ON EVOLUTION. 295 
the word “Cosmos,” I would call attention to the statement made in this 
passage, that all things were in a state of homogeneity, and I would ask, “Is 
not this assuming a great deal too much?” If we turn to the classics we 
find Ovid telling us: 
Ante mare, et terras, et, quod tegit omnia, ccelum, 
Unus erat toto Nature vultus in orbe, 
Quem dixére Chaos ; rudis indigestaque moles : 
Hance Deus, et melior litem Natura diremit. 
Surely we can imagine a state of chaotic existence before the beautiful and 
harmonious Cosmos came into being, and are not compelled to the 
conclusion that all the atoms were homogeneous. I think that 
such a supposition as this is quite as consistent with fact or reason as 
the supposition that all things, at that time, must have consisted of homo- 
geneous atoms in perfect equilibrium. It would take too long to follow the 
very able development of the author’s argument, and trace, step by step, 
the superstructure he has erected on, what I conceive to be, a fallacious 
foundation, till we come to the point as to Evolution. We are told that, if 
we assume all these things, there need be no great difficulty in substituting 
the word ‘ Creation” for “Evolution.” But this is the very point in 
debate. To my mind, it is simpler to take the first chapter of Genesis 
as we find it, and say, there may be difficulty in it which is hard to 
explain, but that it does explain the existing state of creation in a way 
which neither Herbert Spencer nor any of our more extreme modern 
philosophers seem to have done. As to the creation of matter, a question 
not taken up in this paper. How did matter come into existence? That it 
was created by the Almighty and that certain qualities may have been 
attached to it which evolved themselves in particular forms of physical 
existence, may have been the case; but I do not stand nor lean on that. 
We have what is supposed to be really a revelation—inspired—which does 
explain the difficulties of creation. These remarks of mine have necessarily 
been somewhat fragmentary. The subject is so vast and grand, and the 
points brought forward so comprehensive and sublime, that it is difficult 
to tie them down to the basis of calm fact and ordinary logic ; but still, 
I think that what is put before us tends to show that we need something 
further to explain what is in existence. 
A Visrror.—May I ask whether the author will explain this passage; 
which appears in section 23: ‘‘ Evolution has been raising that curtain of 
night and emptiness without beginning, which before all worlds had veiled 
His glory ; and in a type of creature exhibited on this planet at a compara- 
tively recent date it has disclosed what may be called an image of the 
invisible God.” Are we to understand by this that the author regards the 
Saviour as a product of Evolution? I have heard such things before stated by 
some few men of learning and authority ; but I should be very sorry to hear 
it asserted in this room. Again, may I ask whether I am right in supposing 
that the author wishes us to regard the term “Creation” as synonymous 
x 2 
Z 2 
