289 
have seen him stand before a picture of nymphs bathing in a pool surrounded 
by some very beautiful gradations of foliage. My friend could not distin- 
guish the flesh from a deep vermilion, nor from the colour of the foliage. I 
only mention this, to show that things which may appear to us, from our 
ignorance, to be useless or worthless, may have a very important bearing 
when considered with regard to God’s design for the enjoyment, or for some 
other uses, of His creatures. I must again, before I sit down, thank 
Mr. Henslow for the exceedingly reverent tone in which he has discussed 
this subject. 
Mr. Henslow. — I thank you all very much for your candid criticisms, 
and I feel that my paper has not been so severely dealt with as I anticipated 
that it would have been. Mr. Row has said that evolution does not neces- 
sarily involve atheism, and with that I quite agree ; for I do not see any 
necessity at all for the one involving the other. Mr. Reddie has found con- 
siderable fault with my paper for purposely assuming that evolution was 
true ; and perhaps from some of my statements I have been thought to be a 
believer in that theory 
Mr. Reddie. — I objected to the hypothetical argument. 
Mr. Henslow. — That is perhaps a just objection, but the paper has been 
written on this plan (and it is too late to alter it now) — on the assumption 
that the theory was believed in ; and my object was to endeavour to admit 
those views, and yet to show by the analogies I find in the Scriptures, that I 
do not think Darwin has any grounds for denying design, or another philo- 
sopher for denying the use of prayer. With regard to evolution itself, I do 
not think that it is inconsistent with theistical views. If true, it infinitely 
exalts rather than diminishes the power of the Deity. Surely it is a far 
higher conception of the Deity to believe that He has infused into nature 
some mysterious forces by which all the beings which He has created can be 
worked out and developed into higher forms. It seems to me infinitely 
higher to be able to do that, than to create everything at once and in an 
analogous way. Mr. Row has alluded to the argument of the watch, but I 
would go a step further than Paley. Paley says that it would still further exalt 
our ideas of the artificer, if we could suppose that he had created a watch 
which was capable of producing a similar watch out of itself. But if we 
follow this line out, we must suppose not only so much, but a watch capable 
of producing generation after generation of other timepieces, differing slightly 
from each other, until at last we have developed the whole series of clocks 
and watches which are to be found in the world 
Mr. Reddie. — You are assuming that. I want to know how you can 
reconcile it with the exaltation of the Creator, if you suppose that the watch 
He first made was inferior, but that it can produce better watches from 
itself afterwards ? 
Mr. Henslow. — I will come to that presently. Mr. Reddie has referred 
to one or two epithets and phrases in the paper to which he takes exception. 
On this point I am bound to confess that the paper was somewhat hastily 
drawn up, and I must plead guilty to several inaccuracies to which Mr. 
