44 
of this unusually able and specially admirable paper, I so far agree with the 
feeling of the last speaker, that I find myself thoroughly en rapport with 
him in his reference for the Bible, when he seems to feel that Mr. Henslow’s 
utterances impinge to some extent on his reverent regard for its authoritative 
teaching. But it cannot be denied that when we consider such subjects we 
should, by mutual agreement and consent, consider them apart on their own 
merits. Let authoritative teaching come in as paramount and authoritative 
in its own proper place ; but we are here to demonstrate the compatibility of 
what is really ascertained to be scientific truth, with what can be shown, and 
properly shown, to be the meaning of God’s word, justly and reverently inter- 
preted. Now, I hope to be regarded as a sort of bridge between the op- 
posing speakers, but will endeavour to say as little as possible, so as not to 
detain you at undue length. In the first place, let me beg Mr. Henslow to 
believe that there is no abatement from the cordial terms in which I have 
spoken of the paper itself when I say that I differ from him as to the doctrine 
of evolution ; but here let me do him the most simple justice — for it would 
be an act of monstrous injustice to class him for an instant with such evolu- 
tionists as Professor Huxley and Dr. Darwin. (Cheers.) Mr. Henslow 
stands on a different footing altogether, and in this paper he has discarded 
principles which are maintained notably by Professor Huxley. I am glad, 
also, that Mr. Henslow has done Dr. Darwin so much justice as to show that 
he does not discard the idea of a personal God apart from nature. But I 
have to complain that Mr. Henslow has allowed his love for his pet theory 
of evolution to make that theory crop up very vigorously in several places 
where its presence hardly seems warranted by the connection in which it is 
placed. Look, for instance, at the third note on the 8th page of his paper, 
where he says, “Evolution is a great fact of nature.” Surely that is a 
gratuitous assertion : it may be, or it may not be, “ a great fact of nature.” 
Now I, for one, am a great lover of the study of God in nature, and sure 
I am that “ there lives and breathes a soul in all things.” Still, if you can 
prove that statement about evolution, I will accept it ; but so far as the 
statement in this paper is concerned, I content myself by saying that 
evolution has not yet been proved to be “a great fact.” Then, in p. 17 
Mr. Henslow says : — 
“ If, therefore, evolution be true for the former [i.e. the animal kingdom], 
it must be true for man’s body also.” 
There is much virtue in an “if.” It may be a bold thing to say, but 
I maintain that the position taken up by Mr. Henslow is not proved. 
I do not deny it ; but, I say it is not proved, and the “ therefore ” is a non 
sequitur. Then, in the 20th page of his paper, Mr. Henslow says, speaking 
of “ rudimentary, or useless structures ” : — 
“ These, however, it will be remembered, had a significance which cannot 
be overrated, for they bear incontestable evidence to evolution.” 
But I will try to show that such incontestable evidence is not to be found in 
rerum naturd. I know the facts which induce him to think the contrary, but 
