structures, as steam-engines, clocks, &c. ; and, moreover, only 
in the sense of improvements can evolution be applied, to his 
works, — God does not operate in suck a way at all. He 
evolves, by means of natural laws established of His own will, 
those structures and organisms which appear to our sight to be 
so full of what we call design when applied to human produc- 
tions. We must, however, distinctly bear in mind that no 
examinations or speculations can disclose to us the real method 
of God^s working which gives rise to such appearances as are 
usually called designed. There they are as objective facts, but to 
state how they came about is a mystery which philosophy will 
never solve. 
The Chairman. — I have much pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks 
to Mr. Henslow for his paper, which appears to me to contain a great deal 
of truth ; and also to suggest some points for our consideration, which may- 
go a good way towards the solution of difficulties that seem to be pressing, 
and towards the nearer approach to a union of different schools of thought, 
each of which may hold a great deal of truth. Whether Mr. Henslow’s 
paper has fully brought out, at every point, all that is in harmony with the 
more old-fashioned notions, I will not undertake to say. Here and there 
he was on a certain track which, if followed out, would have led to a fuller 
and more pronounced comparison of his own scientific views with those 
views of creation which have been held in the past, and which, though 
imperfect in their expression, as all such views must be, had, as I have no 
doubt Mr. Henslow will himself say, substantial truth at their basis. We 
must all admit that this paper is full of scientific thought, and evidently the 
production of one who has given a very reverent and very religious con- 
sideration to the whole breadth of the subject before us, both as respects 
the relations of Deity with this world, and the work of Deity in this world. 
(Hear, hear.) I must confess, however, that there is one point in which the 
paper has a little disappointed me. I thought that the author would have 
spoken more of that gap to which he himself referred when I was last here. 
I mean the gap between inorganic matter with its laws, and life. Now, he 
has spoken of evolution as if it were one complete, continuous, consecutive 
thing, the links of which melted into each other right up to man, and as if 
man were the only object in the whole series of successive existences, which 
did not coincide with the theory — man the only creature which, upon the 
pure principles of evolution — of consecutive evolution — could not be 
harmonized with the evolution theory. But it has appeared to me, in trying 
to think over this matter, that there is not only a gap at the end, but at the 
beginning also. Professor Huxley has himself intimated, in a form, negative 
indeed, that we have not the least reason to believe that such a thing as life 
has ever been developed out of inorganic matter ; that, so far as scientific 
evidence bears upon the subject, a negative conclusion is the only conclusion 
that is admissible ; and that, though life may bind up under its seal 
