are to be rendered in accordance with the preponderating evidence, I can not but believe that Dr. B's method of demonstrating supernaturalism must be peremptorily repudiated. He brings up the fossil remains of a single fish, to prove that all the uniform testimonies of Nature, in favor of progression, are doubtful or valueless. And then, having given himself the "benefit of the doubt," he turns the case over to supernaturalism; and proceeds to give the impression that the fish could not have been placed in its stony prison, except by the supernatural system of God operating upon the system of Nature! But I have tried to discover the location of that fish-skeleton, and I do not find such a fact in Nature, although it is mentioned in the works of three or four authors who have endeavored to throw doubt and discord over the philosophy of progressive development. The supernaturalist should be exceedingly careful in the selection of his evidences; because, not being a practical geologist himself, he might very easily be imposed upon by so-called facts, which may have no other foundation than the prejudice and conservatism of theologians.

But what shall we say about the NURSING? Why, simply this that it is not true that the plan does not advance with the progression of the species. Every advancement in the organization of animals-especially the mammalial types-is attended with a corresponding improvement in the care of the young. The more intelligent the animal, the less is the system of nursing a matter of mechanism and instinct. The Salmon is provided with a natural cradle for its young, because it has not the intelligence to make one. The Kangaroo is provided with a pouch in which to carry its young, because it has not the intelligence to manufacture blankets and garments to protect the young body from the atmosphere. Now, will Dr. B. affirm the human offspring to be less cared for than these lower organisms, because merely the

is

human mother is not provided with those imperfect and cumbrous appendages? Surely, the plan of nursing the young more and more perfected as creation advances from the lowest saurian to the human type. To affirm contrary to this, is to impeach the plainest declarations of the universal system. Thus again, Dr. B's evidences of supernaturalism in nature, are shown to be groundless.

But what shall we say about the "acorn" which develops the stalwart oak? The Lecturer seemed to regard the growth of trees as accomplished by supernatural action! He said you might plunge a knife into the acorn, and examine it in various ways, still it is nothing but a plain nodule. That is to say, it is a thing in nature. But place that nodule in the earth, and soon it comes forth, adding length after length of wood; and, while the seasons come and depart, this tree stands up in defiance of the laws of gravitation and chemistry. I think Dr. B. was very obscure in what he said of this oak. This obscurity may be regarded, like a bad handwriting, as evidence of scholarship, but it certainly is no indication of clear-thinking or that the individual is naturally and properly a teacher.

If I have exhumed the meaning of the lecturer on this point, it signifies this-viz.: that the Acorn derived its potency, to build the ponderous oak, from the supernatural system of God. That the oak was the type of other and higher miracles; the prophecy of more spiritual demonstrations of supernaturalism. Now if this reasoning be correct, there can not possibly be any uniform law or rationalistic explanation in nature to account for the production of trees. But what are the facts? Why, the growth of trees is a chemical phenomenon. Chemistry has revealed the existence of an invariable Power in nature which promotes union between Elements and Compounds, even though their apparent natures be strongly opposed. This power is termed "chemical attraction;" but

can see no reason why it should not be called the unchangeable will of God operating in nature, like the flowing of blood in the human body, an eternal attribute of the ONE INDISSOLUBLE SYSTEM. The acorn, or nodule, would not produce an oak, if, instead of placing it in the earth, you should drop it in the water or among stones. There is nothing supernatural in the manifestation. Because the growth of trees depends upon certain favorable external conditions; whilst, if that result was ever accomplished by the direct action of God on the world, we should see some variation from the established laws.

