Professor Beale has always drawn a clear line between them. Supposing I said a lady was made up of a bonnet, a dress, a pair of boots, and a pair of gloves, I should have mistaken the things she had got on for the person herself, and yet it often happens that some of these minute things which we see under a microscope are spoken of as if they were self-constructed. I might pursue my illustration farther and talk of a building making itself, but we know that buildings do not make themselves, and we have very high authority for saying that every house is made by someone. When a lady goes into a shop to provide these things, each of which is practically a construction of itself, she has an idea of what she wants, and proceeds to build up her external structure. She is the Zoe, the real agent by which all these various things are built up. She is the Ego which applies the matter in all its varied forms, and I think that has been especially brought out to-day with regard to the initial forms of life. One other point struck me in regard to these little life particles. At first sight it would seem as if they were independent of one another, but Professor Beale brought us to think that we must go back to the origin and we shall find that all these little particles spring from one or at most a few, and thus you get at the true idea of the living growth, as contrasted with the crystal. Science speaks of an organic being as that life which proceeded from a centre and worked on a plan through and from that centre, growing in this direction rather than in that direction, until you get the true organic being. So after all, organization springs from life, and life springs from living organisms. Professor ORCHARD.-I may express my thorough concurrence in what has been so ably put forward by Canon Girdlestone. We all thank Professor Lionel Beale very much for his kindness in coming amongst us this evening, and not least for drawing attention to that abuse of words which, as was observed, is often the cause of intellectual dissent. John Stuart Mill called attention, I remember, to this practice of using words in different senses; he himself unhappily was not free from blame in that respect, though that must not be taken to lessen the value of his caution. The word evolution is a notable example; nor am I certain that Professor Lionel Beale himself did not a little trip this evening when he referred to evolution going on in living matter. If that word is applied to the changes that living matter produces, or which are produced through living matter, the word is not used in its ordinary acceptation, for evolution implies the transmutation of species, and the transmutation of species I am sure Professor Lionel Beale would be the first to say was not proved by science. I would ask the Professor, with regard to the conversion of non-living matter into living matter, whether he considers that it is living matter that effects that transmutation, or whether it is not rather the vital principle in that living matter which does so ? Professor LIONEL BEALE.-But the living matter is produced in the substance of existing living matter. It is here that the non-living matter introduced as the nutriment becomes living, and acquires from the already living matter itself vital powers of the same kind. Professor ORCHARD.-Exactly. Professor LIONEL BEALE.-And so in evolution I should say there is no example of evolution and transmutation dependent upon any changes except those which take place in the bioplasm -the actual living matter. You cannot have altered form, colour, and other specific changes in successive developments of creatures without every one of them beginning as living matter, which is structureless. You must consider the earliest stages to form an idea of the nature of the changes which result in the production of colour, structure, physical characters, chemical composition and properties. Professor ORCHARD.-The word development would better express what I mean. Professor LIONEL BEALE.-You have evolution in development, and may not development be applied to all forms of evolution. Professor ORCHARD.-I should never myself use the word in that way. I think it is convenient to keep the word to a distinct theory which involves and postulates the transmutation of species. I do not think it quite answers the question as to the change of the non-living into the actual living matter. Is it not, rather, the vitalism, or the principle of life in the living matter which does this? Professor LIONEL BEALE.-Yes; but the new matter becomes part of the living matter which caused it to live. Let me say that, in discussing the actual phenomena of life, I have been led to consider what takes place at a point beyond that to which at present our sight can penetrate, though possibly our mind may "see." Professor ORCHARD.-Quite so. But what effects the change? Professor LIONEL BEALE.-Vitality-and then we must consider every change that occurs in the bioplasm, the only seat of vital action through nature. As regards evolution, I should like to know something about the evolution of the bat, and particularly the nature of the transformations occurring at a very early period of germ life antecedent to the formation of tissues and organs and anything like a bat. But Professor Orchard's "evolutionists" do not explain even the evolution of his wings, and I doubt whether they have the least idea of the structure or mode of formation of the smallest portion of the thin membranous portion of the wing, to say nothing of the bat himself. The CHAIRMAN.-I am only a chemist, and it has been the struggle of chemists to keep clear of biology; but biology invaded us. By adopting the word organic we thought at any rate we should be safe and that organs were living, and so we nsed the word to imply the structure of organisms, and then we found that chemistry was invaded by the result of formless organs; and so, with all our science, we find we cannot get away from this utterly mysterious problem that not even the whole of our bodies are living; but that minute fractions of them possess properties so marvellous that they take the entire bulk, both dead and living, out of the ordinary category of the non-living and make it a totally different thing. Professor Beale has brought us face to face with the great problem of all others, and I think perhaps that some of us, though we may not use the Greek form, are obliged to confess ourselves in the living form ignoramuses. Professor LIONEL BEALE.-Judging by Professor Japp's paper on "Vitalism" we are going to have much help from chemists before long. Perhaps I might ask the Chairman whether it would be possible to organize a few meetings to discuss some of these questions amongst ourselves. It might be well considered by the Council whether something of the kind might be carried out. I have ventured to put some of my conclusions on slips of paper like these, and I think you will find that I am not likely to advocate anything that may be against the principles of the Victoria Institute. If so, I hope whoever may be in the chair will call me to account, and then I will give way. The CHAIRMAN.-I can only say that as far as my vote is wanted in favour of such discussions it will most certainly be given. It is the discussion of these points that is the great desideratum. I entirely concur with what Professor Beale said about words. Ambiguity causes great difficulty, and it is very important that words should have their definite meanings so that we may know how to fit them in. The meeting then terminated. ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.* DAVID HOWARD, ESQ., D.L., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following elections were announced: MEMBER-Richard D. Dicker, Esq., Philadelphia, U.S.A. ASSOCIATES:-Professor G. F. Fitzgerald, F.R.S., Trin. Coll., Dublin ; The following paper was read by the Author :- ON THE BEING OF GOD. By the Venerable Archdeacon W. MACDONALD SINCLAIR, D.D. I. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 1. Science investigating the Works of God. HE question "Do you believe in God?" is not as certain been one hundred years ago, but in many cases the answer would be more intelligent. Whatever may be the faults of the times in which we live, it is an inspiriting thought that our day has come in an age which seems to bring us, in some sense, very near to His self-existent Being. Never was investigation so patient and so close into the myriad ways of His working in Creation. In a sense that never before was known, the Heavens are declaring His glory, and the firmament showing His handywork. The ray of light which left its distant orb scores or hundreds, it may be thousands of years ago, yields up its secret in the prism, and tells us the very elements of which that remote world is composed. The principles on which the very Creation itself is being perpetually built up, seem to be, in some small degree, revealing themselves to the understanding of man. Man halts, of course, and makes mistakes; he forms a supposition, and it may be that more than one generation * Monday, May 7th, 1900. |