261 
does not prove the rule arises, and then you have to alter your rules or 
laws so as to accommodate the exception. Still these exceptions are 
naturally kept in the background, in popular science especially, and there 
is a great temptation, even in learned scientific treatises, to keep them a 
little out of sight. 
J. A. Eraser, Esq., M.D., I.G.H. — I should like to ask a question of 
Mr. Pattison. He says in his 21st paragraph : — 
“ An eternal progression is an impossibility ; it is a contradiction, for 
progress supposes an end towards which it moves. It is contradicted by 
fact, for on this supposition all development by evolution would have begun 
alike and all be at the same stage in time, whereas we find its subjects in 
every possible stage at the same time.” 
Well, probably all atoms began alike in one sense, but why must they all 
be at the same stage in time ? I do not know that I quite understand this 
passage in the paper, but possibly that is my own and not Mr. Pattison’s 
fault. In his 46th paragraph, Mr. Pattison says : — 
“ This is the explanatory fact which appears to reconcile Christianity and 
Philosophy, namely, that we may believe that which we cannot fully con- 
ceive of.” 
Here, I think, is one of the great mistakes which many men in the present 
day make ; they insist that they must understand all before they believe : 
for myself, I think I may believe, and I do believe, a great many things that 
I cannot fully understand, and never shall fully understand in this imperfect 
life. There is a well-known Latin proverb to that effect, but the same idea 
is given us in that passage of St. Paul’s, “ By faith we understand that 
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen 
were not made of things which do appear.” 
Rev. S. Wainwright, D.D. — It is a couple of years since I was here 
before, but in the interval I have read the papers which have been laid 
before this Institute, and need not say that I have enjoyed them as much as 
most of the members ; I fully agree with the remark already made, that this 
is an especially valuable paper. May I, however, draw attention to some 
salient points. I object to leaving the whole conclusion so dogmatically 
although so neatly laid down in the very second sentence of the paper, 
where Mr. Pattison says : — 
“ The existence of order implies limits effected by ordination, limits imply 
a limiting power, a cause.” 
If this is true, there is no need to write anything more ; the object of the 
whole paper is gained. But is it so ? Does order imply limits 1 Ask 
Professor Huxley. I know Mr. Pattison better than to suppose that he 
means to rely on this statement alone ; he writes the paper in support of 
these theses, but it appears to me that our case would not be weakened if he 
proceeded in the other direction. It may be argued that Mr. Pattison has 