Dr. B——. almost ridiculed the idea, that Nature by itself could develop organism endowed with motion, life, sensation, &c.; but does he not know that flour, damped with a little water, will, in a few days or even hours, be transformed into moving, living, feeling organisms? Does he not know that certain kinds of decomposed vegetation in stagnant water, will, if partially exposed to the sun, develop worms, lizards, and frogs incipiently-all, endowed with motion, life, and sensation? If the Lecturer admits this, but attributes the process of organization to supernatural action upon nature, then he virtually acknowledges that Omnipotence is itself subjected to man's power; because man can arrange the materials to produce these animals, or prevent the phenomena altogether by cleanliness and civilization. And man can develop rye from oats; or oak trees from a combination of chestnut, pine, and walnut. If oats are cast in the ground at the proper season, and kept mowed down during the summer and autumnal months, and allowed to remain undisturbed till the succeeding spring, the oats will completely disappear, and a moderate growth of rye will appear at the close of the following summer. Thus, it is by no means safe for Dr. Bbounds to the achievements of chemistry. As a science, it is yet in its infancy. But whether by its aid, man will in the future, be able or not to combine Elements and Compounds

to set

so as to develop a wolf, a fox, or a lion, if he desires it, is a question which time and science will answer much better than any disciple of oriental dogmas.

In conclusion, I will direct your attention to a subject upon which Dr. B. bestowed the most labor and manifested the greatest enthusiasm-i. e., the free agency of the human mind. In discussing this matter, in its connections to supernaturalism, the Lecturer referred frequently to an imaginary portion of his discourse, which he termed "The Argument." I say "imaginary," because it was impossible to understand what he meant by "the argument," unless we adopt the hypothesis that he supposed he had one somewhere in the premises. What else he particularly referred to I can not discover.

The primary and scriptural definition of "Nature,” be it remembered, was a system of cause and effect—a means, bringing about ends according to the action of the supernatural system upon, or within, its constitution. As NATURE, however, it was to be regarded as a system by itself; possessing inherent laws and fixed principles. At this point Dr. B. started the subject of free agency. He said, in substance, that if he could bring those inherent laws and principles into subjection, it would prove that he was independent of nature in the same proportion; and would prove, also, that he was to the same degree supernatural and responsible to a supernatural government for the right use of his freedom and capabilities.

He said that NATURE never told falsehoods; never constructed pistols and powder; never loaded these weapons and shot men; but he could obtain powder, put it in a pistol and shoot his neighbor, and be hung for it. Whereas, he said, if the Rationalistic doctrine of cause and effect be true, the powder was as much to blame for the murder as he―inasmuch as, according to this naturalistic doctrine, he was merely acting as an effect; or from the strongest cause or

impulse of his organization. Dr. B. concluded that man was perfectly free in the volition of his consciousness-and supernatural in his supremacy to nature; and therefore accountable to, and dependent upon, the supernatural kingdom of God for his actions and ultimate redemption from sin.

Now let us see into this. Dr. B. asserts that he can procure powder, load a pistol, and shoot his neighbor-proving thereby that he is morally free, and superior to nature; because he can do what nature can not. Nature by the way, even when considered in her lowest departments, does manufacture powder, or explosive compositions, and nature does shoot and kill human beings by her coal mines and volcanic eruptions. And it is true, that the stones, trees, and inferior animals of NATURE do not build ships, &c.; but when the system of creation has progressed to the human species, developing thereby new wants and powers, then NATURE, through the organization of man, does build houses and ships, and unfolds results through the higher instrumentalities of the human intellect.

By what Dr. B. says of personal freedom, he displays almost unpardonable ignorance of the construction and nature of the human mind, and seems to entertain the most confused and contracted view of the relationship and harmonious dependencies of things. When the Lecturer viewed himself as connected with the universe of God by a chain of causes and effects, and supposed himself to be let down "into a well" where he could touch nothing but "the link just above," what a sense of loneliness and abhorrence did he manifest! But I know of nothing in Rationalism so-called to which this graphic comparison is at all applicable; although, when I think of popular theology, with its mechanism of intercession and redemption, I realize something analogous to Dr. B's description of his own sensations.

Rationalism, or Harmonial spiritualism, sees MAN as a microcosm―as a miniature universe; being perpetually visited