processes whereby the Primal Providence of God acts in nature, is a very different conception from the Evolution' which is viewed as an operative, blind Force, that, without God, somehow, in an endless succession of ages, unrolls, from nothing at all, everything that exists, whether in the material or moral spheres of fact and observation.

"The Bible cannot fairly be ignored (though it ought to be criticised and tested) in relation to questions of natural science, wherever such questions are concerned with theories of origin. For this collection of ancient books, with a remarkably persistent consistency of statement, which runs through long and diverse periods, refers the origin of the universe to a Self-existent Being, who is the Former of all things,' and concerns Himself with the moral, as well as with the material, environment of mankind. This Bible teaches us that a theory of special creation (or creations) stands at the head of all attainable knowledge. Parallel with the statement of the theory in the paper that that which was full grown preceded the embryo,' the sublime and vast idea is present to the mind of the Christian student that God precedes all, and that from the Divine 'Fulness' goes forth a creative 'Word,' and a fertilising 'Life,' whereby the universe is constituted, ruled, and preserved. This, though a necessarily mysterious theory, is surely a more reasonable and satisfactory one than the unproved and unverified theory of a mere natural evolution.'

"Has the theory of special creations been disproved, or discredited? The great advance in knowledge of natural phenomena, and in consequent materials for inferential or speculative conclusions as to laws of Nature, or genetic processes in diversified vehicles of life, may lead men to alter and modify older definitions or dogmas; but it has done nothing to shake the fundamental position that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This being so,. 'the Bible views of Creator and creation' ought not only not to be scouted as unscientific, but ought to lead the students of Nature to prosecute the study of the Bible, and to endeavour to find the real connexion existing between the material and moral spheres of research; spheres which, although in many points distinct, are yet also in many points in contact, and may not be continuously treated as dissociated from each other.

"The scientist has no right to say, 'I have no need of Revelation,' any more than the Christian philosopher or theologian has a right to say, 'I have nothing to do with science.'

"The genuine seeker after truth should not be content to remain an agnostic,' or wish to become what Mr. Darwin has said he himself became-colour-blind' to religious conceptions. And the Christian student of science gains by the Christology of the Bible an insight into the sublimest views both of Nature and of the faculties and destiny of man."

Mr. HASTINGS C. DENT, C.E., F.L.S., writes :—

"Professor Duns' paper is a very valuable one indeed, and the author deserves not only our best thanks, but also our support by the hearty expression of our ideas as to matters of detail, for which there is a vast scope by corroborative evidence. Our watchword should be 'Union is strength,' and I fear this is perhaps scarcely enough considered by many who are endeavouring to express-according to their convictions-the true unity of the book of Revelation and the book of Nature. While I thoroughly agree with the author 'that theism alone is of highest value which is in conscious sympathy with Christianity,' I must confess that in our conflict with agnosticism and atheism it seems to me that we lay ourselves open to be assailed on matters entirely beside the point we are arguing if we take our standpoint on Christianity as an axiom. Christianity is a purely metaphysical and religious question, and therefore I humbly submit that we should not bring the subject of our Holy Faith into the discussion. The great difference is this: that, while our belief as to the origin of things which are seen can be worked out reasonably on scientific lines to support our faith in God as the Creator, and not the Evolver; our faith in the transcendental mysteries of the Incarnation of our Blessed Redeemer and His Atonement cannot be thus laid down for logical acceptance by the unbeliever. But I agree so thoroughly with the author's words (p. 120):- The Church is called to see that Christian thought and effort are ever kept in touch with the progress of science, welcoming its fruits, entering sympathetically into the intellectual difficulties of its workers, and even according to them large liberty of honest speculation.' It is to this facet of the crystal of truth I feel drawn to direct my few remarks. I would not welcome as comrades in the fight any who do not uphold the Bible; but to assert to our opponents that our standpoint is the Catholic or Christian Faith is rather different. The bigotry and intolerance of some ecclesiastics have led some men, who are working in the domain of the physical and natural sciences, to

