274 



Dr. Iro>:s. — Is it their theory that the atoms were all homogeneous ? Were 

 they all of the same kind, or was there a great variety ? 



!Mr. TiTCOMB. — That would only complicate the question. It does not 

 matter whether they were homogeneous or not. 



Dr. Bree. — Darwin does not say anythiug on the subject. He only speaks 

 of one or more forms of life, and he does not confine himself to vegetable life. 



Dr. Iroxs. — You say " one or more forms of life ? 



Dr. Bree. — I will read Dr. Darwin s words : — " There is grandeur in this 

 view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the 

 Creator into a few forms, or into one.'' He here alludes to the beginning of 

 things. Xothiug can be clearer than these words ; and it will be seen that 

 he alludes neither to vegetable nor to any other form of life. He merely 

 says " a few forms." 



The Chairman. — I must request that the discussion of this paper may 

 not be allowed to descend into a conversation. 



Mr. T1TC031B. — I have to thank the chairman for ruling as he has done. 

 Mr. Darwin makes no reference to anything that is not biological, simply 

 because the theory he has to deal with, is from first to last biological, and 

 this accounts for his not referring to the vegetable world, or to the atmo- 

 sphere, or to the inorganic world, in any of his books. K he were here, I am 

 sure he would allow that the first germ of life was long subsequent to the 

 creation of inorganic matter. On this ground I say that the argument raised 

 against his view as necessitating the fact of the vegetable world having come 

 first, is out of place, and that in this instiince Darwinism is rather in harmony 

 with the Word of God than opposed to it. I am not here espousing the 

 doctrines of Darwin, but I like to see justice done even to those with whom 

 I disagree. Another argument that has been raised against Darwin is, that 

 his theory involves the admission that there is no superintending Creator. 

 There can be no doubt that this is unfortunately the tendency of the doctrine 

 he lays down ; but the question with which we have to deal is, does it of 

 necessity involve this doctrine ? The fact is, that God is actually present 

 sustaining aU natural law ; and the law of evolution itself cannot in any 

 sense, according to my judgment, be opposed to divine action. There is the 

 idea of persistent volition running throughout and in contact with aU the 

 laws of nature by night and by day, — an interpenetration, if I may so speak, 

 of God's Spirit, by which we have G^d's presence acting in and upon, and 

 working with and about, every department of nature ceaselessly, continuously 

 fiom the first act of creation to the last. It appears to me that in this way 

 you get the idea of a superintending Creator and proAidence, and that this is 

 quite consistent with the theory of evolution. It is said, and said very 

 properly, that this doctrine appears to drive God a long way back, and to 

 constitute Him merely one who created a set of laws and certain matter, and 

 then left them to themselves. I grant that this is what "Wallace and others, 

 who are free-thinkers, say about it ; but I ask whether they have a right to say 

 so ? I will take the case of my own church organ, which is rather a large 

 one. The organist sits at some distance from the instrument, nevertheless 



