288 
homogeneous, but, on the contrary, very heterogeneous. I should like 
to know how an atom of hydrogen could be changed into one of 
carbon, or sulphur, or iron, or bismuth, or gold, or any other metal ; 
and yet this is what would be meant by evolution in a_ physical 
sense. As a matter of fact, no one has ever known an atom of hydrogen 
become anything but an atom of hydrogen. As regards the note on 
page 260, the evolution theory is that certain animals placed in the depths 
of the ocean were once without eyes, as, indeed, is the case now. These 
creatures do not appear to require them, and manage to get on very well 
without them; and, this being so, one cannot see why they should not 
remain satisfied with their condition in this respect. But, according to the 
evolutionists, we are to assume that these animals became dissatisfied with 
their want of vision; that certain small fibres along the surface of their 
bodies became slightly sensitive to light, and thus they were ultimately led to 
develope visual organs. Why this should be we cannot see, nor are we 
told of what use it can be to them to become slightly sensitive to the action 
of light. But, nevertheless, this is the orthodox theory, and we must not 
call it in question. Well, then, having been thus rendered slightly sensitive 
to light for a thousand years or so, the sensitiveness increases, and this is 
the theory as to how eyes are developed! When we have regard to all the 
long nascent stages which so many generations of these animals must 
necessarily undergo in the working out of this process, the absurdity of the 
whole thing is rendered manifest. I think the part of the paper. which 
deals with the force of conscience, puts the subject in a very clear and 
able way. It is merely an adaptation of the thoughts expressed by Bishop 
Butler; but there can be no doubt whatever, without any appeal to 
authority, that the universality of the faculty of conscience is one of the 
great arguments for theism and the existence of God. The three main 
arguments for this proposition are, the metaphysical argument, the argument 
from nature, and the argument founded on conscience. The metaphysical 
argument, which, I think, hardly deserves all the hard names that have been 
applied to it, is, nevertheless, one of the leading proofs of a First Cause ; 
the argument from nature is, likewise, a powerful one; but the argument 
from conscience is, I suppose, the strongest of all, and I think Mr. 
Blencowe has put it in an exceedingly able manner. 
Mr. R. J. Hammonp.—At page 257 the author says, “The man who 
is placed at the head of a grand operative establishment, having a large 
capital and many subordinates under his control, is bound to greater 
carefulness, diligence, and fidelity than any one under him.” Thus, the 
pressure is put on the human conscience. Then, the author goes on to 
say, “ By this rule, how truly boundless is our responsibility to the Creator 
and Upholder of al] things.” The higher the position the greater the 
responsibility. The ruler of a state becomes the servant of that state ; 
the head of a government becomes the servant of his fellow-creatures, and. 
cannot sleep as they do, because of the cares imposed upon him, This, it should 
be remembered, is a responsibility which follows what the rulers have 
