with the term "Evolution"? Is it his opinion that they are one and the same thing? If so, I must certainly say I shall have to give up all thoughts of Evolution as I have previously held them. If I understand it rightly, Evolution, roughly speaking, would be the evolving of one animal fromí another, throughout the whole series, from those of the most simple origin up to the most complex types. If I am right, Creation is the production of beings by a definite act of the Creator. Of course, I may have misunderstood both the terms themselves and the view taken by the author of the paper; but I should like him to say whether I am to take for granted or how I am to construe the passage in section 12, where he says :—“This, when distinguished as a specific force, is named volitional; when its efficacy is characterised it is known as creative; while if, in contemplation of its effects, regard be had to a hidden fund of corresponding resources, the adjective which suggests itself is evolutional." Beyond this, may I ask one more question? As I understand Evolution, it professes to give a reasonable explanation of the different forms of life upon earth. In section 18 we are told that there is an absence of evidence connecting the highest being on earth—man—with the highest type of the lower animals, and in this the author is not in any way abstruse. He says:-"It is not one connecting link that we miss between the brute and the man, namely between the most advanced of the lower races of animals now existing and that race which towers and rules over all,—it is not two or three, but thousands, or myriads, or millions." If that be the case, I hope the author will pardon me if I say that in the absence of any proof, and in the presence of so complete a breach between two of what are usually termed allied forms, I cannot accept Evolution in the same sense as Creation, nor can I accept Evolution as in any way proved.

Mr. J. HASSELL.-I desire to ask one question. I shall not attempt to go into the whole paper, as I have not had time to read it before coming here to-night, and it is one requiring deep consideration. But after what has been said by others I may say that I am one of those who do not in any way believe in Evolution, as it is popularly put before us; and I should like to point out to those who reject the view that man is a separate creation, and hold that he is evolved out of a lower form of animal life, that the inevitable result of accepting such a theory is already claimed by some well-known Evolutionists themselves to involve the rejection of Christianity, if not of Theism altogether. For instance, one of their number, Mr. Grant Allen, speaks thus :- "While men believed in the special and separate creation of their own species, they could also believe that the Creator had endowed each human being with an immortal soul; but when the ascending line from the Amœba to man is seen to be unbroken * it is difficult to concede immortality to ourselves without conceding it also to every plant and every animal. .. A consistent and logical acceptance of

the Darwinian principle, therefore, would almost inevitably lead us to confine our horizon to the existing life, and to concentrate our efforts upon making this world as habitable and endurable an abode as possible for ourselves and others. Such persons ask no reward, and fear no punishment.” I would commend these plain words to the consideration of all. For my own part I agree with those who regard the extreme doctrine of Evolution which some hold, as unscientific, and consider it as based on wrong premises, and in this there are not a few able men that agree with me.

THE AUTHOR.-In replying to the observations made by the different speakers, I ought to say, at the outset, that I have not used the word “Evolution ” in its ordinary sense, or rather I have not made the ordinary application of that term. I have represented it as the evolution of an Eternal Idea. I think it will be generally admitted that differentiation has taken place from the beginning-so far as we have any knowledge of the beginning; that there has been what may be called progressive differentiation. Evolution, as it seems to me, has been an evolution from the Mind which created phenomena, and in successive manifestations has brought them to their present state. I do not regard man as the evolution of a lower animal, and I think I have made this evident in my paper. I have not committed myself to the ordinary theory of Evolution, and do not regard man in any other light than as a distinct creation, although in reference to the Mind-the Eternal Mind from which he has proceeded— he may still be said to be an evolution. I think, therefore, that, in saying this, I have sufficiently disposed of the difficulty to which attention has been called in regard to the words used in section 23. I think I have shown that my views are perfectly consistent with the account of the creation of man which is to be found in the Book of Genesis. I was not at all conscious at the time I was writing this paper that I was deviating in the slightest degree from the Biblical account. I have taken what appeared to me to be the only possible philosophic view of Evolution. I have read certain masterly treatises on the doctrine of Evolution as it is commonly understood; and it has always appeared to me that, however ably the subject is treated in these works, they all fall short of being philosophical. I will make one remark with reference to the use I have made of the word "Cosmos." I have spoken of “The beginning of the Cosmos." Of course I do not mean that the Cosmos itself, or what might with propriety be called the Cosmos, was then in actual existence. What I meant by "The beginning of the Cosmos "was, that beginning from which the Cosmos proceeded; and if my words be taken in that sense, I imagine that my statement will be accepted as unobjectionable. I am not aware whether my attention has been called to any other point.

Mr. GRIFFITHI.-Will you explain your view of the origin of matter on the Evolution theory?

