73 
we have already seen, that is not the case “ at the present 
time.” It is here that I find Darwinism inharmonious with 
itself, with truth and nature. Mr. Warington very properly 
asks, “ Is the method in which Darwinism asserts species to 
have originated one which there is reason to regard as in 
accordance with the ordinary and known workings of God ?” 
And he adds, “ it is here we come to the theology of Dar- 
winism.” “Its relations to Scripture,” however, “he pur- 
posely passes by, because he does not believe that Scripture 
was ever meant to teach us science.” I also pass by the 
teaching of Scripture at present, not because I can admit it 
has not revealed to us a knowledge of the creation, but that 
I may meet Mr. Warington on his own and the lowest ground. 
He says, “In the first place, Darwinism assumes no cause, 
force or influence other than those known to be at work at 
the present day.” And yet he has also said that, “ at the 
present time,” the characteristics of species are “ constant 
and inherent.” Well, Sir, I call that inharmonious. But he 
goes on, and speaks for others besides himself. He says, 
“ We believe that all living things we now see about us we're 
made by God, by means and under the influence of these 
causes involved in Darwinism nay, he says (and I am sure 
it must have astonished almost all who heard him) : “ We 
feel no difficulty in so believing ;” and he then asks trium- 
phantly, and (granted his assumptions) with admirable logic, 
Why, then, should we feel difficulty in so believing as to all 
living things in the past ? ” I suppose I must astonish him 
in turn, if my answer is. That we do not believe in the Dar- 
winism of the 'past , which he seeks to establish, because we 
do not believe, as he assumed, in the Darwinism of the present. 
We do not believe — though he told us we did — that God 
made all living things we now see about us by means of 
causes involved in Darwinism. Mr. Warington seems to 
think he proves this because we acknowledge God to be our 
Maker ; and he has previously used similar language in this 
Institute, which was not then answered. Let me now say, 
then, that in discussing “ Creation ” philosophically, it cannot 
be admitted that we and all living beings we now see around us 
were “ created ” at all. There is a true sense in which we 
are all regarded as the creatures of God, and as therefore 
created by Him ; but that language is inapplicable in philo- 
sophical discussion, in which we must be regarded as having 
been born by ordinary generation, and not “ created.” But 
as far as causes or influences are “ known to be at work at 
the present time,” man has always produced man, and animals 
always animals, “after their kind.” We know nothing of 
