279 
erery modern theory of science, of which we may not be able to see thb 
logical conclusion, is necessarily opposed to the belief in a living God. 
(Hear.) I am not defending the Darwinian theory, be it clearly understood, 
for as yet it seems to me to be utterly unproved. There is, however, another 
view to be taken of this subject, and that is, that the theory of development, 
as distinguished from the special theory of Darwinism, can be made to aid 
the arguments used for Divine Revelation. Among the great difficulties 
which meet us, there is that of the exceeding slow growth of Christianity. 
This is a difficulty that has struck my mind very forcibly, and there is also 
another difficulty in the slow and gradual development of Revelation itself. 
There are no two objections which are urged against us more frequently, or 
more persistently, by unbelievers than these. My reply to these objections 
is this : “ You are bringing as an objection against Christianity, what you 
hold to be an actual truth respecting the elaboration of creation ; you are 
urging as an argument against my Christianity that which you hold to be an 
absolute law of creation in the evolution of this world ; and therefore if God 
Almighty be the actual Creator of this globe, if He has elaborated by slow 
and gradual processes this earth and all that it contains, I am fully entitled 
to expect that Revelation will follow the same law of slow and gradual 
evolution, and therefore that Christianity must require a considerable period 
before it commands the assent of the entire human race.” (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. I. T. Prichard. — I wish to make one or two remarks in reference to 
this discussion ; and the first is with regard to what has been said by Dr. Irons, 
and endorsed by one or two speakers who have followed him ; namely, that 
we ought to avoid, as much as possible, throwing the Bible at the heads of 
opponents. Now, I feel bound to take exception to that remark, because I do 
not think that it is a tendency on our part, or on the part of those who discuss 
matters of this kind on our side, to throw the Bible at the heads of our 
opponents. On the contrary, it is we who have the Bible thrown at our heads 
by those who oppose us. (Hear, hear.) Without entering into a discussion 
of the paper, of which I beg to express my humble and deep admiration, I 
would simply suggest that in cases of this kind it is not we who are the 
assailants, but our opponents of the scientific sceptical world, if I may use the 
term without intending it in any offensive sense. I do not see how such a 
theory as the Darwinian, with the conclusions it professes to lay before us 
conclusions which affect, necessarily, the question of the origin of man— can 
be started without assailing the belief we have in the Bible, and it is in this 
sense only that I mean the Bible is thrown at our heads, and we are acting 
on the defensive, and not at all upon the offensive. To this extent, there- 
fore, I differ from the remarks of Dr. Irons, and one or two others by 
whom they have been approved. It is a matter of regret to me that we 
labour under one disadvantage in this Society — if I may be allowed to 
point out a fault in our organization— and that is that unfortunately our 
discussions are sometimes all on one side. (Hear.) I was in great hopes 
that we should have had some here to-night who would have stood up as the 
advocates of the Darwinian theory ; but unfortunately that has not been the 
