280 
case. Had the Darwinians come forward, I should have been prepared to 
meet them on scientific grounds ; but as they have not appeared, I think it is 
hardly worth while to take up the time of the meeting by answering argu- 
ments which they might be supposed to have brought forward. 
Rev. C. Graham. — I desire to say that I go with Dr. Bree in the argu- 
ments he has brought before us this evening. Mr. Darwin, in the general 
summary in his work on the Descent of Man , says that he who is not content 
to look like a savage at the phenomena of nature, cannot any longer believe 
that man is the work of a separate creation. Now, are we to hide from our- 
selves the fact that the Bible is most distinct on this subject— that it is dis- 
tinctly stated that God said “ Let us make man in our image, after our like- 
ness,” and that it is clearly set forth that “'in the image of God created He 
him ; male and female created He them ” ? And are we also to conceal from 
ourselves this fact, that the Bible most distinctly sets forth that the grasses, the 
herbs, the fruit-trees and the whole flora of the world were created after their 
kind — [leminehu]— each after its kind. Any Hebrew scholar will know that 
min means “ form,” “ species,” or “kind.” We have it not merely in Genesis, 
but also in the 1 1th of Leviticus, where, in the mention made of the creatures 
that are clean, and that are fit to be used by Israel as food, you have it 
continually repeated, each “ after his kind,” and it is not merely leminehu — 
or each after its kind — but leminehim, all brought together, and each created 
after its kind. I take it that it is quite within the province of this Society 
to show what such supposed science really is — for it is not science, and I 
think that some of the greatest scientific men here are quite ready to agree 
with me. Are we not to come out distinctly and boldly in defence of the 
Bible ? If I am mistaken about my view of separate creations, I am 
quite willing to be corrected by Dr. Irons, or by any one else competent 
to do so ; but as I have read my Bible, and looked into the originals, 
and as I have studied theology, I have been taught, and have learnt from 
my Bible distinct creations. (Hear.) But Mr. Darwin says he has 
destroyed this, and glories in the fact . I believe that Darwinism is sub- 
versive of truth, as it is disclosed in natural and revealed religion. There 
is not a distinguishing feature in Revelation that Darwinism does not con- 
tradict. Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two on the psycho- 
logical aspect of the subject. Man has a conscience ; he has an instinct 
which impels him to judge the moral qualities of his actions and thoughts, 
and I ask, will you find that instinct which enables him to do this, 
which condemns or approves, which gives pleasure or inflicts pain, in any 
inferior creature 1 Dr. Bree has shown that animals must have been deve- 
loped from vegetables, if the Darwinian theory be correct. I ask, will you 
get a conscience in a vegetable — will you find in any portion of the vegetable 
kingdom a moral nature, or an ethical nature, or the apprehension of a. God ? 
Mr. Darwin’s designation of conscience is a most unfortunate one. He deve- 
lops conscience from an instinct, and from associated feelings ; but he has no 
reference to any Divine standard of truth — he makes no reference in what he 
says of conscience to a God. He has, in fact, no apprehension af conscience 
