205 
I am one of those who have always thought it scarcely creditable to 
Christian people that they should be so much alarmed, as they sometimes 
appear to be, at the probable influences of science, as developed in the 
present day, upon revealed religion, especially with regard to the leading 
point of the evolution question — namely, the existence of a God with 
a supreme and constant controlling power. (Hear, hear.) Doubtless, this 
subject is one that is calculated to fascinate the minds of a large number of 
people, and I might add that it has been worked out by scientific men, not 
only with extreme care, but, as I believe, with honesty of purpose. I 
myself have not the smallest hesitation in crediting all the ascertained 
facts that have been given to us by those who have laboured so perseveringly 
on this subject. Their deductions are matters of great interest, but, as 
Professor Stokes has so admirably put it, minds differently cast are required 
to look at this subject in such a way as to enable us to come to 
correct conclusions upon the inferences drawn by Darwin and other evolu- 
tionist teachers as to the doctrine they have put before the world. I think, 
also, that Professor Stokes is correct in leading us to infer, even if he did 
not absolutely assert, that many men who have been led to draw conclusions 
adverse to revealed religion have done so without taking into consideration 
the whole of man’s constitution. They have omitted to take due cognisance 
of the laws which regulate man’s moral being, and it would even appear as 
though they had agreed to ignore the existence of any such constitution at all. 
(Hear, hear.) I have been much struck, occasionally, when conversing with 
evolutionists upon this subject, at finding how completely they are at sea 
with reference to the question of the probable origin of man. One of my 
conversations on this point was with Professor Kitchen Parker, who, I 
may say, in passing, is one of the most laborious and trustworthy workers in 
developmental anatomy we have at the present day, and a man whose mind 
is as simple and open to truth from all sides as it is possible to be, 
while, at the same time, he is a very sincere and humble Christian. As 
just stated, I have been greatly struck with the results of my conver- 
sations with him and others on this subject. I have put the question point- 
blank : — Assuming all the evolutionists have stated to be taken for granted, 
and that all existing animal creation has been developed from some simple 
protozoon : where does man come in ? But I have never yet obtained any 
answer to that question. (Hear, hear.) The supposition is, that the original 
protozoon, or the line it takes its development from, has somehow been lost. 
There is no line from which, taking animal creation from the commence- 
ment, and including all the higher vertebrate animals, we could, on the 
evolution theory, understand man to have made even a partial entrance so 
that his existence and constitution may be accounted for. We are, therefore, 
at liberty to take all that has been stated with reference to the leading facts of 
evolution, and still are compelled to turn round and ask — How about man ? 
Whence does he come ? What is his origin ? By what line of evolution has 
he risen ? This, I think, is the point that ought never to be lost sight of. I 
also think that, after all, we must fall back on the evidence derived from other 
