91 
for. (Laughter.) First, let me express my acquiescence in his feeling, that 
Scripture must not be imported too readily into scientific discussions, but 
that the two should be considered, as far as may be, separately. I must, 
however, qualify his words, by excepting those cases where (as with many 
subjects we discuss) the question turns upon the real force of a Scriptural 
statement. Here we may see at once that Scripture has to be imported. It 
would not be unfair (for example), if we were to argue that of two otherwise 
probable theories, one contradicting, the other agreeing with Scripture, the 
members of this Institute would naturally adopt the latter. Again, I must 
thank Mr. Warington for what he has said about geology. I am glad to find 
Darwinists ready to give up geological arguments. We have had too much of 
this science ; its votaries are far too proud of it. They seem to imagine that 
a shell or a bone found in an odd place is quite enough to prove Scripture 
valueless. Mr. Warington gives the right answer to such fancies, by pointing 
out that our geological knowledge is yet very imperfect ; and that arguments 
drawn from it cannot be alleged either against Darwinism or against Scrip- 
ture. Let us give them their proper place ; but no more.— I am dissatisfied 
with the title of Mr. Darwin’s book, “ The origin of species, by the process 
of natural selection and struggle for existence .” What is this struggle ? Is 
there any ? (Hear, hear.) Who are struggling 1 Granted that under cer- 
tain circumstances the natural powers of reproduction cause a large number 
of individuals to come into existence ; so large that there is not a sufficient 
pabulum for them, and that some give way, and are utilized in a different 
manner from others, — is that a struggle for existence ? Far from it. They 
have it ; they do not struggle for it, but under certain circumstances cannot 
maintain it : surely this ought not to be called “ a struggle,” as if species were 
imbued with a sort of Ishmaelism, — the hand of each against every other ! 
Another term to which I take exception is, “ the origin ” of species. Mr. 
Darwin endeavours to show that species originated in a certain manner, by 
arguments which really prove that there are no species at all. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Warington himself, arguing as an able Darwinian, says we must not 
import into the discussion any definition made by prejudice. But he lays 
down a definition himself, and says we must not assume certain other things, 
which would be begging the question : “ A species is a race of living beings 
possessing common characteristic differences from all others, which differences 
at the present time are constant and inherent.” This is not adequate. In 
logical language, we miss the “ differentia” expressing the power of reproduc- 
ing a fertile progeny. To omit such a portion of a scientific definition is 
really to beg the question, because its omission implies its non-existence ; 
and so the definition from which it is absent is itself a prejudiced definition. 
And so we find ourselves at issue not about the origin of species, but whether 
there are any species at all. This further appears from the expressions used 
with regard to the primeval progenitors of plants and animals. “ There may 
# be four or five,” “ there may have been only one.” But these two cases are 
widely different. If there were five progenitors, then there are species, or may 
be : if one only, then they disappear. I cannot help thinking that a point has 
