and generation after generation
 is better able to understand that      
teaching4 ,its fruits have been a       
harvest of saints and martyrs1 some     
known and reverenced1 some quite        
unnoticed4 ,it has leavened all         
literature and all legislation4 ,it has 
changed the customs of mankind and is   
still changing them4 ,and if it be      
replied that all this is nothing but one
 form of the development of humanity and
 shows no proof of a ,divine ,ruler1 we 
have a right to ask what then could be  
the source of such a development1 and   
how is it that so great a power should  
always have worked in the name of ,god  
and should have always referred         
everything to ,his command8 ,that       
fanaticism should plead ,god's authority
 without any right to do so is          

intelligible4 ,but is it intelligible   
that all this truth and justice and     
purity and self-sacrificing love1 all   
this obedience to the ,supreme ,law1    
should be the fruit of believing a lie8 
,if there be a ,god1 it is to be        
expected that ,he would communicate with
 ,his creatures if those creatures were 
capable of receiving the communication2 
and if ,he did communicate with ,his    
creatures it is to be expected that ,his
 communication would be such as we find 
in the ,bible4 ,the purpose of the      
,bible1 the form of it1 the gradual     
formation of it1 the steadily-growing   
,revelation contained in it1 these      
harmonise with the moral law revealed   
originally in the conscience4 ,and the  
effect which the ,revelation has        
produced on human history is real and   
great4 ,the power which ,god's          
,revelation has exerted on the world is 
an undeniable fact among phenomena4 ,it 
is not a demonstration of ,his          
existence2 but it is a full answer to   

those who say1 ',if ,god made and rules 
the world why do we find no signs of    
,his hand in its course8'  ,and thirdly1
 this ,revelation has not merely taken  
the form of a message or a series of    
messages1 but has culminated in the     
appearance of a person who has always   
satisfied and still satisfies the       
conception formed by our spiritual      
faculty of a human representation of the
 divine law4 ,our ,lord's life is that  
law translated into human action1 and   
all the more because human faculties had
 not first framed the conception which  
,he then came to fulfil1 but ,he        
exhibited the ideal1 and our conception 
rose as it were to correspond to it4    
,and1 as ,he includes in ,himself all   
the teaching1 so does ,he give from     
,himself all the power of the           
,revelation which ,he came to crown4    
,and every true disciple of ,christ can 
bear witness to the reality of that     
power in sustaining the soul4  ,thus has
 the ,god1 whom our spiritual faculty   

commands us to worship and to reverence1
 shown ,himself in the world of         
phenomena4 ,and ,he has given proofs of 
,his existence and ,his character       
precisely corresponding to the          
conception which ,he has enabled1 and   
indeed commanded1 us to form of ,him4   
,and it is because the proofs that ,he  
has given are of this nature that we are
 tempted to ask for more proofs of a    
different kind4  ,for it is undeniable  
that believers and unbelievers alike are
 perpetually asking for proofs that     
shall have more of the scientific and   
less of the religious character1 proofs 
that shall more distinctly appeal to the
 senses4 ,believers in all ages have    
longed for external support to their    
faith2 unbelievers have refused to      
believe unless supplied with more       
physical evidence4 ,believers shrink    
from being thrown inwards on themselves2
 they fear the wavering of their own    
faith2 they are alarmed at the prospect 
of the buttresses of their belief being 

taken from them4 ,they find it easier to
 believe the spiritual evidence1 if they
 can first find much physical evidence4 
,they wish 7to use the ,apostle's words7
 to walk by sight and not by faith4 ,and
 unbelievers want a tangible proof that 
shall compel their understanding before 
it awakes their conscience4 ,they demand
 a ,revelation1 not only confirmed by   
miracles at the time1 but confirmed     
again and again by repeated miracles to 
every succeeding generation4 ,they want 
miracles in every age adapted to the    
science of the age1 miracles which no   
hardness of heart would be able to deny1
 which would convince the scientific man
 through his ,science independently of  
his having any will to make holiness his
 aim when he had been convinced4 ,this  
kind of evidence it has not pleased ,god
 to give4 ,it is not the scientific man 
that ,god seeks as such1 any more than  
it is the ignorant man that ,he seeks as
 such4 ,and the proofs that ,he gives   
are plainly in all cases conditioned by 

