THE BEING OF GOD. 95 
the province of demonstration are not precisely the same. There 
isa line that may be drawn between them ; and we are very glad 
when we find men of science coming to the end of so-called 
scientific knowledge, or demonstration, obliged to draw on Faith. 
T believe that many men of science have to do so. I think we 
should bear that in mind that when in science they use the word 
“know,” they use it as equivalent to having proved a fact by 
demonstration in mathematics or by personal observation. I think 
that discussion is important, and may help us a good deal in 
discussing these matters with men of science. We do not lay 
claim to the kind of demonstration that they claim. We agree 
that the province of Faith is a matter where we have to exercise 
what we consider the higher faculty of mind than that of a mere 
collection of facts and arguments upon them. 
Evolution, I think, is often mixed up with natural selection. 
There may be evolution which has nothing to do with natural 
selection. There may be evolution which is strictly divine—the 
progress of God’s creation and every one of its variations, as 
Darwin has properly pointed out, is due apparently to circum- 
stances which are, in reality, the result of real fixed laws, quite as 
important as the great uniformities of nature—the particular 
species having been placed in their position by the Almighty, and 
subjected to the varying conditions of sun, heat and cold. Those 
are not blind forces; but the results of God’s laws, just as much 
as the grandest principle on which the universe is tied together. 
For my own part, I really cannot see anything in the least 
antagonistic in that belief to divine power, omnipotence and love, 
when properly understood. 
Tam much obliged to you for the kind way in which you have 
received my paper, and for Dr. Kidd’s valuable illustration of the 
line I have adopted—also to those who dissent from me. If we 
all agreed, there would be no discussion at all. (Applause.) 
The meeting then closed. 
