461 
disowns any teleological argument. He only takes what he considers to be 
the facts, and argues and infers from them. Then it should be remembered 
that the paper now before us, only deals with one portion of the subject, for 
it is really in continuation of auother paper, read on a former occasion.* I 
think, however, that we find our main difficulty in the fatalistic argument 
and that this paper does not meet it. 
Mr. J. Rendall. — I consider that one of the difficulties in dealing with 
the paper, arises from the fact that it uses some words with indistinct mean- 
ings, as, for instance, the word automatic ; which Dr. Irons has used in a 
sense widely differing from the sense in which it is used by the author, who 
gives a definition of the word as follows : — 
“ A difficulty- having been raised on a former occasion as to the meaning 
of the terra ‘ automatic,’ I give a definition of Dr. Carpenter’s, which 
expresses the meaning in which I have employed it. He defines an auto- 
maton as ‘ a machine which has within itself the power of motion, under 
conditions fixed for it, but not by it.’ ” 
Now he evidently does not mean what most people mean by the word 
“ machine,” because he applies it to living beings. 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
MR. MORSHEAD’S REPLY. 
As the remarks which have been made on my paper evidence a certain 
amount of misconception as to its general bearing, I think the most appro- 
priate reply will be a short explanation of the object with which it was 
written. 
The moral consequences of the Darwinian theory of evolution are not, 
perhaps, of much importance ; for, although it removes the first creative 
act to a more distant epoch, yet it does not, professedly or necessarily, 
exclude the idea of an originally miraculous creation. But intimately con- 
nected with this theory — I do not say proceeding from it, inasmuch as it 
existed long before the time of Darwin, — there is another, which, so far 
as its moral consequences are concerned, is of the very first importance, 
I mean the theory expressed in the quotations which formed the text of 
my first paper on this subject. " The intellect of vertebrate animals is 
identical, as their organism is identical ; thus gradually descending, passing 
through the orang from man himself to all the mammalia and again, 
“ From animals to man everything is but a chain of uninterrupted gradation ; 
therefore, there is no human kingdom.” f The consequence of this theory 
of intellectual gradation is, that it leaves us the following alternative, — 
either we must deny the distinctive attributes of humanity, or we must extend 
these attributes to the lower animals. If there is less difference, as has 
been stated, between the chimpanzee and the Bushman than there is between 
* See Vols. III. and V. for Mr. Morshead’s former papers, 
t Pouchet, Plurality of the Human Race. 
