95 
modifications in them ; and that if we went back many generations there 
were considerable modifications, till we must call the tree by another name 
than the oak, and that we might go still further and further back ; and 
that is pure Darwinism. Then the child said again, hi almost the same 
language as at first, “ I thought God created every kind of tree at once, 
and now I find that there has been a gradual development: I do not 
think much of God.” It appears to me that we are in the condition 
of this child ; and I think we may believe in development, and believe 
in generation,— that we may believe indeed hi this Darwinian hypothesis— 
without being considered atheists. We know the one, we are not sure of the 
other yet. I do not know what the fate of this theory may be ; there is 
much to be said for and against it ; but I have no doubt whatever, that if 
you speak of this theory as behig sufficient of itself to account for all the 
varied phenomena of creation, — as capable of explaining the whole pro- 
cess —Darwinism is incredible. But if we accept this theory of natural 
selection as only a small part of that process which it has pleased Almighty 
God to adopt in bringing about creation, I think it is neither incredible nor 
to be thrown lightly aside, nor to be considered an improper theory. 
Mr. W. H. Inge. — I should not like the evening to close without dissenting 
from Darwinism, and letting it be known that I cannot believe that only eight • 
or ten original species were created, and that all other species were produced 
from varieties. In the plan ordered to be followed by Noah in building his 
ark, it was to be 300 cubits long and three stories high, with lower, middle, 
and upper stories ; that is, the ark was to be of an enormous size, and a great 
deal too large for eight or ten species only, if these were all that were 
required to reproduce ail that now exist, as Darwin requires us to fancy or 
believe. We have never heard throughout the historical period of anything 
like the development of the elephant or the giraffe, or of any new species. 
And before we can believe anything of the kind we ought to be told where 
we may hear of or see some of these developments. With reference to what 
Dr. Gladstone represented to the child on first seeing an oak in the country, I 
would ask, Have we ever found the oak to have changed from the elm, or 
the sycamore, or hop, or from any other of the original trees or plants sup- 
posed to have been the first created on the earth ? No. (Hear, hear.) For 
this, and for many other reasons, without occupying your time further, I 
should say the theory is perfectly incredible ; and, at all events, I cannot 
believe it. 
Bev. W. R. Cosens. — I have listened attentively to the discussion this 
evening, and arrived at conclusions, which I need not say I have con- 
sidered before, and one of them I have always entertained. In the first 
place, I think that we may accept the Darwinian theory, if we put this title 
to the book of Mr. Darwin “ The Theory of Deterioration of Species ; ” 
and if, mutatis mutandis, we take his book to show in what way the species 
of mankind may be reduced from high to low, then I think we should be 
well agreed ; but when we come to consider the way in which the human 
species (to use his own term of speech) has deteriorated throughout, and the 
