to give them a bad character without facts to justify him in doing so. He has, however, done this, I am sure unintentionally, in his paper, in using the classification which he adopted in dealing with his subject; for he has called one theory a religious theory, and by doing so he has implied that the other theories are irreligious. (No, no.) Well, I think you will allow me to say that I do understand that it does imply that; and that is the accusation which I have to bring against him. I have been curious to know what is the reason of the objection on religious grounds to the Darwinian theory. I am not going to speak now of the polygenous theory, or to defend it from the charge to which I think it lies open, of being irreligious; but I am anxious to know what are the Scriptural grounds of objection to the Darwinian theory. The Bible declares that God created man. It tells us what sort of a being he was when he was created; but it does not tell us how or by what process he was created. I have looked carefully into all the passages in which the Hebrew word for "create" occurs, and I do not find that any one of them indicates any particular theory of creation. The word "created" is never used in the Old Testament except in reference to the works of God; but it may indicate either the calling of things out of nothing, or the bringing together of various parts, and putting them in a form in which they were not known before. In several cases it distinctly refers to ordinary generation. It never implies that all that was created or made by God was not called out of something that existed before. If we turn to the New Testament, we find that the equivalent Greek word has in only two instances been applied to the works of It is applied expressly to that which God makes; so that, in the New Testament, as in the Old, there is no theory of creation laid down. I do not say we ought to accept the Darwinian theory; but we have no other which gives us a possible solution as to how God made all those creatures He has placed in the world, and I do not see how it opposes any statement of Scripture. I think we ought to remove this impression, and consider the question upon its own merits. I am aware that Darwin himself not only never applies his theory to the creation of man, but that there are various expressions in his book which seem to indicate, by the idea of natural selection, the action of some kind of power independent of God. We are not, however, to suppose that some persons may not take this natural selection as in subordination to the will of God; and it seems to me, that, if we were to come to the conclusion that God created great whales by natural selection, we should be as much in accordance with Scripture as if we supposed that He created them by some other process. We know the argument of Paley, that if a person going along the ground strikes his foot against a watch, and takes it up and looks at the various contrivances, and sees how it is made, he must come to the conclusion that it was the work of some intelligent being. But supposing, in continuing his walk across the common, he came upon a chronometer and a clock, he would arrive at the same conclusion as before; but most likely he would think that different minds had been employed to create the different pieces of mechanism. But if it were revealed to him by some messenger from heaven or otherwise, that the clock was produced from the chronometer,

man.

and the chronometer from the watch, and that the mechanism was so perfect that the one was evolved out of the other, then his idea of the intelligence of the artificer, instead of being diminished, would be exalted. But this analogy is not perfect, because in mechanism we cannot bring in God's work-we cannot bring in the laws of nature, that is, the finger of God. But whether God, in some inscrutable way, has called beings out of nothing, or whether He has acted in some such way as is indicated by Darwin, in either case we have God's direct power in creating and sustaining all things, and directing the processes by which He produced animal- life, and lastly, man himself. I think I will close this subject with these few remarks. I am quite sure they do not detract in the least from the value of Mr. Reddie's arguments. I think he has shot most powerful shells into the hostile camp, although some of them may have fallen short of the mark.

Captain FISHBOURNE.-It did not strike me that in using the expression "religious theory," any attack was made upon the opponents of it--not the least. I think Dr. Gladstone's exegesis is not fair. He attacks the term; but the term is used to express, shortly, what is the view taken by a class of persons from the stand-point of revealed truth. It means no more than that the class of persons to whom it especially refers, are those who accept the Scriptural account of the creation; and I think it is perfectly natural that their theory should be called the religious theory. I say, taking the whole argument in the paper, it is quite in opposition to the view Dr. Gladstone has taken of it. The argument throughout has been based on a rational, and not a mere scriptural consideration of the facts brought under our notice; taking them more particularly, too, from witnesses on the opposite side of the question; and it is only after Mr. Reddie has established his position, from the evidence of persons who exclude the religious view, that he introduces proofs of its being in accordance with what might be termed the religious view, or that which is drawn from Scripture. I think Dr. Gladstone is a little touchy about this. (A laugh.) I think Mr. Reddie has pointedly and distinctly, on more occasions than one, not only insisted, but emphatically insisted, that there was no intended antagonism to other views on any but rational grounds, or, at least, that there was no imputation of irreligion intended. I do not think it is right or fair, therefore, to fix upon a mere expression, and deduce from it an argument which neither anything in the paper warrants, nor anything which Mr. Reddie has ever said or written on any previous occasion. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. WARINGTON.-If I apprehend the matter rightly, I think the objection of Dr. Gladstone was not that he thought Mr. Reddie had charged those who did not accept the scriptural account of the creation with being irreligious, but that the term was not exactly the one which ought to be chosen to denote the particular views to which Mr. Reddie applied it, since there might be other views entertained on the subject that might be considered equally religious. Now I really must, on that point, go hand in hand very warmly with what Dr. Gladstone has said. It struck me, after reading Darwin's book on The Origin of Species, that it was quite possible

