271 
is, the laws of God which we come in contact with in this world. I believe 
that God’s laws, in the whole world of nature, are well worth our investiga- 
tion, and that we ought not to flinch from anything in those laws, or in facts 
of nature, because they may, in the first instance, seem opposed to the received 
view of Scripture. We have plenty of time before us, and we can afford to be 
quite calm about the matter. To be perpetually, as some phrase it, “throwing 
the Bible at the head of the infidel,” I am sure only irritates him, without doing 
any good to our cause ; and although I am quite sure that this is not the inten- 
tion of the writer of the paper, yet he will, I trust, forgive me if I say that I 
think it will appear to be his view to many persons who read it. A consider- 
able number of paragraphs in the paper we have heard wind up with the 
same climax, namely, that “this is quite contrary to the Bible.” Now, I do 
not think that this is exactly the way in which scientific questions ought to 
be treated. I say, let each question stand on its own basis. If we were here 
to discuss the connection between a biblical conclusion and a scientific conclu- 
sion, we should have to examine very clearly what the biblical conclusion was ; 
and then I think we should all be, to use a common expression, at sixes and 
sevens, for we should not be quite clear as to what biblical conclusion people 
were going to put into opposition to a scientific conclusion ; therefore I should 
be glad if this kind of reference to Holy Scripture were kept as much as pos- 
sible in the background in these discussions. There is nothing at all incon- 
sistent with the laws of God in the statement of His having created all 
things in series ; for there is, undoubtedly, an entire series evidenced both 
in moral and physical creation ; just as in one case we begin with the merest 
creatures of inorganic, or almost inorganic, existence, and rise from them to 
the highest organizations ; so, in the other, do we begin with the lowest move- 
ments of life, perception and instinct, until we arrive at thought and will, and 
so on ; not implying for a moment that the one was derived from the other ; 
but that it pleased Almighty God to give that series of beings in regular 
order, creation after creation, regulating the one in proportion to, and rising 
above the other. I do not know whether I am making myself intelligible ; 
but I am anxious to express a feeling which I am sure pervades a large 
number of intelligent men in London and elsewhere, when I say that there 
is no need whatever to place Darwinism, or to place any of the present results 
or proceedings of science, in a priori antagonism with revelation. There is 
quite enough of real antagonism going on without our adding to it in this 
way. I believe that that awful passage which is quoted in Dr. Bree’s paper, 
wherein an avowal is made, by some persons, of a desire to get rid of Chris- 
tianity, is by no means an expression of unusual fanaticism. That unhappy 
feeling is, I believe, spreading, and this is a solemn reality which is not to be 
confronted by any mere nibbling. I say further, that when we take up a 
scientific subject, and deal with it in a mixed manner, as though it brought 
into question at once the truth of the Bible, we are nibbling at the whole 
matter. (Hear, hear.) That is not what I call going to the root of it. I 
would advise that the two things should be kept quite distinct. But one 
thing is quite clear, and that is that this paper has elicited the fact that some 
u 2 
