39 



structures, as steam-engines, clocks, &c. ; and, moreover, only 

 in the sense of improvements can evolution be applied to his 

 works, — God does not operate in such a way at all. He 

 evolves, by means of natural laws established of His own will, 

 those structures and organisms which appear to our sight to be 

 so full of what we call design when applied to human produc- 

 tions. We must, however, distinctly bear in mind that no 

 examinations or speculations can disclose to us the real method 

 of God^s working which gives rise to such appearances as are 

 usually called designed. There they are as objective facts, but to 

 state how they came about is a mystery which philosophy will 

 never solve. 



The Chair^ian. — I have much pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks 

 to Mr. Henslow for his paper, which appears to me to contain a great deal 

 of truth ; and also to suggest some points for our consideration, which may- 

 go a good way towards the solution of difficulties that seem to be pressing, 

 and towards the nearer approach to a union of different schools of thought, 

 each of which may hold a great deal of truth. Whether Mr. Henslow's 

 paper has fully brought out, at every point, all that is in harmony with the 

 more old-fashioned notions, I •will not undertake to say. Here and there 

 he was on a certain track which, if followed out, would have led to a fuller 

 and more pronounced comparison of his own scientific views with those 

 views of creation which have been held in the past, and which, though 

 imperfect in their expression, as all such views must be, had, as I have no 

 doubt Mr. Henslow will himself say, substantial truth at their basis. We 

 must all admit that this paper is full of scientific thought, and evidently the 

 production of one who has given a very reverent and very religious con- 

 sideration to the whole breadth of the subject before us, both as respects 

 the relations of Deity with this world, and the work of Deity in this world. 

 (Hear, hear.) I must confess, however, that there is one point in which the 

 paper has a little disappointed me. I thought that the author would have 

 spoken more of that gap to which he himself referred when I was last here. 

 I mean the gap between inorganic matter with its laws, and life. Now, he 

 has spoken of evolution as if it were one complete, continuous, consecutive 

 thing, the links of which melted into each other right up to man, and as if 

 man Avere the only object in the whole series of successive existences, which 

 did not coincide with the theory — man the only creature which, upon the 

 pure principles of evolution — of consecutive evolution — could not be 

 harmonized with the evolution theory. But it has appeared to me, in trying 

 to think over this matter, that there is not only a gap at the end, but at the 

 beginning also. Professor Huxley has himself intimated, in a form, negative 

 indeed, that we have not the least reason to believe that such a thmg as life 

 has ever been developed out of inorganic matter ; that, so far as scientific 

 evidence bears upon the subject, a negative conclusion is the only conclusion 

 that is admissible ; and that, though life may bind up under its seal 



