200 
this evening’s discussion. Neither do I think that I am called upon, under the 
circumstances — not having known that Mr. Eeddie intended to supplement 
the lecture, of which I had kindly been favoured with a copy — to follow him 
in his argument, though a great deal of what he said was a reiteration of what 
had been advanced by the opener, excepting that he appeared to repudiate, 
to a, certain extent, the design argument ; and yet, if his argument had any 
merit at all, it was in favour of design ; or, if not, I fail to see its relevancy. 
But I am more concerned with the paper of Dr. M‘Cann. The Secretary 
did me the favour of sending me a copy beforehand, and I also followed Dr. 
M‘Cann very attentively as he read his paper, and I noticed that, at the 
opening, he made a brief apology for waut of time in preparing it. I am 
truly sorry that he had not time to give his best thoughts to a subject of 
such importance as this. (Hear, hear.) It is a matter upon which no gen- 
tleman should come forward to instruct an audience of this description — and 
especially directed, as I imagine the paper is, to persons in my position,— un- 
fortunate position as some people seem to think, — unless he has well considered 
and prepared himself ; I therefore regret that Dr. M‘Cann has not given his 
best thoughts to it. As he read his paper, I had an impression that it was 
faulty, and I thought I saw several weak points in it 
Dr. M‘Gann.— I simply apologized for the roughness of the form of my 
essay, and not for the scantiness of my thoughts. I said nothing at all to 
deprecate criticism. All the thoughts were matured ; it was simply the 
manner in which thpy were expressed to which I referred. 
Mr- Holyoake. — I will accept that explanation. I wish, however, to 
enter a respectful protest against the wording of the last sentence in Dr. 
M ‘Gann’s first paragraph, and against an expression which he uses in his 
conclusion. They are nearly in the. same words, and are the same ip spirit : 
i* If it can be shown that we affirm the existence of Deity for the very same 
reasons as we affirm the truth of any geometric proposition ; if it can be 
shown that the former is as capable of demonstration as the latter— then it 
necessarily follows that if we are justified in calling a man a fool who denies 
the latter, we are also justified in calling him a fool who says there is no 
God, and in refusing to answer him according to his folly.” 
Again : — 
“If the mathematician be justified in asserting that the three angles of a 
triangle are equal to two right angles, the Christian is equally justified in 
asserting not only that he is compelled to believe in God, but that he knows 
Him ; and that he who denies the existence of Deity is as unworthy ot 
serious refutation as he who denies a mathematical demonstration,” 
[During the reading of these quotations the Rev. Dr. Thornton was 
obliged to vacate the chair, and Mr. Reddie presided for the remainder of 
the evening.] 
Now, the spirit of the latter observation is very much in the spirit of a 
quotation which is often made, I do not care from what authority you take 
it, and which is equally bad in taste, and false as a matter of fact, viz.. ‘"The 