the rule that the spiritually minded    
shall most easily and most keenly       
perceive their force4  ,and1 as far as  
unbelievers are concerned1 ,i do not see
 that more need be said except to tell  
them that this rule is inflexible1 and  
that it is by another way that they must
 look to find ,god1 and not by the way  
that they insist on choosing4 ,but      
believers who are in the same case need 
to be warned of some very real dangers  
that always attend a faith which makes  
too much of things not spiritual4  ,for1
 first1 there is a real and great danger
 that the spiritual may be altogether   
obscured by the literal and the         
physical4 ,we look back with            
astonishment on the ,rabbinical         
interpretations of the ,old ,testament1 
and all the more because of the really  
great and true thoughts that are        
sometimes to be found in the midst of   
their fanciful conceits4 ,we can trace  
the mischief they did to true ,religion 
by the perverted reverence with which   

they regarded the words and even the    
letters1 and the very shapes of the     
letters1 in which their sacred books    
were written4 ,their perversions of the 
law of ,god1 their subtle refinements of
 interpretation1 their trivial conceits1
 their false and misleading comments and
 inferences1 all certainly tended to    
encourage the hypocrisy which our ,lord 
rebuked1 and against which ,st4 ,paul   
contended4 ,but we still see something  
of the same spirit in the attempt to    
maintain a verbal and even literal      
inspiration of the whole ,bible1 filling
 it not with the breath of a ,divine    
,spirit1 but with minute details of     
doctrine and precept often questionable1
 and1 whenever separated from the       
principles of the eternal law1 valueless
 or even mischievous4 ,god's ,word1     
instead of leading us to ,him1 is made  
to stand between and hide ,his face4    
,but1 secondly1 there is a serious risk 
that if the mind be fastened on things  
external in some way connected with1 but

 yet distinct from the substance of     
,revelation1 it may turn out that these 
external things cannot hold the ground  
on which they have been placed4 ,they   
have to be given up by force at last1   
when they ought to have been given up   
long before4 ,and when given up they too
 often tear away with them part of the  
strength of that faith of which they had
 previously been not only the buttress  
outside but a part of the living        
framework4 ,it is distinctly the fault  
of religious1 not of scientific men1    
that there was once a great contest     
between the ,bible and ,astronomy1 that 
there has since been a great contest    
between the ,bible and ,geology1 that   
there is still a great contest between  
the ,bible and ,evolution4 ,in no one of
 these cases was the ,revelation        
contained in the ,bible in danger1 but  
only the interpretation commonly put on 
the ,bible4 ,it is easy long afterwards 
to condemn the opponents of ,galileo and
 speak of their treatment of him and his

 teaching as fanaticism and bigotry2 and
 such condemnation has not unfrequently 
been heard from the very lips that      
nevertheless denounced the teaching of  
the geologists4 ,but in all these cases 
the principle has been the same1 and    
believers have insisted that the ,bible 
itself was gone unless their            
interpretation of it was upheld4 ,and   
the mischief is double4 ,for many       
believers1 and more especially unlearned
 believers1 instead of gently helping   
one another to form the necessary       
modification of their view of the ,bible
 teaching1 instead of endeavouring to   
find the way out of the perplexity and  
to disentangle the true spiritual lesson
 from the accessories which are no part 
of itself1 insisted that it must be all 
or nothing1 and prepared for themselves 
a very severe trial4 ,there was no      
doctrine involved whatever2 there was   
nothing at stake on which the spiritual 
life depended4 ,the duty to be patient1 
to enquire carefully1 to study the other

 side1 to wait for light1 was as plain  
as any duty could be4 ,but all this was 
forgotten in a somewhat unreasoning     
impulse to resist an assault on the     
faith4 ,and there cannot be a doubt that
 on all these occasions many believers  
have been seriously shaken by slowly    
finding out that the position they have 
taken is untenable4 ,when men have to   
give up in such circumstances they      
generally give up far more than they    
need1 and in some cases an unreasonable 
resistance has been followed by an      
equally unreasonable surrender4 ,and    
while believers have thus prepared a    
stumblingblock for themselves they have 
put quite as great a stumblingblock     
before others4 ,for students of         
,science1 informed by instant voices all
 around that they must choose between   
their ,science and the ,bible1 knowing  
as they did that their ,science was     
true1 and supposing that the lovers and 
defenders of the ,bible best knew what  
its teaching was1 had no choice as      

