The subjects discussed at these popular meetings may all be ranged under the head of Speculations in Biology. It became my duty as your President, and as the proposer of these meetings, to take the responsibility and burden of the first of them. The subject chosen was "The Pedigree of Man," and the paper made no pretensions to anything else than being a concise summary of Haekel's "History of Creation," a new book, which was making some noise in the scientific world, and which members generally had not seen, but of which I had been fortunate in procuring a very early copy. The interest of the evening was greatly increased by the production by Captain Hutton of type specimens from the Museum of the various stages of development enumerated by Haekel. An interesting discussion ensued, in which many members took a part on both sides of the question. The most kindly feeling and courteous consideration for each other's opinions were shown by everyone, with one notable exception, though even then we cannot wonder that, in a matter which some consider as vitally affecting their dearest and holiest hopes and aspirations, an affectation of contempt should be assumed for the subject, as being "beneath the notice of theologians."
The same courteous consideration, I may say, characterised the discussions at all the meetings, even where, as in many cases, the subject was one of deep and all-engrossing feeling; and I am satisfied that great good resulted from these discussions by the correction of many misunderstandings and mistakes, and by the calling of attention to many difficulties which otherwise might be overlooked, and thus fail to exercise their due weight in any right estimate of the subject. I think I am justified in saying that since these meetings, from whatever cause it arises, the aspect of the combatants has been very different from the fierce, uncompromising attitude with which the sword first leapt from its scabbard, and has become more that of trying to see how far an agreement can be arrived at without an absolute surrender and acknowledgment of defeat. For this happy and desirable result, I think, we are largely indebted to Captain Hutton's wise and lucid lecture "On the Inductive Method, as applied to the Theory of Descent"—a lecture of which I think it is a public loss that it was delivered without notes, and that consequently no record of it remains.
To Bishop Nevill also, to almost a greater extent, we owe much of the high tone and gentlemanly feeling (so unusual in border frays between Theology and Science) which has characterised much of the discussion since. Though opposed to the current of scientific thought on this particular subject, his training and experience in natural history, and his high attainments in some branches, enable him to grasp and realise the difficulties of the subject from its scientific side, and to give due weight to the arguments and considerations which weigh with his opponents. And hence we find from him no sweeping denunciations, no pretensions to be able to see deeper than the owners of them into the hearts and motives of those who differ from him, no attempt to write them down as "infidels" or atheists, or to see anything else in them than humble, sincere, and God-fearing lovers of Truth, however mistaken in their views.
And this leads me to say that this is, I believe, one of the greatest wants and necessities of the theological training of the present day—the bringing students face to face practically with the facts and observations of physical science. The classical training of the schools, however valuable (and I would be the last to decry it), if allowed to monopolise all the attention, leads men to live only in the past—to view all things, to judge all things, by the light of the past—
"The living rule not this our age:
It is the dead—the dead—"
