281 
rightly understood. The very idea of conscience implies a reference to, and a 
comparison between, our actions and a Divine standard — a reference to some- 
thing objective and outside man. Take man’s ethical nature. Is there one 
single principle of an ethical nature in an inferior animal ? Here we have not 
to reason about a dog ; you will have to go lower down ; you must go to the 
jelly-fish and the vegetable, and in that case, with regard to a God, where 
can the notion be drawn from ? How is it developed ? Can we know God 
in His nature and character, and His claims on us, and what it is necessary 
to do to meet those claims, without a revelation ? But everything is developed. 
Our religious nature, our knowledge, our conscience, our ethical and moral 
natures are all developed ; but if you have no principle from which to deve- 
lop conscience, how can you get conscience, or a moral nature ? Mr. Darwin 
almost concedes what I am saying, and yet he holds to his theory. He almost 
tells you in so many words that the theory is untenable, and yet he clings to 
it, and he considers us “ savages ” if we do not agree with what he says. Why, 
sir, this is not science. 
Rev. J. James. — It .was publicly stated at Leeds not long since, and the 
statement has not been contradicted, that the French Academy has declined 
to permit the nomination of Mr. Darwin as a candidate for admission thereto, 
on the ground that his public works were unscientific in their psychological 
character. I wish to ask whether there is any foundation for this state- 
ment ? 
Dr. Bree. — Mr. Darwin is stated to have been proposed for election by 
the French Academy three times, and to have been rejected each time. I 
believe this was entirely on the ground that his work is not scientific. 
Mr. T. W. Mastermaist. — If I have rightly understood the theory of evo- 
lution, it starts from this basis, that many things are created not “very 
good,” but very imperfect ; that they become in process of time, by develop- 
ment, “ very good,” and that if they have not already attained to perfection, 
they will shortly arrive at that state. It is also maintained that there are 
some things which were created “ very good ; ” but which have, in process of 
time, deteriorated, and less useful for the purposes for which they were first 
designed. This being a part of the theory of evolution, I contend that the 
author of the paper is quite right in stating that the advocates of that theory 
cannot consistently believe in eternal God, who is the God of nature, as well 
as of revelation, and not a mere fancied God of man’s creation. I consider that 
Dr. Bree is right in linking together all the arguments that he has used to 
defend revelation, and it seems to me that in every paper, read before this 
Society, taking up questions of this kind, we ought, and must, refer to reve- 
lation, or we shall fail to carry out some of the great objects for which we 
are associated. I agree also in the remark made by one of the speakers 
at the other end of the room, when he said it is not we who take up the 
Bible for the purpose of throwing it at other men’s heads, but rather our 
opponents who take it up, and we who stand on the defensive. I think it a 
glorious thing that this Society contends for a belief in the God of Revelation, 
and all that is given to us in the Inspired volume. (Hear.) I consider Dr. 
