the commencement, an objection occurs to me. The point is taken as 
against some people called the evolutionists, and Mr. Pattison says, — 
“ The evolutionists say, — given force and matter, the results must be what 
they have been and are. Granted, if a third term is added, — a beginning.’’ 
Now it will be precisely in reference to that third term that I shall address 
the few words I wish to put to you, and I address these few words in con- 
sequence of the very frank invitation which you, Sir, threw out to any one, 
whether connected with this Institute or not, to take part in the discussion. 
(Hear, hear.) I confess that I have not gathered from this paper any notion 
of a beginning in relation to existence. I have gathered change of pheno- 
mena, but I have not gathered the application of the word “ beginning ” to 
substance. I have not gathered the slightest atom of evidence in favour of an 
absolute annihilation in thought, of that which exists, whether you describe it 
as Mr. Iteddie has done, as “ dead inanimate matter,” or whether you describe 
it, as it is spoken of here, as “ nature.” I see nothing in the paper to lead 
me to the possibility of thought on the beginning ; and if that is so, it 
appears to me, with all submission, that the paper entirely breaks down in 
that which it was set forth to prove, because the whole paper puts it that the 
assumption of a beginning and of a creator is fairly deducible from the 
change . of phenomena. But surely that is hardly so. All that the paper 
shows is change cessation of existence there is not an attempt to show. 
But it may be said : “ Yes, that is dealt with in the 13th section.” How is 
it dealt with ? Mr. Pattison says, 
If all the force of the solar system is gradually becoming changed into 
heat, and if some of that heat remains on the earth’s surface, not reconverted 
into force, things must come to an end.” 
I suppose the reason why that would be so is clear to the mind of the 
wiiter, but I confess that it is not at all clear to my mind. One class of 
phenomena is changed into another class of phenomena* and the author of 
the paper assumes, therefore, that there must be an end of existence. But I 
do not see how the change of the phenomena and the change of the conditions 
has anything to do with an assumption of the cessation of existence. It may 
be simply the incapacity of my mind to follow out reasoning of this kind ; 
but when Mr. Pattison takes a quotation from a very able writer, the matter 
becomes still more startling. Mr. Pattison quotes from Adolf Fick, as 
follows : — 
nnr ^ co ! ne to *¥ s alternative : either in our highest, our most general, 
ovLS^ fimdai Jl ental - SClentlfi M, Y bstractions > some great point has been 
or , tbe imive ? e Y 11 ] have an end ™ d must have had a begim 
infiSilplv Lf iaVG - X1St , ed fr0m eternifc ^ but must at some date not 
7 dlstan * have arisen from something not forming part of the chain of 
natural causes, i.e., must have been created.” 
Nov, I fancy, that it is very easy to get into a loose way of using big words 
without being quite clear what we mean by them. What is meant by 