that it might be perfectly true that man originated in that way, and that devoutly religious men might therefore hold the Darwinian theory and also believe their Bible to be literally true. We believe God created all men. I think we should all deny the assertion that God only created the first man. We believe He has created all men. We make it part of our religion that we believe in God as our Creator. What do we mean by that? We don't mean that He has brought together a number of atoms from different parts of the world and made us just as we are at once. We believe He has made

us by the process of generation; that we gradually developed into our present state. But what then? Does that make it the less true, at the same time, that He created us? I do not think there is anything irreligious in believing that the first man was developed from a lower animal; but, then, it does not follow that the animal had power of itself to develop us. That may be the opinion of Darwin, but it is by no means involved in his theory. It might be a power exercised upon the animal by some higher influence. We admit that all varieties have arisen on the principle of natural selection; but in the origin of these varieties, then, do we exclude the hand of God? If I find a plant, differing from all its fellows, growing in a different place from other plants of the same kind, I hold that that plant has come thus to differ by what is called the action of natural selection; but this does not by any means exclude the idea that God made that plant as well as all the others. On this account, it struck me that the term "religious theory" was scarcely the correct term by which to designate the particular theory to which it was applied. I have, further, one or two remarks to make in the way of criticism, with reference to the arguments of Mr. Reddie. I think there is nothing more dangerous than bad arguments. I believe that bad arguments are worse than no arguments at all; and if there be any weakness in those which have been used, I think it is our duty to point them out. There was an argument used by the essayist which seemed, at the first glance, to be very plausible-that was an argument with reference to language and intellect. He said animals did not seem to have an analogy to man, such as was necessary to make development possible, because they had no language. But though that may seem very plausible, it struck me as being really a most unsound argument; for if you take a child born perfectly deaf, that child has no spoken language, it hears no sound, and it cannot be taught any language

Mr. REDDIE.-Oh, yes; it can.

Mr. WARINGTON.-It cannot be taught any language by sound; but yet that child develops its intellect, though unable to talk; for it can express its ideas by means of signs. (Hear.) Therefore it appears to me that the connection of articulate speech with intellect is not essential. There must be speech of some kind (hear, hear); but it is not at all necessary that it should be articulate language. Now Mr. Reddie is not surely prepared to assert that there is no inarticulate speech amongst animals, no signs or sounds by which they can convey their ideas to one another. (Laughter.) For instance, you see a dog in the street going and fetching another dog; by which it would

appear that dogs had some means of conveying their thoughts to one another, either by instinct, or reason, or intellect, or whatever you like to call it

Mr. REDDIE.-Excuse me for the interruption; but you are contending against an argument of Mr. Wallace, to which I alluded, and not to an argument of mine. I never raised that issue. But Mr. Wallace, in a paper which he read before the Anthropological Society, advocating the Darwinian theory, laid it down as a canon of that theory, that intellect and speech would go together. I have no objection to that view; but I wish it to be understood that I gave no reasons in its favour; because Mr. Wallace having laid down that theory, I merely adopted it as an argumentum ad hominem. Mr. WARINGTON.-I was quite aware of that. I was simply endeavouring to show that the answer you gave to that was an insufficient answer. There is a kind of speech possible among animals, and a kind of intellect, as well as human speech and human intellect

Mr. REDDIE. I beg your pardon; but if you had attended to the paper, I think you would have seen that I had almost said as much, and expressly reserved that point as one requiring further consideration.

