240 



THE EEV. A. R. WHATELY^ M.A.^ D.D.^ ON 



once upon a time there were numbers of living cells of the utmost 

 simplicity of structvire floating in the ocean. Some of them 

 changed in form and became more and more complex, and so 

 through vast periods of time the forms of life changed in many 

 directions until there resulted the present infinite variety of the 

 living population of this planet. This was a third form of Evolution, 

 which had hardly a single jDoint in common with the other two, and 

 man}^ others might be mentioned if time would j^ermit. Eeally the 

 only idea common to all the meanings attached to the term 

 " Evolution " was that of change of form in an ordered sequence. 

 "We ought to be more precise in our use of a word which is capable 

 of so many applications. 



The Chairman : It now becomes my duty to sum up the 

 applications to which I feel I may venture to give expression before 

 asking Dr. Whately to reply, by putting from the Chair — with my 

 very cordial support — the vote of thanks which has been moved by 

 Colonel Alves and seconded by Professor Orchard. I may say that 

 I concur with Dr. Whately in the paper, and thoroughly agree with 

 the rights of a Christian Philosophy. I think that, for an Institute 

 such as we claim to be, established on Philosoph}^, it would be an 

 act of suicide, or committing what the Japanese call an "act of 

 despatch," to do anything but welcome such a paper as we have had 

 this afternoon from a distinguished and acknowledged master of Chris- 

 tian Philosophy. Further, I concur in the delineation of the subject 

 which Dr. WTiately expressed : " Philosophy is a radical need of 

 cultured human society " ; that is to say, he admits that as men 

 grow together in the progress of social change, they are driven back 

 upon the necessity of finding justification in their own reason and 

 common sense, in the things they believe, and why they do or do 

 not do, or prohibit, others from doing, certain things, or urge upon 

 others the necessity of doing other things. 



The world looks to teachers, and the teachers look to philosophers. 

 There is really no difference between Socrates and Solomon. The 

 difl"erence lies in the Divine inspiration which rested upon their 

 message; but the men were moved by human impulses, and we 

 claim that just because Philosophy is a real, a human asset, a 

 human necessity, so society must smile upon every genuine 

 philosopher. You must remember St. Peter's great dictum when he 



