262 
theory, I did attempt to bring before you an argument to show that the 
doctrine of evolution, which seems to be accepted now, is one which, within 
certain limitations, is not altogether contrary to the beliefs which we here hold. 
That was the scope of my argument, and I still think that though I may not 
have proved that which I did not attempt to prove, I have indicated the 
limits of geological thought and reason, and shown that within these limits I 
can take the facts and say that there is nothing in them, granting evolution, 
which is at variance with my theory. I do say, and I think I have a right to 
say, that, looking at all these long ages, and the circumstances they indicate, 
they prove the existence of order which implies a governor, and that that 
governor had a design. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I bring in this argument, 
and I do not think it has been upset or displaced by what has fallen from 
Mr. Bradlaugh. I have not attempted to convince him— I have only pointed 
out what is the standing-ground for my view, and I believe that that is 
all of which the subject is capable, and that when you attempt to do 
more you will do mischief. Therefore it is that I have brought forward 
this form of argument in order to show the safe foundation on which you 
may rest in the acceptance of beliefs. That is really the aim of this 
paper. I may have been mistaken, and suppose I have been, for I have 
tried to quote Page, and Lyell, and others whose opinions maybe supposed to 
be the least favourable to my own, and some gentlemen have seemed to think 
that they were my opinions. But that is not so, and I am only sorry that 
I have expressed myself so badly. We physical people should not meddle 
with metaphysics. I think that, notwithstanding all that has been said 
of the old facts of geology, they are facts as much as the existence of St. 
Paul’s is a fact. We have a definite succession of strata, known by certain 
characteristics, and to my mind that definite succession of strata indicates 
a governing by law, which law has been indicated from the first. With 
regard to the conclusion as to a beginning, I have put that just as it struck me, 
that the facts do indicate that you cannot escape from the idea that there 
has been a beginning, if you prove that their definite order and form cease to 
be unifonnitarian. Mr. Reddie has advocated the cause of the umformi- 
tarians, but he has misapprehended the ultimate scope of their argument. 
Their argument is, that there is no trace of a beginning or end, and that we 
need nothing more than present causes to produce all the effects that in 
millions of years have worn the earth down and by volcanic agency brought it 
up again. I admit it is against that argument that I have directed the feeble 
forces of my artillery, and think I have proved that it is not a true con- 
clusion ; and if so, I claim to have proved that there was a beginning. 
Mr. Bradlaugh.— Would you mind saying how change of phenomena can 
possibly involve the discontinuance of phenomena ? 
Mr. Pattison. — It does not. 
Mr. Bradlaugh— How can you imagine change of phenomena without 
discontinuance ? 
