312 
admit an imperfection in his nature. He does those things which he would 
not, and he does not do those things which he would, with a consciousness of 
imperfection and fault in his own character. But there is an utter want of 
harmony between the Fall and the idea of evolution, which shows that evolu- 
tion cannot be true, and those who support that doctrine must go back and 
amend their arguments and so-called facts. But if we go back to the facts, 
we get back to other difficulties, which another class of philosophers take up. 
One says that protoplasm is one continuous principle that pervades all beings, 
but he forgets that the protoplasms are as numerous and as various and 
distinct as the beings are ; and how he imagines one is transferred into the 
other I cannot say. I do not see how it agrees with Darwin, who says that 
man was originally a monkey, and the monkey something else, till you get 
down to one common monad. With regard to Mr. Garbett’s paper, I agree, 
generally speaking, with Mr. Reddie ; but I understood Mr. Garbett to put 
forward that point which Mr. Reddie so much objects to simply as a hypo- 
thesis, subject to the possibility of its being established ; and I do not think 
Mr. Garbett should be tied down to the assertion of a definite opinion on the 
subject. I believe the theory is utterly untenable, and I should not have 
introduced it in such a paper, though I do not take great objection to its being 
so. I do, however, think that the case of physical philosophers has clearly 
established the position of Mr. Garbett, that there is a great and manifest 
distinction between the observer of facts and the reasoner who has to consider 
these facts. My experience has shown me that a man may be a very good 
observer of facts and yet be utterly incompetent to reason out general prin- 
ciples and laws from them. And when a man has a theoiy in his mind he 
cannot be a good observer ; he is looking into the book of Nature merely to 
find supports for his theory, rather than to take the facts as he finds them. 
So it is with theologians. They look for things to support their opinions in 
the Bible in accordance with their views, overlooking many things that they 
might otherwise find. As to physical facts, Mr. Reddie has told us that so- 
called facts, accepted as facts some time ago by philosophers, reasoners, and 
good believers, have turned out to be no facts at all. A distinguished philo- 
sopher has published a book in which he says that he found infusoria and 
algae and other things in volcanic rocks, and he insists that they are not 
volcanic but a crystalline or aqueous formation from stagnant water. That 
is a blow struck at geology, showing those gentlemen who want theologians 
to accept their views — wdiich belong to a science of yesterday, whereas theology 
is the science of thousands of years — that they have gone through processes 
which have landed them in much error, a great deal of which was accepted 
by the theologians of a few years ago, whose reasonings, however, are not 
accepted now. But the state of things remains the same. Geology is a 
science of only yesterday, and yet those w T ho follow it have the presumption 
to ask theologians of long standing, whose science has had the advantage of 
thoroughly testing and sifting every fault, and obliging errors to be given up, 
to accept their theories. This is a further reason why the theologian should 
stand his ground, and why the physical philosopher should be told to go 