honest men but to hold the truth as far 
as they possessed it and to give up the 
,bible in order to maintain their       
,science4 ,it was a grievous injury     
inflicted on them2 and though some among
 them might deserve no sympathy1 there  
were some whom it was a great loss to   
lose4  ,but in the third place1 the     
result of this clinging to externals is 
to shut out ,science and all its        
correlative branches of knowledge from  
their proper office of making           
perpetually clearer the true and full   
meaning of the ,revelation itself4 ,it  
is intended that ,religion should use   
the aid of ,science in clearing her own 
conceptions4 ,it is intended that as men
 advance in knowledge of ,god's works   
and in power of handling that knowledge1
 they should find themselves better able
 to interpret the message which they    
have received from their ,father in     
,heaven4 ,our knowledge of the true     
meaning of the ,bible has gained1 and it
 was intended that it should gain1 by   

the increase of other knowledge4        
,science makes clearer than anything    
else could have made it the higher level
 on which the ,bible puts what is       
spiritual over what is material4 ,i do  
not hesitate to ascribe to ,science a   
clearer knowledge of the true           
interpretation of the first chapter of  
,genesis1 and to scientific history a   
truer knowledge of the great historical 
prophets4 ,the advance of secular       
studies1 as they are called1 clears up  
much in the ,psalms1 and much in the    
other poetical ,books of ,scripture4 ,i 
cannot doubt that this was intended from
 the beginning1 and that as ,science has
 already done genuine service to        
,religion in this way1 so will it do    
still better service with process of    
time4  ,on this side also1 as on the    
scientific side1 the teaching of the    
spiritual faculty and the teaching of   
,revelation indicate that the physical  
and the spiritual worlds are one whole1 
and that neither is complete without the

 other4 ,science enters into ,religion1 
and is its counterpart1 and has its     
share to take in the conduct of life and
 in the formation of opinion4 ,and the  
believer is bound to recognise its value
 and make use of its services4  ,in     
conclusion1 it is plain that the        
antagonism between ,science and         
,religion arises much more from a       
difference of spirit and temper in the  
students of each than from any inherent 
opposition between the two4 ,the man of 
,science is inclined to shut out from   
consideration a whole body of evidence1 
the moral and spiritual2 the believer is
 inclined to shut out the physical4 ,and
 each1 from long looking at that        
evidence alone which properly belongs to
 his own subject1 is inclined to hold   
the other cheap1 and to charge on those 
who adduce it either blindness of       
understanding or wilful refusal to      
accept the truth4 ,and when such a      
conflict arises it is the higher and not
 the lower1 it is ,faith and not        

,science that is likely to suffer4 ,for 
the physical evidence is tangible1 and  
the perception of it not much affected  
by the character of the man who studies 
it2 the spiritual evidence stands       
unshaken in itself1 but it is hid from  
eyes that have no spiritual perception1 
and that perception necessarily varies  
with the man4  ,by what means then can a
 man keep his spiritual perception in   
full activity8 ,and is there any test by
 which a man may know whether his       
spiritual faculty is in contact with the
 source of all spiritual life and is    
deriving from that source the full flow 
of spiritual power8 ,revelation1 if it  
tells us anything1 ought to tell us     
this4 ,and the answer which ,revelation 
makes is expressed in the words of ,st4 
,paul1 ',no man can say that ,jesus is  
the ,lord1 but by the ,holy ,ghost4'    
,this doctrine runs through the ,new    
,testament1 and it implies that one main
 purpose of our ,lord's appearance among
 men was to give them in ,his life1 ,his

 character1 ,his example1 ,his teaching1
 at once a touchstone by which they     
could always try their own spirits1 and 
judge of the real condition of their own
 spiritual faculty1 and also a vivid    
presentation of the supreme spiritual   
law by which they could for ever more   
and more elevate and purify and         
strengthen their own spiritual power and
 knowledge4  ,let a man study the ,jesus
 of the ,gospels4 ,let him put before   
his conscience the teaching that ,jesus 
gives2 the picture drawn of our ,father 
in ,heaven whose holiness cannot allow a
 stain upon a single soul1 and whose    
tenderness cannot endure that a single  
soul should perish2 ,who ruleth all the 
universe1 and yet without whom not a    
sparrow falleth to the ground2 the      
picture drawn of the ideal human life1  
the humility1 the hunger and thirst     
after righteousness1 the utter          
self-sacrifice1 the purity2 the picture 
drawn of human need1 the helplessness1  
the hopelessness of man without ,god4   

