I would ask, Why should we continue to present and perpetuate diffi- 
culties which are not necessarily involved in the question we have to 
consider ? It rather tends to raise our idea of the greatness and power 
of the Creator, if we suppose that His omniscient omnipotence could 
attach to mere crude atoms of matter qualities by which that matter could 
evolve such great results. This supposition does not in any way diminish 
the power, the omniscience, and the grandeur of the Almighty Being. If 
this be so, why should we make the difficulty greater for those who already 
find sufficient obstacles to the acceptance of the fact of the creation of a 
human, or moral, or spiritual being ? If this difficulty can be lessened, we 
shall have prepared the way, both for the moral and the historical evidence. 
There can be no doubt, as already remarked by Professor Stokes, that man 
is a complex being, who possesses moral as well as physical and intellectual 
qualities. He will then find that revelation is suited to the moral qualities, 
and this prepares the way for that portion of the argument which bears on the 
historical evidence. 
Mr. D. Howard, V.P.I.C. — I have heard Professor Stokes’ paper read 
with special interest, and I regard it as one of the greatest value, not 
only on account of the high scientific attainments of its author— and there 
is no one who might not learn something from the paper — but also in 
reference to the wide spread of scientific teaching, to which so much 
attention is being paid at the present time. Unfortunately, science has lost 
the title it used to bear in the days of my boyhood — that of inductive 
science, a term now solely applied to the physical sciences ; and we find, in 
the majority of the scientific teachings now spread abroad among the people, 
unproved deductions put forth with the strongest dogmatism. This being 
so, I think it most important that we should have clearly laid before us the 
true lines of science, as has been done in Professor Stokes’ paper. And we 
need also to have put before us how very little, even apparent, opposition 
there is between religion and science when each keeps to its own lines. 
It is unfortunate that a large proportion of those who speak upon this 
subject — I will not say of those who think upon it — first of all make 
up their minds upon the theoretical proposition, and then look round 
for the facts by which they may support their arguments. Others, 
again, bring into use a habit of mind which might, perhaps, be 
valuable in our law-courts, and seize at once upon those facts which 
tell upon their own side of the question, while they altogether ignore 
those that would tell the other way. This practice is resorted to, con- 
sciously in some cases, and in others unconsciously. Science is not a 
matter of theory alone, but of theory grounded on facts. Unhappily, however, 
in too many cases, we establish theories upon imperfect generalisation, and 
then endeavour so to force our facts that they may suit the theory, saying, that 
if the facts don’t suit, it is so much the worse for them. (Laughter.) I would, 
therefore, specially recommend this paper to the notice of those who, either 
by their writings, or by their personal influence, have any power in directing 
