278 
been used as to the necessity of doing justice to those whom we feel bound to 
oppose, I am sure that of all, clerical men ought to be the first to do so ; 
but I am convinced that in continually throwing the Bible at the heads of 
infidels, as it has been phrased, you do not do this. I am certain, however, 
that on purely scientific grounds any one, looking at the position in which 
the Bible stands in relation to human history, cannot but feel that, as a man 
of science, he ought to pause long before knocking his head against that 
Wall ; but when he has done so and been brought up, I would then meet 
him entirely on scientific grounds, and say, “ Is the fact so and so, and is 
this or that inference logical or not ? ” I believe there is much in the 
arguments that appear to prove that Darwinism has not made good its pro- 
positions, and that in many of its inferences is has been very wild. (Hear, 
hear.) 
Dr. J. A. Fraser. — I wish to ask whether injustice has not been done, 
probably unintentionally, to another person besides the one already men- 
tioned. I allude to what appears in section 19 of the paper, to the effect 
that “ it has been suggested by a man of great eminence as a physicist, 
that vegetable life may have been evolved in another planet, and have been 
thrown on to our earth when such planet broke up, by means of a meteoric 
stone-.” Now, has it not been repeatedly stated, not perhaps by the author 
of the theory himself; but by others for him, that this was intended more 
as a joke than anything else ? I believe it is generally so regarded, even if 
it has not been specifically stated by the author. 
Rev. C. A. Row. — Dr. Irons has already forestalled the remarks I had in- 
tended to have made, and I can only say that I most cordially assent to his 
observations. I think that there is a defect in the beginning of this 
paper, — it sterns to make Darwinism stand for a great number of 
opinions entertained by various individuals, instead of the opinions of 
Darwin himself. The author of the paper tells us this, and it has 
produced in my mind considerable confusion. I may illustrate the unde- 
sifablenbss of putting the subject in this light, by saying that if we were 
to speak of the opinions of Socrates as Socraticism, it would be very 
undesirable to include under that term the opinions of Plato and Aristotle, 
as well as of the new and old Academies, and of the Cynics and the Stoics. 
To do this would only lead to endless confusion of thought ; and it appears 
to me that this paper ought to distinguish between the principles of evolu- 
tion as held by atheists, those held by Darwin, and those entertained by men 
who believe in Revelation. It is a most undesirable proceeding to lay down 
the proposition, that a belief in the Darwinian theory is inconsistent with 
belief in an intelligent Creator. We have already quite enough enemies to 
oppose, without adding needless ones. I think that in dealing with infidels 
we ought to follow as closely as we can what is said respecting our Divine 
Master — “ A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax He shall 
not quench.” I have been informed that Darwin holds a belief in theism. 
When we consider that there are such a vast number of opponents of revela- 
tion, it seems to me in the highest degree unadvisable to represent that 
