316 
his metaphysical views, namely, the conception that, “ under certain con- 
ditions motion can be transformed into heat.” It is an undoubted axiom o 
natural philosophy that motion per se is just as incapable as rest is of pro- 
duchm motion. But heat is essentially a mode of force, and can produce 
motion. Hence heat and motion are heterogeneous entities, and inconvertible 
one into the other ; so that Strauss, misled apparently by reliance on faulty 
principles of philosophy, cited in support of his argument a physical 
impossibility. . 
10 But the most signal instance of irrational misconception is that ot 
Hume himself, who failed to see that his system, by which he supposed 
miracle was excluded, requires a continual recurrence of miracles, inasmuch 
as a succession of events for which, no intelligible cause is assignable is, for 
that reason alone, miraculous. There are, however, physical circumstances 
to which Hume’s principle of mere antecedence and consequence strictly 
applies, which, in fact, I had occasion to discuss in the communication I had 
the honour of making to the Institute on the 5th of last January. I allude 
to the circumstances that sensations of musical sounds are immediately pre- 
ceded by vibrations of the air, as are those of colour by vibrations of the 
aether, although the relation between the sensations and the operative 
physical conditions is one of mere antecedence and consequence, inasmuch 
as by no human cognisance or research could it be anticipated that sue 
antecedents would have such consequents. The sensational consequents are 
such as they are by the immediate volition of the Author of our being, and, 
therefore, come under the category of miracle. 
11. I propose now to say a few words on the principles of Darwinism 
The chief remark I have to make on this subject is, that the same radica 
fault runs through Darwinism as that I have pointed out as being invo ve 
in the received physical theories, -the fault of not making the proper dis- 
tinction between what has received existence by immediate creation, and 
what has been derived therefrom by causes operating according to in e igi^ e 
laws. There is, however, this remarkable difference, that whereas in physics 
too little has been ascribed to evolution,— the derivation, for instance, of the 
law of gravity from antecedently-created conditions having been overlooked 
or denied,— in Darwinism, on the contrary, so much has been ascribed to 
natural development that the idea of antecedent creation is almost got 
rld 12. The following arguments apply directly to the organisms of plants, - 
but mutatis mutandis may be taken to apply to those of animals. Naturalists 
tell us that the most elementary constituents of organic matter, whether the 
organism be in a state of growth or decay, are hollow vesicles, or cells Let 
this be granted as admitting of experimental determination. But how a 
combination of cells, which have apparently no inherent principle of vitality, 
might originate seed, we are not told. Sir William Thomson when President 
of the British Association at Edinburgh in 1871, broached the hypothesis 
that seeds might be conveyed to the earth by aerolites projected from distant 
planets, or other cosmical bodies ; whereupon every one, scientific and non- 
