270 
stated/' he continues, “we are bound to guard ourselves 
against the conscious or unconscious assumption that the 
development of humanity can be legitimately or safely investi- 
gated as an anthropological subject without reference to the 
primitive condition of man as presented to us in the revealed 
record.' 5 
84. Tried by such a standard, what becomes of the philoso- 
phy of Mr. Darwin ? Can we reconcile the origin of religion 
from dreams, with the revelation of Holy Scripture? Can we 
bring the potentially-endowed plasm — the tendency to vary — 
the “ struggle for existence " — the “ survival of the fittest," and 
the consequent incoming of living beings into the world around 
us, into unison with Revelation? 
85. I maintain that Darwinism in all its forms has been most 
disastrous to the religious thought of the present age. 
The Chairman. — I trust that all present will unite with me in awarding 
their cordial thanks to Dr. Bree for his able paper. I shall now be glad to 
hear any observations upon it, either from members of the Institute or from 
our visitor^. 
Rev. W. J. Irons, D.D.— I have listened with great attention to Dr. 
Bree’s paper ; but there is one subject which arises towards its close on 
which I desire to say a word. It seems by some to be assumed that we 
are to deal with questions of this kind in the first instance by advancing 
our own interpretation of the Bible, and then arguing from it as 
established. Now, it is quite conceivable that propositions held in com- 
mon by all scientific men, on this subject of Darwinism, may be different 
from those interpretations of Scripture, and yet be retained with entire reve- 
rence for the letter of the Holy Scripture. If we look back through the 
whole course of religious thought during the last thousand years, we certainly 
find elements of Darwinism ; and people have arrived at the conclusion that 
the created universe, from the very lowest organism to the highest form of 
intellect, consists of a series. We need not be startled at this fact, if it be a 
fact ; and if the interpretations we have been accustomed to apply to Holy 
Scripture may at first seem to be in collision with much that now may have 
been arrived g,t, we must not complain if we are called upon to face the 
matter in a philosophical and truthful spirit. I do not think, for a moment, 
that Dr. Bree will hesitate to admit what I am thus saying but I consider 
the tone of his paper is rather hostile to the notion that we may contemplate 
these questions by themselves, and leave Holy Scripture to stand entirely 
upon its own merits. This, however, is my proposition. For my part, I 
thoroughly believe— and, as a clergyman, I need not insist very strongly upon 
it — that the Bible is the word of God ; but I am quite prepared to let this 
point stand by itself. Such is my faith in the Bible that I believe it can 
fully take care of itself, and that we need not be in a state of perpetual fear 
about it. Then, on the other hand, I am also content to trust in nature, that 
