What should we say of a man who has a great and
beautiful picture submitted to him, and who, having
satisfied himself that the account given of the painting
of the picture is incorrect, at once concludes that
no one ever painted it, or at least asserts that he has
no possible means of knowing whether an artist has
produced it or not? That is, as it seems to me, a fair
statement of the position of some of the more extreme
agnostics. "Is not the mere existence of the picture in
itself a proof that a skilful artist has been busied upon
it? one might ask. "Why, no," says the objector. It is
possible that the picture produced itself by the aid of
certain rules. Besides, when the picture was first
submitted to me I was assured that it had all been
produced within a week, but by examining it I am able to
say with certainty that it has taken a considerable time
to put together. I am therefore of opinion that it is
questionable whether any one ever painted it at all."
Leaving this exaggerated scientific caution on the
one side, and faith on the other, as being equally
indefensible, there remains the clear line of reasoning
that a universe implies the existence of a universe
maker, and that we may deduce from it some of His
attributes, His power, His wisdom, His forethought for
small wants, His providing of luxuries for His creatures.
On the other hand, do not let us be disingenuous enough
to shirk the mystery which lies in pain, in cruelty,
in all which seems to be a slur upon His work.
Pages:
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250