,let him ponder on all this and on the  
many touching expressions1 the truth1   
the depth1 the force1 the superhuman    
sweetness and gentleness with which all 
is presented4 ,and if his conscience    
bows before it1 and can say without     
reserve and in unalloyed sincerity1     
',this is my ,lord2 ,he shall be my     
teacher2 here ,i recognise the fulness  
of the eternal law2 at ,his feet will ,i
 henceforth sit and learn2 through ,him 
will ,i drink of the well-springs of    
eternal truth2 ,his voice will ,i trust 
to the very utmost2' then may that man  
be sure that his conscience is in       
contact with the ,father of spirits1 and
 that his study will guide him into     
fuller and clearer knowledge1 and more  
certain conviction that he is grasping  
the truth of ,god4  ,let a man put      
before his heart our ,lord's own        
character4 ,let him think of the life of
 privation without complaint1 of service
 to ,his kind without a thought of self2
 of ,his unfailing sympathy with the    

unhappy1 of ,his tenderness to the      
penitent2 of ,his royal simplicity and  
humility2 of ,his unwearied perseverance
 in the face of angry opposition2 of    
,his deep affection for the friends of  
,his choice even when they deserted ,him
 in ,his hour of darkness2 of ,his death
 on the ,cross and the unearthly love   
that breathed in every word ,he uttered 
and everything ,he did4 ,let him read   
all this many times2 and if his heart   
goes out to the ,man whom he is thus    
beholding1 if he can say with all his   
soul1 ,this is my ,lord2 here is the    
supreme object of my affection2 ,him    
will ,i love with all my strength2 from 
,him ,i will never1 if ,i can help it1  
let my heart swerve2 no other do ,i know
 more worthy to be loved2 no other will 
,i keep more steadily before my eyes2 no
 other will ,i more earnestly desire to 
imitate2 no other shall be my example1  
my trust1 my strength1 my ,saviour2 if a
 man can say this1 it is certain that   
his heart is touched by ,god1 and the   

heavenly fire is kindled in his soul4   
,let a man put before his will the      
,lord's commands2 the aims1 the         
self-restraints1 the aspirations that   
the ,lord required in ,his disciples4   
,let him ponder on the call to heavenly 
courage in spite of all that earth can  
inflict or can take away2 the call to   
take up the ,cross and follow ,him that 
was crucified2 the warnings and the     
promises1 the precepts and the          
prohibitions2 let him think of the      
,leader who never flinched1 of the      
,lawgiver who outdid ,his own law2 let  
him think on the nobleness of the aims  
to which ,he pointed2 of the promise of 
inward peace made to those who          
sacrificed themselves1 made by our ,lord
 and re-echoed from the very depths of  
our spiritual being2 let him think of   
the sure help promised in return for    
absolute trust1 tried by millions of    
saints and never yet known to fail4 ,let
 a man put this before his will1 and if 
he can say with all his soul1 ,this is  

my ,lord2 here ,i recognise ,him who has
 a right to my absolute obedience2 here 
is the ,master that ,i mean to serve and
 follow2 and in spite of my own weakness
 and blindness1 in spite of my sins1 in 
spite of stumbling and weariness of     
resolution1 in spite of temptations and 
in spite of falls1 ,i will not let my   
eyes swerve1 nor my purpose quit my     
will2 through death itself ,i will obey 
my ,lord and trust to ,him to carry me  
through whatever comes2 that man most   
certainly is moving in the strength of  
,god1 and the power of the ,eternal     
,spirit lives within him4  ,our ,lord is
 the crown1 nay1 the very substance of  
all ,revelation4 ,if ,he cannot convince
 the soul1 no other can4 ,the believer  
stakes all faith on ,his truth2 all hope
 on ,his power4 ,if the man of ,science 
would learn what it is that makes       
believers so sure of what they hold1 he 
must study with an open heart the ,jesus
 of the ,gospels2 if the believer seeks 
to keep his faith steady in the presence

 of so many and sometimes so violent    
storms of disputation1 he will read of1 
ponder on1 pray to1 the ,lord ,jesus    
,christ4     ,,footnotes3  ,footnote #a3
 ,the ,data of ,philosophy4