THE AUTHOR.-I believe matter to be a creation, and, at the same time, I conceive that it may be regarded as an evolution, from the Eternal Mind— that Mind in which there can be no change. I regard it as the evolution of

an eternally fixed idea, as far as we can form a notion of the subject from our investigation of astronomical facts. The first things created would seem to have been, the material atoms, the mere matter out of which the universe was formed. Then, by progressive differentiation, the worlds thus produced came at last into the form in which they might be termed the Cosmos, which Cosmos might still, in some respects, become more and more elaborated. Differentiation is still making progress; but I believe that matter itself was created by the Eternal Will. I take the words of the Book of Genesis in their simple and unmistakable sense, and without the least wish to put any qualification on the meaning they at once suggest. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." All I contend for is, that creation may be regarded from a certain point of view,—that is to say, from my point of view,—as an evolution. So far from having adopted the commonly-accepted Evolution theory, I think I have shown that theory to be untenable. I have said that, if we are to adopt it, we must begin by imagining a condition of matter which was perfectly homogeneous. We can only do that by picturing to ourselves homogeneous atoms, so distributed that there must have been a perfect reciprocity between their tendencies, or the forces by which they would be at one time or another actuated. That I take to be the only possible way in which we can present to our minds the ordinary doctrine of Evolution; and that doctrine, as will be seen from my paper, I have not adopted: I have merely stated it in order to confute it. I have by no means committed myself to the theory that matter came into existence in a state of perfect homogeneity. It may, or it may not; but, at any rate, we have no proof that it was so produced. Finally, I think, from what I have said, that it must be quite apparent that my views are in entire accord with what is commonly believed to be the teaching of the Bible on the subject of creation.

The meeting was then adjourned.

REMARKS UPON THE FOREGOING PAPER

BY SIR J. WILLIAM DAWSON, K.C.M.G., F.R.S.

The title of the paper is not a very attractive one to a person whose studies have led him to regard the modern doctrine of Evolution, as expounded by its more enthusiastic advocates, as savouring more of superstition than of either Revelation or Science. There is, however, much valuable thought and suggestion in the paper, and it tends to clearing up the fallacies which encompass the word "Evolution as used to include the distinct ideas of causation and development, and to confound them in the popular mind.

When men shall see clearly that under this misused word they are including in a most uncritical manner the ideas of causation both primary and secondary, and of development both direct and indirect, we may hope for some rational philosophical views as to the origins of things and the changes they may undergo. Until this mental confusion shall be dispelled, we shall have little progress in the discussion of these great subjects.

1

FURTHER REPLY BY THE AUTHOR.

In his communication touching my paper, SURGEON-GENERAL Gordon has drawn attention to a profoundly interesting question, and one that ought not to be overlooked in a treatise on Evolution. But it does not arise within the scope of my argument; for the theory of physical evolution by no means involves the assumption that man, considered as an animal, must have been improving from the time of his first appearance on earth. His environment has doubtless been modified, partly by astronomical and geological changes, and partly also by the manifold effects of advancing culture and civilisation; but no historical evidences of retrogression, supposing them to be forthcoming, may reasonably be adduced in refutation of the theory in question, unless, on a comparison of the conflicting influences to which the various races of men have been thus exposed in their struggle for existence it can be proved that there is no adverse balance

to account for retrogression. It must be admitted to be conceivable that in the Cosmos as a whole, there may be a continuous advance in heterogeneity, yet such as, so far from being uniformly favourable to every species of development, necessitates, to some extent, organic deterioration. Nevertheless, in the human physique, even if it could be clearly shown to have improved, there is nothing whatever to countenance the notion that the interpretation of man's spiritual history should be sought in atomic tendencies to complex molecular arrangement.

The sort of philosophy which, having discovered these tendencies, finds itself at the limits of its field of investigation, and can distinguish nothing beyond, could not be expected to introduce into its nomenclature the term Evolution without misusing it, and--to adopt Sir William Dawson's words— including under it "in a most uncritical manner the ideas of causation both primary and secondary, and of development both direct and indirect." For, although the conception of a cause may easily become entangled in metaphysical confusion with that of its operation or its effect, to banish it altogether from the elaboration of first principles in any system of philosophy is impossible. My endeavour has been to vindicate for the true philosophy its rightful claim to a much-abused word, and, by a legitimate application of that word, to bring into view the Fundamental Cause, to which, along with every other name, and with every indication of existence or of change, it is always pointing.

In my impromptu reply to the critical, but candid and friendly, remarks which the reading of my paper elicited, I have already given such explanations as will, I trust, satisfy Mr. Griffith and the speakers who followed him that my views virtually coincide with those they expressed on all the momentous questions that came under discussion. In order, however, to obviate all possible misapprehension of the drift of my argument, I beg leave to call attention to paragraph 4. Having undertaken to examine the fundamental hypothesis of the theory of Evolution as commonly propounded, I there commence my argument by supposing for the process of differentiation a point of departure; I start with what I thus conceive to be a necessary assumption respecting the origin of the Cosmos. But, as will be observed, the assumption is made in the way of temporary concession, and with a view to a reductio ad absurdum, my object being to expose the fallacy which I see lurking in the phrase "unstable equilibrium.”

As soon as I have so far accomplished my purpose, I go on to point out how, as I believe, it is possible to arrive, by a strictly scientific process of investigation, at a distinct conception of the real origin of things. I indicate what seems to me to be a demonstrably trustworthy clue to that by which all finite existence is accounted for. But what I assert to be thus discoverable is not an aggregate consisting, on the one hand, of conceptual abstractions, self-subsisting and possessed, of the power of self-evolution into concrete forms, and, on the other hand, of a suitable, but absolutely nondescript, vehicle for these forms, likewise sclf-subsisting, but conditioned as to its mode of existence by time and space; it is a personal Creator