4i 



of this uuiisually able and specially admirable paper, I so far agree with the 

 feeling of the last si>eaker, that I find myself thoroughly en rapport with 

 him in his reverence for the Bible, when he seems to feel that Mr. Henslow's 

 utterances impinge to some extent on his reverent regard for its authoritative 

 teaching. But it cannot be denied that when we consider such subjects we 

 should, by mutual agreement and consent, consider them apart on theii* own 

 merits. Let authoritative teaching come in as paramount and authoritative 

 in its own proper place ; but we are here to demonstrate the compatibility of 

 what is really ascertained to be scientific truth, with what can be shown, and 

 properly shoMTi, to be the meaning of God s word, justly and reverently inter- 

 preted. Now, I hope to be regarded as a sort of bridge between the op- 

 posing speakers, but will endeavour to say as little as possible, so as not to 

 detain you at undue length. In the first place, let me beg ;Mr. Henslow to 

 believe that there is no abatement from the cordial terms in which I have 

 spoken of the paper itself when I say that I differ from him as to the doctrine 

 of evolution ; but here let me do him the most simple justice— for it would 

 be an act of monstrous injustice to class him for an instant with such evolu- 

 tionists as Professor Huxley and Dr. Darwin. (Cheers.) Mr. Henslow 

 stands on a different footing altogether, and in this paper he has discarded 

 principles which are maintained notably by Professor Huxley. I am glad, 

 also, that ^Mr. Henslow has done Dr. Darwin so much justice as to show that 

 he does not discard the idea of a personal God apart from nature. But I 

 have to complain that Mr. Henslow has allowed his love for his pet theory 

 of evolution to make that theory crop up very vigorously in several places 

 where its presence hai-dly seems warranted by the connection in which it is 

 placed. Look, for instance, at the third note on the 8th page of his paper, 

 where he says, ''Evolution is a great fact of nature." Surely that is a 

 gratuitous assertion : it may be, or it may not be, " a great fact of nature." 

 Xow I, for one, am a gi-eat lover of the study of God in nature, and sure 

 I am that "there lives and breathes a soul in all things.'' Still, if you can 

 prove that statement about evolution, I will accept it ; but so fi\r as the 

 statement in this paper is concerned, I content myself by saying that 

 evolution has not yet been proved to be "a great fact." Then, in p. 17 

 Mr. Henslow says : — 



If, therefore, evolution be true for the former [i.e. the animal kingdom], 

 it must be true for man's body also." 



There is much virtue in an " if." It may be a bold thing to say, but 

 I maintain that the position taken up by Mr. Henslow is not proved. 

 I do not deny it ; but, I say it is not proved, and the " therefore " is a 7i07i 

 seqmtur. Then, in the 20th page of his paper, ^Mr. Henslow says, speaking 

 of rudimentary, or useless structures" : — 



These, however, it will be remembered, had a significance which cannot 

 be overrated, for they bear incontestable evidence to evolution." 



But I will try to show that such incontestable evidence is not to be found in 

 rerum naturd. I know the facts which induce him to think the contrary, but 



