283 



should have gone into the Biblical question myself ; but have only made 

 one slight quotation. I have a right, however, to assume that all here have a 

 perfect knowledge of the Bible and a fair knowledge of Darwinism. I say, 

 therefore, that it is impossible to speak of Darwinism without mixing up 

 the views of Darwin with those of his followers, because he has adopted 

 many of the views of the latter. With regard to Dr. Irons' remarks, I think 

 we have a right to take the Bible as proved to be true, and to refer to it as 

 a truthful record of all that we believe and advance on its authority, and 

 I scarcely think investigation will show that the principles of Darwinism 

 may be held consistently with certain interpretations of the Bible ; but no 

 interpretation would support the theory of the evolution of man from a mon- 

 key, or the origin of religion from dreams. In regard to this, let us not forget 

 the remark of the reviewer in Fmser's Magazine, who states " that as the first 

 chapter of Genesis has survived Sir Charles Lyell, it may be stretched sufficiently 

 to include Mr. Darwin." If we are to go upon these grounds, it is of little use 

 for us to argue the question. In order to discuss it properly, we must have 

 two distinct bases to go upon ; we must understand Darwinism, and we must 

 understand the Bible, and, if we are to have diff'erent interpretations of the 

 Bible, I think there is an end of the discussion. Dr. Irons said he believed that 

 the Bible was the word of God, and that it would take care of itself. True ; 

 but few are aware of the extent to which infidel notions are being actively 

 spread, and this is often done by bringing forward human inventions and 

 unproved hypotheses, such as, in my opinion, are those of Mr. Darwin. My 

 object in bringing the subject forward has been, to point out a few facts 

 showing the language used by learned men of great ability ; men such as Mr. 

 Huxley, who has been made secretary of the Royal Society, — a first-rate 

 man no doubt, but holding very extreme views, who states that he be- 

 lieves the world arose from a cosmical cloud of matter, and that if you were 

 to suppose an intelligence like ours existed in the beginning, that intelli- 

 gence could have foretold, knowing the power of molecular forces, the whole 

 evolution of the world as it now is ! — an argument that renders it necessary 

 first to assume that which is impossible, and then argue from it. With regard 

 to the objection made by a clergyman as to the introduction of Scripture, I 

 think if we were to keep Scripture out, the necessity for these discussions 

 would cease. The whole argument against Darwinism is that an unproved 

 hypothesis is sapping the very foundations of Religion, and I, for one, will 

 never cease to agitate this question on scientific grounds. Again, a speaker 

 has said that we are throwing the Bible too freely at the heads of our oppo- 

 nents. I do not think so. The fact is that we are simply Christians desi- 

 rous of preserving our belief in the Bible, and who do not want to believe 

 that which one man of great ability has made fashionable. I am old enough 

 to remember the days of Tom Paine and Voltaire, and poor Lawrence, the 

 surgeon ; they were driven out of society, and yet none of them went to the 

 lengths to which Darwin and others in our own day have gone. In the one 

 case, men who expressed these peculiar views were hunted out of the world ; 

 in the other, we are told that we should receive the strange doctrines we hear 



