43 
which arises from the concurrence of two series of laws converging at one point 
— a very remarkable form of chance. As an example : Suppose a rock in the 
course of its decomposition, has a fissure : this was effected by one series of 
causes : then suppose that a bird passes by, and, by what we call chance, 
drops a seed into that fissure, and the seed becomes a tree ; another series of 
causes has brought that about. A very important part of chance is found in 
what we call the concurrence of events. Mr. Henslow rather underrated the 
amount of that evil which exists in the physical creation. I know he fancies 
that pain is not so great an evil as others do — I cannot help thinking that it 
is a very serious one — but how it got there is quite another point. Then as 
to the term “ law,” I cannot think that the term, as applied to averages, is 
strictly correct. It is used in an entirely different sense when it is applied 
to results emanating from will, from what it is when applied to mere physical 
antecedents and consequents. Averages do not obey a positive and certain 
law, but a fluctuating and uncertain one. Including man, they include not 
only the results of the action of law, but also the results of the action of 
will. Take the averages of marriage, where the human will comes in as a 
factor. I cannot help thinking that it is by nothing more than a mere 
analogy that we apply the term “law” to such a succession of averages, 
especially where the human will is brought in as an element. 
Mr. J. Allen. — I cannot but express my regret, that in a society like this, 
formed to show that the Scriptures and science are not at variance, the plain 
statement of revelation as to the creation of man should apparently be passed 
over by the lecturer, and the vague theories of Dr. Darwin thought to be worthy 
of credence. I have listened attentively to Mr. Henslow’s able and eloquent 
paper, but could not find one fact mentioned which would support the doc- 
trine of evolution, except that in reference to certain pigeons, by being placed 
under certain conditions, at length becoming a different kind. But I should 
like to know whether the offspring of such birds, if left in a natural condition, 
would not in a few generations relapse into the original state ? 
The Chairman. — This Society proposes to test every argument upon its 
own merits. Everything is capable of being so tested, and what we propose 
to do to-night is to test this question upon its own merits. This really is 
the first question for the meeting. Here we have a number of thoughts 
before us, and the question is, how far are these consistent with each other 
and with any general or Christian faith in God. 
Rev. S. Wainwright, D.D. — I must say, Mr. Chairman, that you have 
expressed what every one has felt, and that is, the universal satisfaction 
with which we welcome those who go over a great breadth of the field of 
science with men who make it their boast that they are purely and simply 
scientific men, and who yet hold as reverently as we do to the old inter- 
pretation of the Bible. (Cheers.) On that account, I really have the 
greatest satisfaction in rising to express my concurrence with what you have 
so well said ; and I hope Mr. Henslow will allow me to add that what I am 
now saying will not suffer abatement from what I am about to say against the 
doctrine of evolution. Now, while I differ from Mr. Henslowin certain passages 
