i9 
that, considering religion as apart from mere dogmatic theology, 
such a reconciliation was much to be desired; for it would be 
merely a re-union of what was naturally one—being, indeed, but 
different forms of the same truth. Mr. Darwin’s theory had, 
doubtless, exercised many minds in this effort, and it was sad 
to think how many noble minds had been overthrown, and how 
. Many had been driven into unbelief, by the vain attempt to re- 
concile God's laws, as revealed in Nature, with their own narrow, 
dogmatic notions of what they called religion. But surely it might 
be said with truth that so long as religion was believed to depend in 
any way on mere external authority, so long would those efforts, 
however well meant, be fruitless. » What, then, was the true method 
of reconciling the two? He must leave this for wiser men than 
himself to decide. For his own part, he could only say that he 
Was more and more convinced that true religion was not opposed to 
true science, but that both came under the same law—the former 
being merely the development of the moral and emotional part of 
their nature, as the latter was that of the intellectual. He would 
~ conclude by expressing a hope thut in his treatment of the subject 
he had not hurt the feelings of any one present, as he should be 
exceedingly sorry if such were the case. 
The PresipEnt said he was sure Mr. Jecks had put the subject 
before them in so delicate a manner that it was out of the question 
that he should have hurt the feelings of any one present. A frank 
statement of any iruth ought to hurt the feelings of no one. They 
were there for the discussion of facts, and did not bring in political, 
social, or denominational distinctions. Every man who studied 
nature had a right to state his view of things, and Mr. Jecks had 
stated his opinions in a manner which no one could take offence at, 
but which all would rather be inclined to coincide in. The President 
then invited discussion upon the subject, and hoped that no young 
man present would fear to express his views. As there was no 
immediate response to the invitation, he went on to state that the 
lines of demarcation between species were so indistinct that the 
question was one that could not be settled there for or against. 
The men capable of entering the lists against Darwin might be 
‘counted upon the fingers of both hands, if not upon one. He 
was a profound philosopher, a most industrious, accumulator of 
facts and statistics, a most acute observer, and a thoroughly 
honest disputant. Those who had occasion to differ from him in 
his arguments would never have been able to do so but for the 
objections he had honestly stated himself in his books. For twenty 
years he could have mastered any one of them with the most 
perfect ease. As for the poor critics who had assailed him, they 
were not to be thought of, and Mr. Darwin must look upon them 
with scorn and contempt if he were capable of such a feeling. He 
