393 
accurate scientific study, prove, as far as it is possible to prove 
anything in science, that all life, even of the most elementary 
forms, is derived from antecedent life. 
If this is true now, we must suppose it true in the earliest 
geological periods, and are therefore left with no explanation 
of the great mystery of the presence of life upon the globe, 
hut that, at once old and true, — the fiat of Omnipotence. 
The Chairman (the Master of the Charterhouse). — I am sure I may 
convey the thanks of the meeting to Mr. Howard for his interesting paper. 
Kev. Dr. Fisher.— (A Pause .)— Perhaps it is because the paper is so much 
beyond the reach of hostile criticism that no one rises to speak upon it. I 
have had much pleasure in reading it over at my leisure, and also in hearing 
it read ; but perhaps a friendly critic may say that it is, if anything, rather 
modest in some of its statements. It might advance a little further than 
it has done in some things, and instead of speaking hesitatingly, it might 
assert, most strongly, the point at which it aims. In the 24th paragraph 
I find this passage : — 
“ We must be struck with the prodigal variety of nature, if we may use 
the word, which has enriched the earth with substances.” 
Now, I think a good many of our difficulties, at present, arise from the 
want of good definitions, and adhering with precision to those definitions. 
There must arise here the question of what is meant by Nature. Do we 
mean by Nature the whole of existence, or do we mean the whole of created 
existence ? Shall we say, as Chatham said in one of his speeches, “God 
and Nature,” or shall we say “ Nature ” ? Almost all the sceptics admit 
something of creation ; scarcely any of them will say there is no such thing, 
or they confound and contradict themselves. We first hold by Nature as 
the sum of created existence, and then stand up for God as the creator of 
all, and then we can understand the “prodigal variety”; but Nature of itself, 
we hold, is blind. Nature of itself can do nothing, except through processes 
which the God of nature produces. This is, in my opinion, an important 
point : we should have good definitions first, and precision of language in 
speaking afterwards. 
Rev. Prebendary Row.— There are few things in the actual statements 
in the paper with which I should be disposed to find fault, but it appears 
to me that it fails to realize the point stated in the programme. The paper 
is entitled “On the Structure of Geological Formations as Evidence of 
Design,” but it seems to me that the evidence of design has been nowhere 
pointed out, except in one case, where we are told that the various stars 
are composed of different materials from the earth or the sun. No doubt 
if that is established as a fact, it will prove the presence of design, because 
