arrogance in the darkest ages of Papal superstition surpassing, or perhaps equalling, the arrogance displayed in the utterances quoted above. *

The whole question, as Professor Max Müller justly asked, “Is it true?" resolves itself into this-Is man's origin a separate act of creative power on the part of an Omnipotent Being whom we call God, as revealed in His word, or has man been evolved through an infinite cycle of ages, either from a monkey and an ascidian tadpole, according to Darwin ?—or from the "sand-eel," in which Professor Haeckel thinks he has discovered the missing link between man and beast ?-or from that still more original particle of inorganic matter called monera, i.e., the primeval atom of protoplasm, according to the theory of Professor Huxley?-or from that of Professor Oken, the plagiarist of Lucretius, as

* See a Layman's protest in the Contemporary Review of April, 1881, entitled, "The Arrogance of Modern Scepticism."

he was of Democritus, who lived in the 4th century B.C., who traced back every living creature and every thing without life to nothing?

You have hitherto heard what Mr. Darwin and some of his friends have to say for themselves on behalf of the Evolution theory of man's descent from a tadpole, or from less than nothing; I propose to reverse the picture, and consider what the most eminent scientists of the 19th century have said on the same subject.

MEN OF SCIENCE OF THE 19TH CENTURY.

1. I propose to begin this list with one of the most distinguished names on the roll of science of that period, and whom you may regard as the firm friend rather than the opponent of the Darwinian philosophy. I refer to the well-known Professor TYNDALL, who in his Address at Liverpool before the British Association in 1870, together with that at Norwich in 1868, On the Use and Limit of the Imagination in Science, and also with that delivered

as President of the British Association at Belfast in 1874, frankly and fully explains his views on the chief doctrine of Darwinism as it stood towards the close of the 19th century. From these Addresses I propose to make some extracts, by which you may clearly understand his thoughts on the subject, proceeding on the principle manifested by King Agrippa when he said to the Apostle Paul, "Thou art permitted to speak for thyself."

"I do not,” says Professor Tyndall, "think this Evolution hypothesis is to be flouted away contemptuously: I do not think it is to be denounced as wicked. It is to be brought before the bar of disciplined reason, and there justified or condemned. Fear not the Evolution hypothesis. Steady yourselves in its presence upon that faith in the ultimate triumph of truth which was expressed by old Gamaliel, when he said-'If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; if it be of man, it will come to nought.' Under the fierce light of scientific enquiry,

this hypothesis is sure to be dissipated if it possess not a core of truth. Trust me, its existence as an hypothesis in the mind is quite compatible with the simultaneous existence of all those virtues to which the term Christian has been applied. It does not solve-it does not profess to solve the ultimate mystery of this universe. It leaves, in fact, that mystery untouched. For granting the nebula and its potential life, the question whence came they? would still remain to baffle and bewilder us. At bottom the hypothesis does nothing more than 'transport the conception of life's origin to an indefinitely distant past.'

With the exception of "granting the potential life of the nebula," most cultured Christians would agree with the extract given above. But this claim for the nebula possessing "potential life” is even stronger than Mr. Darwin's "if." It contains the whole gist of the difference

*Use and Limit of the Imagination in Science, p. 49.

between the believer in the God of the Bible and the speculating materialist. It can never be conceded by the one; it never will be given up, I presume, by the other.

Again, Professor Tyndall, while justly making on behalf of science "claims. for the unrestricted right of search," observes-"It is not to the point to say that the views of Darwin and Spencer may be wrong. Here I should agree with you, deeming it indeed certain that these views will undergo modification...... The world embraces not only a Newton, but a Shakespeare *—not only a Darwin, but a Carlyle (though the latter has pronounced the theory of the former to be 'deluded insanity'). Not in each of these, but in all, is human nature whole. They are not opposed, but supplementary-not mutually exclusive, but reconcilable! And if, unsatisfied with them all, the human mind, with the yearning of a pilgrim

*See Appendix M.

L