274 
Dr. Irons. — 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 anything on the subject. He only speaks 
of one or more, forms of life, and he does not confine himself to vegetable life. 
Dr. Irons. — 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, of into one.’’ He here alludes to the beginning of 
things. Nothing 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 
lidt be allowed to descend into a conversation. 
Mr. Titcomb. — 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. If 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 instance 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 all 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 all the 
laws of nature by night and by day, — an interpenetration, if I may so speak, 
of God’s Spirit, by which we have God’s presence acting in and upon, and 
working with and about, every department of nature ceaselessly, continuously 
from 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 providence, 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 
