315 
the interests of religion; not a religious statement, such as anybody can make, 
that the discoveries of pseudo science are not in accord with our theology. 
We have heard with great gratification from the author of the paper 
that we are not, after all, to give up the old account that God made 
everything, one with another, and that He made nothing amiss. Mr. 
Herbert Spencer and his school come forward and say : “ Veteres 
avias tibi de pulmone revello. I will teach you something better and 
grander. It is not true that in the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth. There never was a beginning or a creation.” When any one 
asks, “ What was there, then ? ” Mr. Herbert Spencer tells us there was a 
“ differentiation ” and an “ integration,” and that these produced everything 
by “coherence” of the “homogeneous” or “heterogeneous,” and by the 
“rhythmical motion” which he asserts has the power of production. Then, 
if you suggest any other mode of explaining the way in which things came 
into being, that is said to be entirely “ unthinkable,” and when you maintain 
anything which is “ unthinkable ” you know what to expect. That is the 
way in which we are treated by these philosophers. Having been accus- 
tomed, as a plain Englishman, to the use of words in their original and true 
sense, and having also been in the habit of cautioning my pupils against using 
words out of their right sense, I have been greatly puzzled by the diction of 
this Spencerian philosophy. But we have, fortunately, had the advantage of 
securing on our side on the present occasion an able lawyer, who has called 
the Spencerian witnesses up and cross-examined them. He has put it thus : 
“You say ‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’ have produced these results. 
What do you mean ? What is signified by the words ‘ integration,’ and ‘ co- 
herence,’ and ‘ evolution ’ ? ” And I think I may say, in point of fact, the 
witnesses he has interrogated have entirely broken down. I have now only 
to ask the meeting to return its cordial thanks to the Chairman for presiding, 
and to Sir Edmund Beckett for his admirable paper. 
The Chairman. — As it is now so late, I do not propose to add more than a 
few words to what has already been said ; but I may say that I think 
Mr. Herbert Spencer is to be credited with having distinguished himself 
immensely by an enormous evolution of words. In this he is pre-eminent ; 
but I hope that both his philosophy and his words will die out, and that, at 
no distant day, the whole thing will be forgotten. At the same time, I am 
delighted to put the vote of thanks to our able lecturer, who has afforded us 
so much gratification this evening, and who has done so much to exhibit these 
Spencerian words in a fitting, proper, and true light, and to show that they 
really resolve themselves, in the end, into nothing but contradiction, and are 
but a sorry substitute for those substantial ideas which are to be found in 
plain English. It has struck me as astonishing, in reading these writings, 
how many words have been invented and employed to express the old idea 
of “ growth.” Everybody understands what that word means, but yet it has 
been mystified in all sorts of ways. If you put to yourselves this simple 
question, “ How can there be growth, in the sense of reproduction, without 
