300 REV. H. J. OLARKE 
to account for retrogression. It must be admitted to be conceivable that in 
the Cosmos as a whole, there may be a continuous advance in heterogeneity, 
yet such as, so far from being uniformly favourable to every species of 
developnient, necessitates, to some extent, organic deterioration, Neverthe- 
less, in the human physique, even if it could be clearly shown to have 
improved, there is nothing whatever to countenance the notion that the 
interpretation of man’s spiritual history should be sought in atomic 
tendencies to complex molecular arrangement. 
The sort of philosophy which, having discovered these tendencies, finds 
itself at the limits of its field of investigation, and can distinguish nething 
beyond, could not be expected to introduce into its nomenclature the term 
Evolution without misusing it, and—to adopt Sir William Dawson’s words— 
including under it “in a most uncritical manner the ideas of causation both 
primary and secondary, and of development both direct and indirect.” For, 
although the conception of a cause may easily become entangled in meta- 
physical confusion with that of its operation or its effect, to banish it 
altogether from the elaboration of first principles in any system of philosophy 
is impossible. My endeavour has been to vindicate for the true philosophy 
its rightful claim to a much-abused word, and, by a legitimate application of 
that word, to bring into view the Fundamental Cause, to which, along with 
every other name, and with every indication of existence or of change, it is 
always pointing. 
In my impromptu reply to the critical, but candid and friendly, remarks 
which the reading of my paper elicited, I have already given such explana- 
tions as will, I trust, satisfy Mr. Griffith and the speakers who followed 
him that my views virtually coincide with those they expressed on all the 
momentous questions that came under discussion. In order, however, to 
obviate all possible misapprehension of the drift of my argument, I beg 
leave to call attention to paragraph 4. Having undertaken to examine the 
fundamental hypothesis of the theory of Evolution as commonly propounded, 
I there commence my argument by supposing for the process of differentia- 
tion a point of departure ; I start with what I thus conceive to be a necessary 
assumption respecting the origin of the Cosmos. But, as will be observed, 
the assumption is made in the way of temporary concession, and with a view 
toa reductio ad absurdum, my object being to expose the fallacy which I see 
lurking in the phrase “ unstable equilibrium.” 
As soon as I have so far accomplished my purpose, I go on to point out 
how, as I believe, it is possible to arrive, by a strictly scientific process of 
investigation, at a distinct conception of the real origin of things. I indicate 
what seems to me to be a demonstrably trustworthy clue to that by which 
all finite existence is accounted for. But what I assert to be thus dis- 
coverable is not an ageregate consisting, on the one hand, of conceptual 
abstractions, self-subsisting and possessed, of the power of self-evolution 
into concrete forms, and, on the other hand, of a suitable, but absolutely 
nondescript, vehicle for these forms, likewise self-subsisting, but conditioned 
as to its mode of existence by time and space; it is a personal Creator 
