283 
should have gone into the Biblical question myself ; but have only made 
one slight quotation. I have a right, however, to assume that all here have a 
perfect knowledge of the Bible and a fair knowledge of Darwinism. I say, 
therefore, that it is impossible to speak of Darwinism without mixing up 
the views of Darwin with those of his followers, because he has adopted 
many of the views of the latter. With regard to Dr. Irons 5 remarks, I think 
we have a right to take the Bible as proved to be true, and to refer to it as 
a truthful record of all that we believe and advance on its authority, and 
I scarcely think investigation will show that the principles of Darwinism 
may be held consistently with certain interpretations of the Bible ; but no 
interpretation would support the theory of the evolution of man from a mon- 
key, or the origin of religion from dreams. In regard to this, let us not forget 
the remark of the reviewer in Fraser’s Magazine, who states “ that as the first 
chapter of Genesis has survived Sir Charles Lyell, it may be stretched sufficiently 
to include Mr. Darwin.” If we are to go upon these grounds, it is of little use 
for us to argue the question. In order to discuss it properly, we must have 
two distinct bases to go upon ; we must understand Darwinism, and we must 
understand the Bible, and, if we are to have different interpretations of the 
Bible, I think there is an end of the discussion. Dr. Irons said he believed that 
the Bible was the word of God, and that it would take care of itself. True ; 
but few are aware of the extent to which infidel notions are being actively 
spread, and this is often done by bringing forward human inventions and 
unproved hypotheses, such as, in my opinion, are those of Mr. Darwin. My 
object in bringing the subject forward has been, to point out a few facts 
showing the language used by learned men of great ability ; men such as Mr. 
Huxley, who has been made secretary of the Royal Society, — a first-rate 
man no doubt, but holding very extreme views, who states that he be- 
lieves the world arose from a cosmical cloud of matter, and that if you were 
to suppose an intelligence like ours existed in the beginning, that intelli- 
gence could have foretold, knowing the power of molecular forces, the whole 
evolution of the world as it now is ! — an argument that renders it necessary 
first to assume that which is impossible, and then argue from it. With regard 
to the objection made by a clergyman as to the introduction of Scripture, I 
think if we were to keep Scripture out, the necessity for these discussions 
would cease. The whole argument against Darwinism is that an unproved 
hypothesis is sapping the very foundations of Religion, and I, for one, will 
never cease to agitate this question on scientific grounds. Again, a speaker 
has said that we are throwing the Bible too freely at the heads of our oppo- 
nents. I do not think so. The fact is that we are simply Christians desi- 
rous of preserving our belief in the Bible, and who do not want to believe 
that which one man of great ability has made fashionable. I am old enough 
to remember the days of Tom Paine and Yoltaire, and poor Lawrence, the 
surgeon ; they were driven out of society, and yet none of them went to the 
lengths to which Darwin and others in our own day have gone. In the one 
case, men who expressed these peculiar views were hunted out of the world ; 
in the other, we are told that we should receive the strange doctrines we hear 
