226 
certainty. Stated in those terms I will not controvert it, but I think that 
there may be persons present who might go away with an impression different 
from that which Mr. Titcomb really meant his words to convey, and there- 
fore I should like to say one word on the point. I do not pretend to say 
that apart from Revelation you could have proof which should be of a mathe- 
matical kind, but I do say that whatever be your certainty arising from 
mathematical proof, it appears to me that you can have a proof which shall 
include as much of certainty as to the existence of God on other groun s 
quite apart from Revelation. (Hear, hear.) I would not make a statement 
like that if it were not that I have the words of an inspired Apostle as my 
warrant. He would not perhaps count for much against those who are opposed 
to us, but I quote him here where I am sure he will count for some- 
thing. He says that people without a written Revelation were inexcusa e, 
because the invisible attributes of an invisible Being are yet manifested so 
explicitly and tangibly in the things He has made that we cannot fail to 
recognise His powers and His Godhead. No doubt you never can show man 
God’s face and let him know Him without revelation ; but you are inex- 
cusable if you think you can be left in doubt as to His existence, P°wer, or 
Godhead. Mr. Titcomb went on to speak of a piece of sandstone. He did 
not limit the condition of that sandstone, but I do not know whether our 
opponents will admit that it must always have been a piece of inorganic 
matter. Mr. Titcomb went on to say that probably it had undergone a grea 
many transformations, and possibly some of those changes might have involved 
an organic condition for it. But I will not go back to that. I know some- 
thing of the Darwinian theory, and I know Darwin confesses that the proofs 
from the domain of geology which he would like to see have not yet arrived, 
so that much of his theory, instead of being on terra firma, is entirely m 
nubibus. He has obtained no geological specimens bridging over the vast 
chasms in his system. He says these connecting links may yet be found but 
when they are will be the proper time for dealing with them. Let us how- 
ever, admit that they may be found some day : what will be the resu . 
is said that men have been derived from apes ; but all the apes of whic we 
have any knowledge are essentially and entirely different from men-so far 
different that all the apes which have ever existed would fail to achieve w a 
the men in our own age alone have achieved. But if all the animals inferior 
to man were brought together on one side and man himself on the > other, 
there would still be an impassable barrier between them. If you could show 
me an ape and a man so much alike as to have no physical distinctions what- 
ever between them, I would still deny your conclusion, and remind you ot 
the observation of the French surgeon, that “he had never had a soul under 
his scalpel.” (Cheers.) As to the question of matter and mind, there is one 
set of scientific men led by Professor Huxley, who allege that there is no 
mind as distinct from matter, and that protoplasm is at the root of every 
phenomenon of mind as well as of matter. Granting the ape theory, there 
must have been a time when the first man developed from the ape stood 
erect, looked up to God, and had a thought of God, and possessed a mind 
