23 G 
world by generatio cequivoca. Tertium non datur. If a man is at all anxious 
to settle the question of the world’s origiu, his only choice lies between 
these two alternatives.’ 
This is evidently intended to eliminate the question and represent it as 
comparatively indifferent. 
“ This declaration, coming from such a man as Professor V irchow, made no 
little noise in German lands. The great pathologist being considered a 
luminary in natural science, opposed to every species of orthodoxy and 
altogether innocent of faith, the cautious distinction he drew between fact 
and conjecture went far to convince the uninitiated that the production 
of man in the chymist’s retort was not likely to be recorded among the 
discoveries of the age. The cold water the Professor dashed into the face 
of these vain imaginings has sobered public opinion and contributed to a 
wholesome reaction. Still, much is left unsaid in his speech which, in the 
opinion of those interested in the paramount question he declines to enter 
upon, ought to have been emphasized. The Professor, for instance, might 
have told us that even if Carbon and Co. had ever been observed to 
produce an organism, the atheists’ argument that this proves the absence 
of a Creator would still be a rash and irrational presumption. By those 
inquiring into the cause of the surrounding phenomena the question in this 
case would have been asked, Who gave the chymical elements the power 
to produce life, if not a Creator ? It is true that those who consider the 
question no concern of theirs will refrain from putting it ; but if rationalists 
are driven to confess that the only alternative of man lies between acknow- 
ledging a Creator or shirking the subject, the advent of a crisis in the 
history of disbelief is announced by the leaders of the movement themselves. 
A dim notion of coming intellectual revulsion is pervading Germany at 
this moment.” 
A discussion of a general character ensued, in which the following took 
part: Rev. J. Fisher, D.D. ; D. Howard, Esq., F.C.S. ; Rev. Preb. Row ; 
L. Dibdin, Esq. ; and the Chairman ; the Author having replied, 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REMARKS UPON THE FOREGOING PAPER BY MR. JOHN 
WALTER LEA. 
Heartily accepting the “ philosophy ” of the short paragraph on p. 194 of 
Mr. Howard’s most interesting paper, I think he has been scarcely careful 
enough in his use of the terms “ evolution ” and “ evolutionists ’’ to make it 
clear that he is speaking of the materialistic school only, and that with the 
Christian evolutionist, who believes with full faith in Creation and Provi- 
dence, he has, here at least, no quarrel. If, however, he believes that 
Haeckelism is the only consistent doctrine of evolution, I venture to think 
