253 
could not have created inanimate matter. I feel the extreme difficulty of 
saying what one might wish to say on a paper of this kind, necessarily 
limited by the particular scope which the paper has ; and if what I have 
put before you is, as I am sure it is, utterly incomplete, I hope you will 
understand that there are words in this paper which do not convey meanings 
to my mind, and evidence which does not seem to me to apply to the argu- 
ment which you use, or which seems to me to lead up to entirely different 
conclusions. 
Mr. Reddie. — I would only say, as Mr. Bradlaugh was not present at our 
last meeting, that the argument he has used to-night was more the subject of 
our then discussion than of the one now before us. Of course, Mr. Pattison 
did not profess to argue out this particular point, for he says : “ Granted, if 
a third term is added — a beginning,” and that lays those people now discuss- 
ing the question open to a charge of weakness which does not belong to 
them. I do not wish to stand between yourself, Sir, and Mr. Pattison, or I 
could easily explain and clear the ground with regard to the distinction 
which I drew between dead matter and force ; for instance — there is a great 
difference between a dead man and a living man. 
The Chairman. — I am sure we are all very much indebted to Mr. Brad- 
laugh for his clear remarks. (Hear hear.) There is great value in the ideas 
which he has set forth. He has, however, laboured under the disadvantage 
of not being a member of our Institute, and of not knowing what we have 
already had before us. 
Mr. Bradlaugh. — If I am not out of order, I may say that it seems to me 
that if the paper was not intended to prove the view upon which I have 
argued, it fails to be anything more than an interesting paper on geology. 
Mr. Reddie. — It was intended to prove divine action, not the existence 
of a God ; there are plenty of arguments to prove that. 
Mr. Bradlaugh. — But they are not in the paper — the paper really assumes 
a deity. 
The Chairman. — I think it is much fairer that the writer of the paper 
should be the last speaker, than that I should have to sum up the arguments. 
I must say that though I thoroughly and heartily agree with the con- 
clusions of Mr. Pattison, I disagree, most thoroughly, with his scope. It limits 
the paper entirely to a state of geology which, I think, is passing away, and 
hence the paper would not be accepted now as a perfect resume of the present 
state of geological science. I think it is somewhat oiit of the atmosphere of 
this Society after the exhaustive papers we have had from Professor Kirk oil 
this subject. Geology is about the one science the most ill its infancy. It has 
worked very hard, and it has done very good service by the vast number of 
facts which it has accumulated ; but, at the same time, it has pressed on 
what I believe to be one of the weaknesses of human nature on the part of 
those who have accumulated those facts, inducing them to consider themselves 
all-wise, and bound to account for facts as soon as they have accumulated 
ft few. (Hear, hear.) Very often those who are concerned in these things 
ftrc not so much patient observers of facts as generalizers of them when 
