94 



expressed — it is mind, not sound." Now, if it would afford him any grati- 

 fication, I should be quite willing to make a concession to him, and to 

 substitute the indefinite for the definite article, and to call language a, not 

 the, ditference of kind between man and animals. The fact that other 

 difierences of kind may exist does not in the least afi'ect my position. But, 

 in order to prove that mind is a difference of kind between man and the 

 brute, he must prove that the latter has no trace whatever of mind. The 

 elephant who mortally crushes the boy, who, an hour before had pricked his 

 trunk with a pin, connects a definite idea with a definite act ; and the 

 punishment he inflicts on the boy is evidently the result of a mental process. 

 I maintain, therefore, that animals possess a minimum amount of mind, 

 although in a state so rudimentary that all comparison with that of man is 

 impossible. However much, therefore, I difier from INIr. Darwin's main 

 theory, I am by no means prepared to dispute his statement that the 

 difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is 

 certainly one of degree only, and not of kind.* 



The question of the Missing LinJc " was next introduced by a well- 

 known geologist at Norwich (^Ir. Harmer), who attempted to answer a 

 great objection to the doctrine of evolution, -which is "that none of the 

 intermediate forms between man and his supposed progenitors are known to 

 us, either in a living state or in a fossil condition." As this feature of the 

 controversy is foreign to the object of my paper, I will not allude to it 

 further than to say that Mr. Harmer's position was attacked, and his argu- 

 ments successfully answered by the Eev, W. P. Lyon, the Rev. J. W. Buck- 

 ley, and Captain F. Petrie. 



One of the Norwich evolutionists complains that I use Scripture to refute 

 Darwinism. I beg to say I do nothing of the kind, and there is nothing in 

 my paper to justify such a construction. I use Science to show that language 

 is the difierence of lijid between man and animals, which Mr. Darwin seems 

 to stand in need of : and having, however imperfectly, combated his views 

 from a linguistic point of view, I incideyitaUy call attention to the fact that 

 Science corroborates Holy Writ, just as Bishop Colenso and others contend 

 that it controverts it. This is a very diflerent thing from the illogical process 

 imputed to me of bolstering up scientific views by appealing to the authority 

 of Scripture. 



In one or more of their letters, the evolutionists seem to deprecate any 

 attempt to reconcile Science and Scripture. They willingly concede to the 

 free-thinkers of the day the right to use Science for the purpose of subverting 

 religion, but they look with a jealous eye upon those who seek to point out 

 the analogy between the two. May I ask them what value they would attach 

 to any work on the early history oi our island, that contained no allusion to 



Caesar's Commentaries " ; and, surely, it would be equally monstrous to 

 consider any theory as to the origin of Man without, at least, a reference to 

 the Book of Genesis, — the first, if not the only book, which professes to en- 

 lighten the human race as to its origin . 



I doubt not that many of those who have differed from me are serious, 

 thoughtful men, who would not knowingly propagate a dangerous doctrine ; 

 but I must think they cannot have realized the ultimate consequences of 

 their proposal to ignore the Book of Genesis in any search after truth, simply 

 because, in such a search, the aid of Science may also be required. 



* If further evidence is required upon this point, I refer the reader to the 

 Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. v. page 309, where he will find 

 several facts recorded corroborative of my views that animals possess a 

 minimum amount of Mind. 



