THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. 
255 
cause, or one of the causes, that explain its emergence ; and when 
the common every-day observation of the untutored points in the 
same direction, it is obvious that we are on the track of a principle 
that must exercise a potent influence in our interpretation of 
things. It is this uniformity in the connection of antecedents and 
consequents which constitutes the stability of the course of Nature, 
furnishes a reliable basis for all our calculations in practical affairs, 
and, in fact, renders it possible to attain to a rational conception of 
the material and social order. As applied, then, to the question of 
the origin of the first organic form, it raises an a priori presumption 
in favour of its being included within the order of Nature; in 
other words, that it is to be referred to the natural action of some 
antecedent condition of things. It would require extraordinary 
reasons to compel the belief that, in the emergence of Life on the 
earth, the Continuity everywhere else prevailing comes to an end, 
or rather is broken in twain. To evolutionists the argument seems 
irresistible. For there is abundant reason for thinking there was 
unbroken Continuity in the succession of changes which, through 
myriads of years, occurred in the passage of the primordial units 
of matter, from their state of diffused simplicity up to the highly 
differentiated condition of things on the globe just prior to the 
appearance of the first life ; and, unless the hypothesis of Organic 
Evolution be a delusion, there has been unbroken continuity in 
the outcome of Life from Life from the first dawn of Life up to 
the present. There was one law of things before Life appeared, 
and there has been one and the same law of things ever since Life 
appeared. Continuity runs through the two lines. Is, then, 
the emergence of Life, in the first instance, the only exception to 
the law of all phenomena'? Is Continuity broken only once in 
the history of things 1 Philosophical love of unity, scientific 
generalizations, and plain common-sense would seem to say "no." 
Continuity has not been broken. The emergence of Life must 
surely have been in keeping with the otherwise universal law ; i.e., 
Life came from the natural action of some pre-existing condition 
of things. 
I have thus sought to put the argument from Continuity in as 
clear and forcible a way as possible because of its great importance, 
and because it is one on which great authorities agree, though they 
may differ among themselves as to what were the antecedent 
conditions out of which Life arose. 
