64 
from first to last, and am now about to move, as it were (as 
they say “in another place”), a direct negative to all the 
principles, assumptions and arguments throughout his paper. 
I must, however, reverse his way of putting the subject before 
you. I think Darwinism incredible, not because I can first 
prove it to be impossible, but because I hope to show that it 
is inharmonious, inconsistent and inadequate ; and that it is 
therefore, if not “ impossible,” yet utterly improbable, and 
that it ought to be at once rejected as an irrational hypothesis, 
and altogether incredible. You will observe that I disclaim 
being able logically to prove that Darwinism is “ impossible,” 
while Mr. Warington has boldly claimed to have proved it to 
be possible. Well, Sir, in my opinion he has gone quite 
beyond the range of a priori possibility in the case, m even 
attempting to do what he thus has claimed to have done, i 
can perfectly understand his believing the theory to be possible 
as he has put it before us. Darwinism plus Deity must, no 
doubt, be possible as a mere conception of the mind,—? , e., n 
we assume that God has chosen so to work; but Darwinism 
pure and simple, as the Drench say, is a very differen 
matter. Nor must Mr. Warington object to my drawing this 
distinction. I assure him I intend to steer clear of all odium 
theoloaicum — as I trust others will of all odium scientijkum — 
in discussing this vital question ; but at the same time 1 have 
no intention of avoiding — and I am sure it will not be 
expected that I should avoid— speaking . perfectly freely on 
the subject, and bringing out the logical issues to which the 
hypothesis leads, not only in my opinion as its opponent but 
in that of some of its own most zealous advocates. At the 
same time I beg to say that I shall touch very lightly upon 
that most important issue, and as far as possible (m order to 
do mere justice to the argument) I shall limit myself to the 
issues raised by Mr. Warington himself. I shall do so, i± lor 
no other reason, because, from past experience in discussing 
Darwinism with others, I know how skittish Darwinians can 
be ; and I wish to impress it upon the members of the Insti- 
tute that they must not conclude, even if we refute Mr. 
Warington, that it will be admitted we have refuted Darwin- 
ism, but only his way of supporting it. Even Mr. Warington 
himself frankly tells us in the concluding sentences of his able 
paper that “ Mr. Darwin's own book is professedly but a 
meagre abstract of the evidence on behalf of the hypothesis 
he has in store. The full statement has long been promised, 
and in respect to one important part of the subject, is an- 
nounced as now f preparing for publication.' It were rashness 
in the extreme to jump to any definite conclusion until this 
