93 



The publication of the first letter brought me the following : 

 " The ' Guardian ' knows nothing of Evolution, and has m> 

 principle. It would give up the Bible and the Church as readily 

 as the Churchyards. You should take 'John Bull,' where 

 * * * * touched the traitor up last week. Of course the 

 Bible contradicts the science, ' falsely so-called,' in the specific 

 words ' after its kind.' " 



" The ' Guardian ' has long been very unsatisfactory. It has 

 not the moral courage to steer straight." 



" Your valuable letter in this week's * Guardian ' has em- 

 boldened me (being a stranger to you) to ask your acceptance of 

 the accompanying volume, a portion of which bears intimately 

 on the profound problem of creation, and the fashionable fallacy 

 which takes its name from Mr. Darwin. Like you, I felt 

 astonished at the line of argument taken in the * Guardian ' 

 Leader of last week, and wondered if so gross an instance of the 

 betrayal of theological truth would be allowed to pass without 

 some sort of reclamation. In the note appended to your letter, 

 the original offence is repeated in a highly aggravated form in 

 the statement that ' there is nothing in this change of opinion 

 /in favour of so-called Evolution) which need alarm religious 

 people.' A statement so reckless, so heartless as this, excites 

 feelings of just indignation in the mind of any one pretending to 

 a bond fide belief in the divinely inspired records of the Book of 

 Genesis." 



" The entire note abounds in baseless assertion, and is per- 

 nicious in a high degree. But the most offensive and dangerous 

 aspect of the position taken . up by the editor, is his blind 

 determination to close peremptorily a question which, in the 

 present day, has pre-eminent claims to be ventilated in the 

 columns of a Church newspaper. I fear there is but too much 

 truth in the saying one hears frequently now, that the * Guardian* 

 guards nothing but its own subscribers. Certainly to my 



