200 
and the chronometer from the watch, and that the mechanism was so perfect 
not perfect, because in mechanism we cannot bring in Gods wort we 
cannot bring ii the laws of nature, that is, the finger of Goi But whe her 
God, in some inscrutable way, has called beings out of nothmg, or w e 
He ias acted in some such way as is indicated by Darwin, in 
have God’s direct power in creatmg and sustammg all things, ® 
sr " i? ^ -T.«. 
some of them may have fallen short of the mark. • 
Captain FisnaoU^It did not strike me that in using M™ 
“ religious theory,” any attack was made upon the 
least. I think Dr. Gladstone’s exegesis is not fair He attacks the te , 
hut the term is used to express, shortly, what is the n0 more 
of persons from the stand-point of revealed truth. ^ who 
than that the class of persons to whom it especia J r > rfectly 
accept the Scriptural account of the creation ; and I tlnnk tt is p J 
natural that their theory should be called the religious theory W, U 
the whole argument in the paper, it is quite in opposition to the view it 
sssje tZLZESZis: ~ 
termed the religious view, or that which is town &om ^ 
Dr. Gladstone is a little touchy about this. (A laug .) insisted 
has pointedly and distinctly, on more occasions than one, not y ’ 
mere expression, and deduce from it an argument which neither anything i 
Te pa^ warmnts, nor anything which Mr. Keddie has ever said or 
written on any previous occasion. (Hear, hear.) _ obiec _ 
Mr Warington. — I f I apprehend the master right y, 
tiofof Dr GMstone was not that he thought Mr. Reddie bad charged 
those who did not accept the scriptural account of the creation with be 
sidered equaUy reUgious. Now I really must, on that point, go hand m 
hand very warmly with what Dr. Gladstone has said. It struck me, af 
reading Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, that it was quite possi 
