211 
for three and a half years was, that they had signally failed to find 
the least trace of any such living and world-enveloping monster ! I 
have only to add that, were the physicist or chemist to succeed in pro- 
ducing in the laboratory a combination of elementary substances in which 
vital actions manifested themselves in the absence of any antecedent germs 
of life, we should still be as far off as ever from having arrived at a solution 
of the problem of what Life is. For, even then, we should derive all our 
knowledge respecting it only from its phenomena. And, taking these facts 
as my scientific standpoint, I venture to maintain that, however far our 
knowledge of the physical laws which govern the universe may be extended 
in time to come, the one paramount problem of Life will still confront and 
defy all human efforts. 
Mr. W. Griffith. — The learned Professor alluded, with some force, to 
the respect due to authority ; and, considering that he occupies the chair 
which was at one time occupied by the great Sir Isaac Newton, it may seem 
somewhat presumptuous in me to offer any observations that may appear to 
differ from what he has stated. But the question at issue is really one of 
fact. All sciences — physical and metaphysical, moral and my own peculiar 
one of the law — if they have any truth in them, are collections of facts 
and logical deductions therefrom. If we look for a basis of fact, we find 
that the theory of evolution, carried to its extremity, is merely theoretical, 
and has nothing solid upon which it can rest. Nor does it solve the most 
important questions of the problem, inasmuch as it overlooks some of the 
most important elements that ought to enter into the discussion. Never- 
theless, while I fully agree that the atheistical evolutionist has nothing 
on which he can fairly rest his hypothesis, I do think, with Dr. Wallich, 
that it is questionable whether we may not be making our path need- 
lessly difficult. The learned Professor has told us that, in his opinion, 
if A were evolved from B, and B from C, and so on, the result would be, 
that by removing the Creator to an indefinite distance we might come 
to the conclusion that there was no Creator at all. Now, I think that this 
is hardly a fair description of the theory we have met to confute. We may 
remove the argument from one limit of inquiry to another, and yet we may 
admit that, in the extremest limit, there were certain qualities impressed 
upon matter by the creative energy, and that those qualities have evolved 
themselves, and produced, by a gradual system of development, the grand 
and magnificent results we are now enabled to witness. I do not say that 
it is so. The elements of inorganic chemistry possess distinct powers or 
virtues ; organised life — vegetable, animal, or moral — possesses distinguishing 
characteristics. Many of these powers and characteristics, so far from being 
developed the one from the other, are even antagonistic or destructive the 
one of the other. Who has yet shown that the Homogangliata of Owen, the 
Articulata of Cuvier, have developed into the Heterogangliata or Mollusca ? 
and that this second class have developed into the highest, the Myencephala 
of Owen or the Vertebrata of Cuvier ? But, admitting the historical 
evidence contained in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, 
VOL. XVII. q 
