ur estimate of the Divine
character; and, in proof, cites Dr. DODDRIDGE, who cannot be suspected
of irreverence. "When we assert," says the pious and amiable author, "a
perpetual Divine agency, we readily acknowledge that matters are so
contrived as not to need a Divine interposition in a different manner
from that in which it had been constantly exerted. And it must be
evident that an unremitting energy, displayed in such circumstances,
_greatly exalts our idea of God, instead of depressing it_; and,
therefore, by the way, is so much more likely to be true." Against
constructive inferences it is urged, in the _Explanations_--

"As to results which may flow from any particular view which reason
may show as the best supported, I must firmly protest against any
assumed title in an opponent to pronounce what these are. The first
object is to ascertain truth. No truth can be derogatory to the
presumed fountain of all truth. The derogation must lie in the
erroneous construction which a weak human creature puts upon the
truth. And practically it is the true infidel state of mind which
prompts apprehension regarding any fact of nature, or any
conclusion of sound argument."

The writer then quotes Sir JOHN HERSCHELL as having some years ago
announced views strictly conformable to those subsequently taken of
organic creation in the _Vestiges_:--

"'For my part,' says Sir John, 'I cannot but think it an inadequate
conception of the Creator, to assume it as granted that his
combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their
former exercise, though, in this, as in all his other works, we are
led, by _all analogy_, to suppose that he operates through a series
of intermediate causes, and that, in consequence, _the origination
of fresh species, could it ever come under our cognizance, would be
found to be a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous
process_,--although we perceive no indications of any process
actually in progress which is likely to issue in such a result. In
his address to the British Association at Cambridge, (1845), he
said with respect to the author's hypothesis of the first step of
organic creation--'The transition from an inanimate crystal to a
globule capable of such endless organic and intellectual
development, is as great a step--as unexplained a one--as
unintelligib