Such is the author's presumptuous decision on a matter which is far "too high for him." We offer the following remarks upon it: _First_ of all, let it be observed that, unless on the principle of absolute Atheism, which he professes to repudiate, he cannot but acknowledge that _once_, at least, the power of God must have been put forth _in another manner_ than "in those slow, mysterious, universal laws" of which he speaks; and that, even if he could succeed in disproving "repeated interferences of creative power," he could in nowise dispense with a primitive act of direct, immediate, supernatural creation, since he does not profess to believe in the eternal existence of matter and its laws. We find, indeed, that even in the subsequent acts of a continuous, but mediate creation, he is compelled to acknowledge a supernatural power as acting, in each individual case, according to established natural laws; for he says expressly, "There cannot be _an inherent intelligence in these laws_; the intelligence appears _external to the laws_, something of which the laws are but as the expression of the will and power. If this be admitted, the laws cannot be regarded as primary or independent causes of the phenomena of the physical world. We come, in short, to a being beyond Nature,--its Author, its God." ... "When we speak of Natural Law, we only speak of _the mode in which the Divine power is exercised_; it is but another phrase for _the action of the ever-present and sustaining God_."[54] It is admitted, then, _first_, that there must have been a primary act of creation, in the highest and strictest sense, by a direct and immediate interposition of Divine power, at the commencement of created existence; and, _secondly_, that, even in the continuous work of creation, which is supposed to have been subsequently carried on after the method of development by established natural laws, Divine agency is still equally real, although it is differently manifested, and is indispensably necessary to account for the resulting products. Now, can it be reasonably asserted that the direct and immediate creation of such a being as Man would be more derogatory to the wisdom and power of God than the primordial production of "a universal Fire-Mist," or even of "electricity and albumen?" or, will it be pretended that immediate creation of molluscs as molluscs, of fishes as fishes, of reptiles as reptiles, would be less worthy of the great Author of Nature than the establishment of a system which _must_ in due time give them birth, and that, too, not without the concurrence and cooeperation of the Divine will; for "natural law is but another phrase for _the action_ of the ever-present and sustaining God?"