94 
expressed — it is mind, not sound.” Now, if it would afford him any grati- 
fication, I should be quite willing to make a concession to him, and to 
substitute the indefinite for the definite article, and to call language a , not 
the, difference of kind between man and animals. The fact that other 
differences of kind may exist does not in the least affect my position. But, 
in order to prove that mind is a difference of kind between man and the 
brute, he must prove that the latter has no trace whatever of mind. The 
elephant who mortally crushes the boy, who, an hour before had pricked his 
trunk with a pin, connects a definite idea with a definite act ; and the 
punishment he inflicts on the boy is evidently the result of a mental process. 
I maintain, therefore, that ftnimals possess a minimum amount of mind, 
although in a state so rudimentary that all comparison with that of man is 
impossible. However much, therefore, I differ from Mr. Darwin’s main 
theory, I am by no means prepared to dispute his statement that the 
difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is 
certainly one of degree only, and not of kind* 
The question of the “ Missing Link ” was next introduced by a well- 
known geologist at Norwich (Mr. Harm er), who attempted to answer a 
great objection to the doctrine of evolution, which is “that none of the 
intermediate forms between man and his supposed progenitors are known to 
us, either in a living state or in a fossil condition.” As this feature of the 
controversy is foreign to the object of my paper, I will not allude to it 
further than bo say that Mr. Harmer’s position was attacked, and his argu- 
ments successfully answered by the Rev. W. P. Lyon, the Rev. J. W. Buck- 
ley, and Captain F. Petrie. 
One of the Norwich evolutionists complains that I use Scripture to refute 
Darwinism. I beg to say I do nothing of the kind, and there is nothing in 
my paper to justify such a construction. I use Science to show that language 
is the difference of kind between man and animals, which Mr. Darwin seems 
to stand in need of ; and having, however imperfectly, combated his views 
from a linguistic point of view, I incidentally call attention to the fact that 
Science corroborates Holy Writ, just as Bishop Colenso and others contend 
that it controverts it. This is a very different thing from the illogical process 
imputed to me of bolstering up scientific views by appealing to the authority 
of Scripture. 
In one or more of their letters, the evolutionists seem to deprecate any 
attempt to reconcile Science and Scripture. They willingly concede to the 
free-thinkers of the day the right to use Science for the purpose of subverting 
religion, but they look with a jealous eye upon those who seek to point out 
the analogy between the two. May I ask them what value they would attach 
to any work on the early history of our island, that contained no allusion to 
“ Caesar’s Commentaries ” ; and, surely, it would be equally monstrous to 
consider any theory as to the origin of Man without, at least, a reference to 
the Book of Genesis, — the first, if not the only book, which professes to en- 
lighten the human race as to its origin. 
I doubt not that many of those who have differed from me are serious, 
thoughtful men, who would not knowingly propagate a dangerous doctrine ; 
but I must think they cannot have realized the ultimate consequences of 
their proposal to ignore the Book of Genesis in any search after truth, simply 
because, in such a search, the aid of Science may also be required. 
* If further evidence is required upon this point, I refer the reader to the 
Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. v. page 309, where he will find 
several facts recorded corroborative of my views that animals possess a 
minimum amount of Mind. 
