270 



stated/'' he continues, ^' we are bound to guard ourselves 

 against the conscious or unconscious assumption that the 

 development of humanity can be legitimately or safely investi- 

 gated as an anthropological subject withcut reference to the 

 primitive condition of man as presented to us in the revealed 

 record/' 



84. Tried by such a standard, what becomes of the philoso- 

 phy of ^Ir. Darwin? Can we reconcile the origin of religion 

 from dreams, with the revelation of Holy Scripture ? Can we 

 bring the potentially-endowed plasm — the tendency to vary — 

 the " struggle for existence " — the survival of the fittest," and 

 the consequent incoming of living beings into the world around 

 us, into unison with Revelation ? 



85. I maintain that Darwinism in all its forms has been most 

 disastrous to the religious thought of the present age. 



The Chairajlajs*. — I trast that all present will unite with me in awarding 

 their cordial thanks to Dr. Bree for his able paper. I shall now be glad to 

 hear any ob^rvations upon it. either from members of the Institute or from 

 our visitors. 



Eev. W. .J. Irons, D.D. — I have listened with great attention to Dr. 

 Bree's paper ; but there is one subject which arises towards its close on 

 which I desire to say a word. It seems by some to be assumed that we 

 are to deal with questions of this kind in the first instance by advancing 

 our own interpretation of the Bible, and then arguing from it as 

 established. Xow, it is quite conceivable that propositions held in com- 

 mon by all scientific men, on this subject of Darwinism, may be different 

 from those interpretations of Scripture, and yet be retained with entire reve- 

 rence for the letter of the Holy Scripture. If we look back through the 

 whole course of religious thought during the last thousand years, we certainly 

 find elements of Darwinism ; and people have arrived at the conclusion that 

 the created universe, from the very lowest organism to the highest form of 

 intellect, consists of a series. We need not be startled at this fact, if it be a 

 fact ; and if the interpretations we have been accustomed to apply to Holy 

 Scripture may at first seem to be in collision with much that now may have 

 been arrived at, we must not complain if we are called upon to face the 

 matter in a philosophical and truthful spirit, I do not think, for a moment, 

 that Dr. Bree wiU hesitate to admit what I am thus saying : but I consider 

 the tone of his paper is rather hostile to the notion that we may contemplate 

 these questions by themselves, and leave Holy Scripture to stand entirely 

 upon its own merits. This, however, is my proposition. For my part, I 

 thoroughly believe— and, as a clergyman, I need not insist very strongly upon 

 it — that the Bible is the word of God ; but I am quite prepared to let this 

 point stand by itself. Such is my faith in the Bible that I believe it can 

 fully take care of itself, and that we need not be in a state of perpetual fear 

 about it. Then, on the other hand, I am also content to trust in nature, that 



