EvohUion and its Conseqzcefices. 69 



the demonstration of the close resemblance which exists 

 between the bodily structures of men and apes. 



Another objection is brought both against me and the 

 Quarterly Keviewer by Professor Huxley. We are declared 

 to make a ' conspicuous exhibition ' of the * absence of a sound 

 philosophical basis,' in that we agree in asserting that man 

 differs more from an ape than does an ape from inorganic 

 matter. 



But surely this is the position every one must assume 

 who believes that man is immortal, and has a moral respon- 

 sibility to God. For it is manifest that such distinctions {e.g. 

 as to growth, nutrition, locomotion, etc.) as exist between apes 

 and minerals are as nothing compared with the transcendent 

 distinction above referred to. If, then, in saying this we are 

 in ' philosophical error,' we share that error with all those 

 who assert the immortality of the soul, and a moral responsi- 

 biHty of each man to God, such as no brute possesses. We 

 can also claim as more or less on our side even one of the 

 originators of the theory of ' natural selection ' itself, and his 

 followers. For Mr. Wallace, if I understand him rightly, 

 teaches us that for the evolution of man's body special 

 spiritual agencies were required, which were not needed for 

 the rest of the organic world. So that, according to this view, 

 man is marked off from all the rest of nature by a very 

 special distinction. 



I will turn now to the main point of Professor Huxley's 

 paper — namely, that in which he applies himself to contro- 

 vert the second object aimed at in my Genesis of Species. 

 As I have before said, my second object was to demonstrate 

 that there is no necessary antagonism between the Christian 

 rehgion and evolution. 



In meeting me on this ground (to discuss which seems to 

 have interested the Professor more than anything else in my 

 book), he endeavours to create a prejudice against my argu- 



