203 
Eev. Dr. Irons. — I doubt that. 
Mr. Warington. — I am speaking from memory ; but I am quoting from a 
book written by one of our best ethnologists (Mr. E. B. Tylor), who men- 
tions a considerable number of nations in which traditions exist amongst 
the people as to those who first brought fire into their country. I think we 
might take a statement of this kind, — especially from a person who is 
extremely careful and cautious in all he says, and whose deductions have 
been always well considered,— I think we might take his statement as some- 
what antagonistic to the general position which Mr. Beddie took up in 
his argument ; for surely this is a tradition of rising in civilization, or rising 
from a lower state in civilization to a state which was higher. I do not 
mean to say it is a rise from utter savagery (hear, hear) ; but it is a rise tending 
in that direction, — it is a tradition going against that which I thought Mr. 
Beddie insisted upon so strenuously, namely, the tradition of a fall from 
what was higher to what was lower ; — an item, therefore, of positive evi- 
dence, over and above the general probability that the traditions of a fall 
from a higher state would be remembered, while the traditions of a rise from 
a lower to a higher state of civilization would be forgotten. 
Professor Oliver Byrne. — I have just one remark to make with 
reference to the arguments in the paper. We find that all those 
properties in creation that have come by little and little have more 
or less a complete gamut. W e have, however, five senses ; but we 
have no positive gamut for any of them. Neither have we a gamut 
for any of the qualities of the heart. We have no gamut for friendship ; we 
have got no gamut for love ; we have not a single gamut for any of those 
perfect things of which we have experience, — consequently they never grew 
little by little. If they had grown little by little, there would have been a 
symbol for every change — there would have been a mark for all the powers 
and passions of the head and heart. For instance, there are three qualities of 
the head : we have got the power to analyze — the power of taking things 
apart and looking at them ; the power of putting them together ; and the 
power of alternation ; but we have got no gamut to show how we commenced to 
learn these mental processes. When we speak of science, also, we must recollect 
that true science depends upon positive proof. But Darwinism is not 
science : it is without proof — without axioms or definitions. Had man grown 
little by little, as the Darwinians say, every single power and passion of the 
head and heart would have had a nicely-formed gamut. But what is the 
fact ? Look at the man, for instance, who is employed in China tasting tea. 
1 le cannot teach a man how he tells the taste ; he cannot tell how he does it ; 
he cannot give a gamut for the taste that God Almighty gave him, — it can- 
not, therefore, have grown little by little : it must have been got altogether ; 
and so it is with all the perfect things in creation. 
Mr. h owler. With reference to the remarks of the gentleman who 
spoke before Professor Byrne, I have one word to say. Mr. Warington’s 
argument appeared to be, that it was quite possible that civilized man could 
have developed himself from a savage state. Now it appears to me, that we 
