philosophical or false, when in due time the child learns the process of evolution by which it came into the world?

1

Hence, while willing to follow a scientific teacher in the pursuit of such knowledge as he can give me with regard to the past history of living things, I reserve the right of believing in creation as well as evolution, if I find sufficient grounds for such belief. And indeed I am utterly unable to perceive how the necessity of belief in something, which I trust I may without offence call creation, is dispensed with by Professor Huxley's ultimate conclusion on the subject of the etiology of crayfishes. I have already quoted the last two passages of the book; let the reader bear these passages in mind. The solution of the crayfish problem is found in 'the hypothesis that they have been gradually evolved in the course of the mesozoic and subsequent epochs of the world's history from a primitive astacomorphous form.' And then we read that 'the only alternative supposition is, that these numerous successive and co-existent forms of insignificant animals, the differences of which require careful study for their discrimination, have been separately and independently fabricated, and put into the localities in which we find them.' Surely this statement is a little unfair. Who talks of independent. fabrication and of putting animals into localities? And even if a speculator should be convicted of such

1 See p. 83.

7

language, might he not very well ask, What of the primitive astacomorphous form?' how did that form get into its locality? whence and how did it acquire its power of evolution, from which such wonderful results have followed? Professor Huxley speaks of a 'verbal fog by which the question at issue may be hidden :' is there no verbal fog in the statement that the etiology of crayfishes resolves itself into a gradual evolution in the course of the mesozoic and subsequent epochs of the world's history of these animals from a primitive astacomorphous form? Would it be fog or light that would envelop the history of man, if we said that the existence of man was explained by the hypothesis of his gradual evolution from a primitive anthropomorphous form? I should call this fog, not

light.

It seems to me that sound philosophy demands that the questions of evolution and creation should be kept quite distinct the one from the other. The former is obviously a legitimate subject for scientific investigation. If evolution be a fact--and I am not denying that it is-it brings us one step nearer to the origin of things than we were before; but it no more reveals the origin of things than the discovery of universal gravitation solves the problem of the existence and motion of the heavenly bodies. Indeed, it is perhaps incorrect to say that either evolution or gravitation or any of the great discoveries made in physics really brings us nearer to the origin of things: these

steps in human knowledge rather bring us into successive positions, from which we can obtain profounder views of the mystery in which the origin of the universe is hidden. It is certain that we can appreciate that mystery more completely than our forefathers. did I think there is no good ground for asserting that it is any less really a mystery, or that science has yet done, or in the nature of things can do, anything towards causing the mystery of existence to cease to exist.

Therefore the philosophy of crayfishes, like all other philosophy, when fairly followed out, seems to me to transcend the material universe, to carry the human mind into regions in which physical science does not find itself, to point to the cloud which hides the Creator from our view, and to indicate an almighty hand of mystery behind the cloud which is the maker and the doer of all.

110

ESSAY V.

MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE.

WHEN the Royal Agricultural Society held its meeting in Carlisle last summer, I was called upon to preach a sermon at the special service, for which, according to a good custom of some years' continuance, the Society makes arrangements. The congregation consisted chiefly of the herdsmen and others brought together by the great exhibition. A very interesting occasion it was; and it seemed to me that the nature of the congregation, and the thought of the collection of animals, in the midst of which our church-tent was pitched and our worship was conducted, might suggest as the most suitable topic for consideration the difference between man and beast. Accordingly I spoke upon this great subject; and I think now, as I did then, that it was as good a subject as I could have chosen.

But of course it was not possible to do more than

1 Reprinted by permission from the Nineteenth Century. The essay was originally delivered as a lecture, which fact may account in some measure for its style.

touch the fringe of so vast a question in a sermon, especially in a sermon to such a congregation; and I have felt a temptation, ever since the meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society, to develop somewhat more carefully and systematically thoughts which were in my mind when I preached to the herdsmen. The consequence has been, that I have determined to put together some thoughts concerning Man's Place in Nature'a grand subject, if not a novel one-a subject which has, however, presented of late years some novel aspects, and is worthy, therefore, of continued consideration.

It is true that there are certain points of view, from which if we regard the subject we may make very short work of it. Man's place in nature (as most of us would be willing to concede) is that of facile princeps; he is the lord and master of all; he stands unique amongst the creatures of God; his attributes and his destiny are such as to separate him, not only in degree, but in kind, from all other living beings. Divine and human testimony combine to establish this view; and it will assist me to introduce those considerations which will form the substance of this essay, if I first refer to the testimony of which I speak, and dwell for a few moments upon it.

The Holy Scriptures are built upon the hypothesis of the supremacy and the unique position of man in creation, as upon a foundation. Indeed, it may be said that every religion which ever has been or ever