Mr. WARINGTON.-Very well; I will not further dwell upon that. The other point which I wish shortly to mention, is in respect to the possibility or impossibility of savage nations ever rising in civilization. We are told as evidence that they never could have risen, that there is no tradition existing amongst civilized nations of their having been previously in a savage state. Before we insist upon that argument, it would be necessary to look at this further point-Is it probable, if a nation had risen from savagery to a state of high civilization, that it would recollect, as a tradition to be handed down from one generation to another, that it originally belonged to a class near to the brute? I put it to yourselves: Is that the kind of tradition you would hand down? If you were aware of the fact that your immediate ancestor was a monkey, or some other species of brute (laughter), would you have taken care to hand that down to your children? On the contrary, would you not try to conceal it? I know I should. (Laughter.) Therefore, is it not possible that a nation may have risen from a state of savagery, and have forgotten it, from the people having concealed the fact? Mr. Reddie has quoted evidence to show that particular nations look back to a higher state of civilization; but is it not perfectly natural that they should do so? Traditions of this kind, looking back to former glories, would be precisely those most likely to be handed down. This, it struck me, considerably weakened his argument. Again, is it not a fact which tells against the general position of Mr. Reddie, that there are traditions existing among nations who have attained to an advanced state of civilization, as to certain persons who were the inventors of the most fundamental parts of civilization? Are there not traditions of those who invented the use of fire? When we have traditions of that kind actually existing

Mr. REDDIE.-Would you mention precisely what traditions you refer to ? Mr. WARINGTON.-I believe the tradition exists amongst the Chinese, and amongst a number of other nations considerably civilized

Rev. Dr. IRONS.-I doubt that.

Mr. WARINGTON.-I am speaking from memory; but I am quoting from a book written by one of our best ethnologists (Mr. E. B. Tylor), who mentions a considerable number of nations in which traditions exist amongst the people as to those who first brought fire into their country. I think we might take a statement of this kind, especially from a person who is extremely careful and cautious in all he says, and whose deductions have been always well considered,-I think we might take his statement as somewhat antagonistic to the general position which Mr. Reddie took up in his argument; for surely this is a tradition of rising in civilization, or rising from a lower state in civilization to a state which was higher. I do not mean to say it is a rise from utter savagery (hear, hear); but it is a rise tending in that direction,-it is a tradition going against that which I thought Mr. Reddie insisted upon so strenuously, namely, the tradition of a fall from what was higher to what was lower; an item, therefore, of positive evidence, over and above the general probability that the traditions of a fall from a higher state would be remembered, while the traditions of a rise from a lower to a higher state of civilization would be forgotten.

Professor OLIVER BYRNE. I have just one remark to make with reference to the arguments in the paper. We find that all those properties in creation that have come by little and little have more or less a complete gamut. We have, however, five senses; but we have no positive gamut for any of them. Neither have we a gamut for any of the qualities of the heart. We have no gamut for friendship; we have got no gamut for love; we have not a single gamut for any of those perfect things of which we have experience,-consequently they never grew little by little. If they had grown little by little, there would have been a symbol for every change-there would have been a mark for all the powers and passions of the head and heart. For instance, there are three qualities of the head we have got the power to analyze-the power of taking things apart and looking at them; the power of putting them together; and the power of alternation; but we have got no gamut to show how we commenced to learn these mental processes. When we speak of science, also, we must recollect that true science depends upon positive proof. But Darwinism is not science it is without proof-without axioms or definitions. Had man grown little by little, as the Darwinians say, every single power and passion of the head and heart would have had a nicely-formed gamut. But what is the fact? Look at the man, for instance, who is employed in China tasting tea. He cannot teach a man how he tells the taste; he cannot tell how he does it; he cannot give a gamut for the taste that God Almighty gave him,-it cannot, therefore, have grown little by little it must have been got altogether; and so it is with all the perfect things in creation.

Mr. FOWLER. With reference to the remarks of the gentleman who spoke before Professor Byrne, I have one word to say. Mr. Warington's argument appeared to be, that it was quite possible that civilized man could have developed himself from a savage state. Now it appears to me, that we