throw over as insupportable the bonds by which their predecessors had been held, or in which they had themselves been educated. The result has been equally disastrous both to the interests of Christianity and of science. I have referred to this in my book A Year in Brazil, in a chapter on the Theory of Evolution, where I say:- 'Whereinsoever scientific men have attempted to disprove certain spiritual truths as doctrines, such as the efficacy of prayer, the possibility of miracles, &c., they have dealt with things outside their province. Mathematics, physics, biology, do not afford an explanation of the spiritual world. The finite mind cannot comprehend the Infinite, but it may apprehend it by accepting revealed truth. On the other hand, whereinsoever ecclesiastical dogmatism has decreed certain explanations of phenomena or conditions of the natural world, which explanations have been proved to be contrary to fact by scientific discoveries, therein such dogmas are manifestly erroneous, and are the results of human interpretations of the text of Scripture; which writings were inspired, not to teach man what he might find out for himself, not to instruct in natural science, but to reveal how the creature may approach the Creator. In each case, therefore, the apologists of party have argued from the known to the unknown, and the result has been a confusion of ideas generally, if not invariably, the result of a warped and bigoted intellect. Life is too short, its duties are too momentous, for us to spend our few days in speculation. One thing is evident, man has a body, and is a spirit which will live for ever. Revelation tells him how to prepare for that future life. Meanwhile, there are thousands who, knowing, believing in, and loving this grand truth, can afford a few hours occasionally to devote to the study of nature. If they approach it with the feelings of the psalmist: "Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom Thou hast made them all;" to them the study is not only of the deepest interest in itself, but, by increasing their knowledge and appreciation of the wonderfully intricate works of the Great Creator, it assures them that if He can so carefully arrange the complicated adjustments which are necessary for the well-being of the whole organic world, and can watch over all the smallest organisms that He has created, so much the more they who are formed in His image, after His likeness, are His special care. Thus . . . they may through nature be led up to nature's God, and acknowledge that He, the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the Omnipotent, "hath done all things well."

"In conclusion, with regard to the interpretations offered by certain

writers on the first chapter of Genesis, I would quote the words of the Duke of Argyll:-'the first chapter of Genesis stands alone among the traditions of mankind in the wonderful simplicity and grandeur of its words. Specially remarkable-miraculous it seems to me is that character of reserve which leaves open to reason all that reason may be able to attain. The meaning of these words seems always to be a meaning ahead of science; not because it anticipates the results of science." "

The meeting was then adjourned.

THE AUTHOR'S REPLY.

My reply deals only with the leading review and criticism of my paper. To discuss fully the topics, relevant and irrelevant, referred to would demand more space than the paper itself. But I wish to be brief :-(1) "What practical lesson is to be drawn from the paper?" One lesson is, that something to the point can be said in favour of the doctrine of special creations, in the face of attempts to discredit it by such assumptions as the critic condemns in Haeckel and Spencer, "who assume," he says, "everything they want, and whose logic is as illogical as possible." (2) "The question is not fair." "I really do not see why it is not fair." The two sentences which follow show well enough why it is not fair. It is "demonstrably unfair," because it is put with the view of committing the writer to the demonstrably unscientific opinion that numberless so-called permanent varieties, which go by the name of species, are the fruit of special creative acts. It is "demonstrably unfair," because those who put it, if we may credit them with ordinary intelligence, must know that the advocates of the doctrine of special creations ascribe to organisms great plasticity, even while they refuse to attribute change to mere mechanical cause. (3) "Every change, however large or small, is a creative act, not necessarily made as an interference, but as the result of laws of nature going far deeper than we know anything about." Clearly we attach different meanings to the terms. "creative acts." But to confound the action of divinely-guided second causes with the act of special creations, seems to me to lead to the threshold at least of a department more congenial to “loose reasoning" than to scientific discussion. Final causes are not miracles. (4) "How could it help satisfying them when no other theory was before the world?" The querist ignores the whole history of thought on the subject-the Darwinism before Darwin—a copious literature which will force all who have a competent knowledge of it to refuse to Darwinism the interest of a new thing under the sun. I affirm that there are very few, if any, vital points in that system which may not be found in French literature of specu