238 
special qualities to the ordinary product of hereditary transmission as have 
created an entirely new creature, to a very great extent on an existing model. 
The hereditary descent (to which Mr. Howard refers) of not only physical, 
but mental and moral qualities, seems to me a strong argument for the 
view that we derive our whole nature, and not our material elements only, 
from our parents. 
Materialistic evolution has no more resolute opponent than Dr. Lionel 
Beale ; yet the doctrine of vitality maintained in his many works appears 
to be, and I believe really is, wide enough to cover not only the derivation 
of nvtvya from 4' v X' l 'l, but the whole field of a strictly Christian evolution. 
Mr. Howard (p. 216) regards the unity of plan in the Creator’s 
mind as a sufficient explanation of the unity manifested in His creation, 
without having recourse to any ideas of “derivation.” Doubtless it 
is sufficient on the theory of “ special creations,” since the Divine 
Designer must adhere to His own design. But surely it is equally 
consistent with the theory of the execution of that same design through 
‘ * derivative creation.” Which theory is the more probable must be settled 
hereafter by patient observation and careful induction. This only (as Mr. 
Howard would be among the first to allow), and not the set of the popular 
current, nor even the authority of great names, must ultimately decide. But 
as Mr. Howard has laid just stress on the convictions of such men as 
Agassiz and Yon Baer, I may observe that an increasing preponderance of 
eminent biologists are accepting the doctrine of evolution in some form or 
other. And many of these and of their humbler allies would say, I believe, 
as was said by Charles Kingsley, that it has “ opened a new world to ” them, 
“ and made all that ” they see around them “ if possible even more full of 
divine significance than before .” — (Memorials of Charles Kingsley, vol. ii. 
p. 156.) 
REPLY BY MR. HOWARD. 
I feel indebted to Mr. Lea for the opportunity he has afforded me of giving 
some explanation of my views of “ Christian evolutionism.” The enforced 
brevity of this reply may render it in some respects unsatisfactory ; but it 
will not, I trust, be found wanting in courtesy to those who hold this modi- 
fied doctrine, and whom I know well how to distinguish from the materialists 
of Haeckel’s school. 
I may assume without offence that the ideas received by a number of 
Christian men are not, necessarily, Christian ideas. To solve this question 
we must refer to the common standard of Christian truth in the Scriptures. 
Otherwise there is no certainty that novel views, “ opening a new world ” 
to the recipient, may not prove as injurious as the heresies that have infested 
the Church in all ages, and which have always come in with the boast of 
superior illumination ; the Gnostics rejoicing in light and consolation which 
the more conservative portion of the Church might gladly have shared if 
they had not feared to desert the old “ wells of salvation.” 
