opinions of educated and thoughtful men on that profound
topic are so unsettled, diverse, and conflicting. A philo-
sophical treatment of the subject might comprise a discussion
of such questions as whether a natural knowledge of God is
possible to man, and, if possible, by what means and through
what faculties it is attainable; what are the grounds for
believing in the existence of a God; and, if this belief is
justified, what may be supposed to be his essential nature
and attributes, and what his relations to the world in géneral
and to man in particular. Now I desire to confess at once
that an adequate discussion of these and kindred questions
would far exceed both my capacity and my knowledge; for
he who would do justice to so arduous an enquiry should
not only be endowed with a comprehensive and penetrating
genius, but should possess a wide and accurate acquaintance
with the best accredited results of philosophic speculation
and scientific research. To such qualifications I can lay no
claim, and accordingly I must regard myself as unfitted for
a purely philosophic treatment of natural theology. To speak
plainly, the question of the existence of a God is too deep for
me. I dare neither affirm nor deny it. I can only humbly
confess my ignorance. Accordingly, if Lord Gifford had
required of his lecturers either a dogmatic or a philosophical
treatment of natural theology, I could not have undertaken
to deliver the lectures.

-2-