49 



eye, that is one which we can all realize and admire ; but there are 

 so many natural theologists who want the material to be as good as the 

 idea, and that is the pohit I protest against. I do not protest against 

 the idea which underlies the structure. Mr. Eow has given me some 

 valuable hints on this point. At the end of my paper I say that order, 

 method, law, and plan, are but expressions of mind, and I am quite 

 aware that this point might have been worked out much more fully ; but it 

 did not occur to me to dwell more especially upon order, though if I had the 

 paper to write again, I should do so, because it gives us an incontestable 

 proof of mind. As to pain as a physical evil, that is a mere question of 

 opinion. You may culminate in death the extreme of physical evil. Pain 

 may be very slight or very intense ; you do not know where to draw the 

 line to show where it begins to be a physical evil. It is a mere matter of 

 opinion. We know that the means whereby we receive pain are the same 

 means whereby we receive pleasure — our nervous system serves for both, and 

 we must grasp them both together. We must take not only the good parts, 

 but, so to speak, all the bad parts together as forming one grand scheme in 

 the will of God ; and all pain, from the least finger-ache to the greatest 

 amount of agony, may be grouped together as what I call a state of probation 

 for us ordained by God. I do not attempt to draw the line between what 

 may be a physical evil and what may be nothing at all. With regard to the 

 law of averages, perhaps I was wrong upon that point. Now I come to 

 some remarks made by Mr. Allen, who said that the Bible was apparently 

 passed over as to Genesis. I do not undertake to show any harmony between 

 Genesis and nature ; my paper was studied objectively, and the deductions 

 made in that paper are solely from nature. If it had been my purpose to 

 reconcile Genesis with geology, I should have treated the matter very dif- 

 ferently ; but that was not my object, and I should be out of order now were 

 I to attempt to give any further reply upon that point. I will only call 

 Mr. Allen's attention to the following note, which is appended to the 18th 

 page of my paper : — 



" In this essay I do not profess to deal with metaphysical subjects. I have 

 therefore made no mention of the soul of man. I will only repeat words 

 which I have elsewhere said (Geology and Geiiesis : a Plea for the Doctrine of 

 Evolution. A Sermon) : — ' Admit that man's bodily structure agrees closely 

 with that of apes ; admit that his mental powers are of a like kind 

 to those of the lower animals ; deduct as much as there is of agreement 

 between them from man, and what is left ? An enormous amount of 

 intellectual power ; a morality which they do not possess at all, as well as 

 the power to appreciate and love an abstraction or an idea ; and I say there 

 is no species, no genus, no family in nature that has ever existed or does 

 exist, which affords us any ground for conceiving such an enormous impulse, 

 as man has obtained somewhere, to have come to him by natural laws 

 alone.'" 



Of course I could add a good deal more to that if I were to attempt an 

 elaborate argument. Then there is the question as to the pigeon : does it 

 relapse into its original condition ? The reply is, no. That question was 

 VOL. YII. E 



