314 
necessity of that truth without experience, and wonder that any one could 
profess to have evolved such a truth from his own consciousness. The 
fact is, that so far from physical science, as we understand it, being the 
result of deductions from necessary truths, it is but the result of patient 
inductions from a life-long study of Nature ; and this is, in itself, a strong 
argument for design. In the latter part of the paper, which deals more 
briefly than we might have wished, with the “ argument from design,” it is 
very pleasant to find this old argument made by skilful hands more strong 
than ever. It is gratifying to see that it is not to be regarded as worn out ; that, 
although the old illustrations may be partially worn out, the argument itself 
is as forcible as ever. Nay, more, the very shifts its opponents are put to 
— the extraordinary logical, or rather, illogical manoeuvres they perform in 
order to evade the crushing force of this “ argument from design ” is, in itself, 
a proof that it is as strong as ever. With regard to the question of evolution, 
I may express a hope that you will keep clearly in your minds the distinctions 
made in this paper between the many senses in which the word “evolution” 
is used. That some form of evolution may explain some of the phenomena 
of nature is a thing which many may grant ; that it will explain all, it would 
require a bold mind to maintain ; but we get into hopeless confusion be- 
tween evolution in a logical and in a material sense — evolution of ideas and 
evolution by natural selection — evolution caused by an external power and 
that which is self-acting. In studying this hopeless confusion of thought 
I have often wondered whether any living lawyer could make sense of these 
dicta ; and I am very glad to find that so able a representative of the law 
as Sir Edmund Beckett has, equally with myself, failed to make sense of 
them. 
Bev. R. Thornton, D.D.,V.P. — I rise, not to take part in the discussion, for 
I find we have not been able to discuss the able paper before us. Mr. Herbert 
Spencer is, unfortunately, absent, owing to indisposition, and consequently 
there has been practically no discussion of the questions raised by the paper in 
regard to Mr. Spencer’s theory. I have risen for the purpose of asking those 
present to express their thanks to our Chairman for presiding on this occa- 
sion, and to the learned author of the paper for the very admirable specimen 
of his talents which he has put before us. I think the Victoria Institute 
has cause to be thankful to both these gentlemen, especially for the reason 
that there is a little bit of unfair suspicion in the minds of certain persons that 
there has been, perhaps, a little too much clericalism in this Society. We are 
not, as some have hinted, a mere assembly of divines, or of ^wasi-divines, whose 
object is to debate important scientific truths in purely theological fashion, 
and to decide them, as we clergymen are too apt to decide questions, in our 
“coward’s castle.” I am very glad to see one distinguished layman occupying 
the chair here to-night, and another distinguished layman defending the 
truths of Christianity — for they are truths of Christianity which the author 
of the paper has been defending, although he has defended them from the 
secular side. What we want is a scientific annihilation of pseudo science, in 
