233 
widely departed from in practice, that the revelations of 
science should always be read, — not with a feeling of credulous 
assent, m the absence of evidence, but with a reasonable 
scepticism ; while the revelations of Scripture, on the con- 
trary, must be read with an equally reasonable faith. But the 
modern doctrine reverses the application of these precepts : 
science is to have all the faith, and the Bible all the 
scepticism. 
If I am required to admit that man is developed from the 
ape, and the ape from a fish, I am quite ready to admit it, 
provided I be shown this developing principle in operation,— 
provided I be shown only a few consecutive steps of the 
approximating process. I am ready to admit it even, if the 
propounder of the doctrine seriously tells me that he himself 
has witnessed this onward and continuous advance from ape to 
man, or from fish to ape, though in but a single instance. I 
go further : though neither he nor I have seen anything of 
the kind, yet I will admit it, if he can only point to the 
recorded testimony of trustworthy eye-witnesses of the phe- 
nomena in bygone times. 
If not even one. of these items of evidence exist, then the 
belief in this, or in any other physical theory equally un- 
supported,- though a few men of unquestionable science may 
embrace tnat belief, — may be fitly characterized, not as 
scientific conviction, but as scientific superstition,— an appella- 
tion quite as appropriate as the similar appellation sometimes 
applied to the extravagances of really religious minds. 
If I could not submit to you this evening better and 
sounder reasons in support of the position that the speech of 
man came from the Creator of man, than the philosophers 
alluded to can furnish in favour of their position that the 
human being came from the ape, I certainly should not pre- 
sume to appear before you.. I think and trust, as the event 
will show, that I shall not incur the charge of arrogance or 
egotism in preferring these pretensions. Yet, as I have 
already hinted, the evidence which I shall offer, in support of 
this position, must not be expected to reach the high 
character of scientific proof. The inquiry is not one in refer- 
ence to which the rigid demands of science can be satisfied. 
It is an inquiry out of the range of strict science ; for, as Sir 
John Herschel truly states, in his beautiful and masterly 
Discourse , “ to ascend to the origin of things is not the 
business of the natural philosopher/'’ 
I shall, however, appeal to that which is of little less 
authority. I shall appeal to that which, independently of 
science, is the guiding principle,— not only in ordinary 
