284 



differences. The divine skill with which this has been accom- 

 plished appears to be the source of our embarrassments. 

 Permitted variations necessary for life under actual conditions 

 render the problem still more puzzling, and give us ample 

 room for experiment and observation to distinguish between 

 constant and inconstant differences ; but this need not 

 drive us to despair, for we do not choose to contem- 

 plate nature apart from God. It has been well said by- 

 Canon Westcott, that "^ theology accepts, without the least 

 reserve, the conclusions of science as such ; it only rejects 

 the claim of science to contain within itself every spring of 

 knowledge and every domain of thought.'" * Nor are we 

 justified in substituting imagination for reason. Let us, by 

 all means, use analogy, fancy, and poetry for our enjoyment 

 and delight, they are beautiful and profitable modes of thought; 

 but, in constructing the Temple of Science, we may use 

 them as embellishments, not as building materials. 



The Chairman said he was sure that the hearty thanks of the meeting 

 would be readily granted to Mr. Pattison for his most valuable and interest- 

 ing paper. 



Mr. S. E. Pattison, F.G.S., said that the point he had endeavoured to 

 bring forward was this : Professor Huxley had advanced the theory that 

 the Pearly Nautilus — the curved cephalopod — was produced by evolution from 

 the straight or uncurved cephalopod, and had taken this assumed fact as the 

 groundwork of the theory of evolution, and as evidence of the truth of that 

 theory and of its working. In his paper he, Mr. Pattison, had attempted to 

 show that the one form was not developed from the other. With regard to 

 the paper not having been printed before the meeting, he took that 

 opportunity of saying that only a week ago he had received from Boston 

 the latest utterances of Professor Hyatt, one of the greatest authorities on 

 the subject, and as these were utterly at variance with the views that he 

 himself had formed, he had been anxious to study them. He could only 

 say that there were facts in the case about the inferences from which opinions 

 would differ. Professor Huxley, no doubt, held his own opinions honestly, 

 and he (Mr. Pattison) hoped that he did the same. 



Mr. E. Charlesworth, F.G.S. (a visitor), said that, having a large 

 experience of the subject, he would like to make a few remarks. Professor 

 Huxley's lecture, from which Mr. Pattison had read them some extracts, was 

 intended to prove his theory of evolution as founded upon the theory — as thej'' 

 had heard — of the Nautilus and its connexion with the theory of evolution. 

 The subject of embryology was nothing to the point. He had known 

 Professor Darwin when he was a young man, — when the name of " Darwin " 



* Gospel of the Resurrection. 



