90 THE VEN. ARCHDEACON W. MACDONALD SINCLAIR, D.D., ON 
evolutionist. In order to make me an evolutionist I must 
accept something that is very monstrous; I must believe that 
God made machines which not only developed themselves and 
produced others for immense periods of time, but that all at once 
those machines made something quite different, and that after 
that God went on making machines of broader character until at 
last machines were produced which had little or no relationship 
to the original machines. We do not believe such statements 
without a particle of evidence; but instead of having evidence for 
it, it is devoid of evidence. It is an unfair statement of the 
difference between two processes, and I hope the Archdeacon does 
not himself adopt it. I do not suppose he does. Professor Diman 
proceeds, ‘“‘ That our harmonious universe should formerly have 
existed undeveloped, in a state of diffused matter, without form, 
and that it should gradually have attained its present organization, 
is much more marvellous than its formation according to the 
artificial method supposed by the unlearned would be.” The idea 
that evolution is a very marvellous theory has a certain truth in 
it, because it supposes so many extraordinary miracles, one on the 
other, without ground or reason; but to suppose that the theory 
of evolution is a grander theory than the theory of special creation 
is to propose what to my mind is quite preposterous. 
There is a very interesting and beautiful thought that the 
author has brought before us, ‘‘the expression, or externalization 
of His thoughts was the beginning of matter.” I think that very 
beautiful, and I wish to express my thanks to the author for it. 
I would also thank the author very much for what he says on 
page 8 in regard to faith not being antagonistic to science and 
philosophy. He says ‘‘ there need be no antagonism between the 
sternest and most abstract of their principles and those vital 
beliefs for which we are prepared to die.” 
The Cuarrmay.—I hope in discussing this paper we shall keep 
quite clearly before our minds what I suggest is the most 
important part of it, and that is that true belief in the being of 
God is not merely compatible with certain particular modes of 
thought; but, if carefully examined, it will be found that even 
very different modes of thought and very different views lead up 
as a necessity to a belief in the existence of God. 
I do not think it is exactly in point to discuss particular 
processes of creation. Probably, if we do, we shall then represent 
