Cause. In short, proof must be obtained that the present order of things had a beginning; and to obtain this proof he appeals to the revelations of geology. But geology serves his purpose only in as far as it discountenances the doctrines of transmutation and spontaneous generation; so that his whole argument rests upon the truth or falsity of these doctrines. Now, it is undoubtedly the case that the vast preponderance of scientific evidence is in favour of successive creative acts, in opposition to transmutation or spontaneous generation; still, we deplore the attempt to base the whole superstructure of Natural Theology on this the obscurest of natural sciences—to substitute a faint glimmering light from the darkest recesses of nature for the bright sunshine of design reflected from all God's works. According to this view, the argument of design per se is of no use whatever in proving the being of a God. Its bearing is felt only after the being of a God is virtually proved by establishing a beginning to the collocations of matter.
It is obvious from the line of argument pursued both by Paley and Chalmers, that they looked upon the non-eternity of matter as a purely scriptural truth beyond the reach of human reason. But if we admit the argument of design, if we admit that collocation implies a beginning, may we not legitimately push the argument somewhat further, and hold that matter itself must have had a beginning? We observe marks
