our former ideas, and we must not be surprised if much should be found to have a common explanation in a truer psychology. At any rate, in regard to the origin of life, there is nothing yet observed or taught as an ascertained truth that conflicts with our religious belief that God not only interfered with the stately march of continuity at the beginning for the creation of matter and force, but that again He interfered as the giver of the breath of life. It is true that specious theories have been put forth to account for the origin of life, but, with one exception, all are mere stepping-stones, helping the mind to take wider views, but do not touch the ultimate core and heart of the matter. They are, too, mere hypotheses, quite incapable of ever being proved.
The one exception I refer to is Dr. Bastian's "Abiogenesis, or, Spontaneous Generation;" and, of course, if his experiments can be confirmed, and his observations proved to be correct, then unquestionably our views of life will require to be very materially altered. But there seems little probability of this—at least when we find master minds, like Tyndall and Pasteur, utterly rejecting the alleged transmutation of dead and lifeless matter into the living form of even the lowest organism, we may well rest content that it is not ours to trouble ourselves about it just yet. Tyndall's latest utterance on the subject will be found in an article in the Fortnightly Review for November last, "On Fermentation, and its Bearings on the Phenomena of Disease," where he says:—"Is there, then, no experimental proof of spontaneous generation? I answer, without hesitation, None! In fact, this doctrine of spontaneous generation, in one form or another, falls in with the theoretic beliefs of some of the foremost workers of this age; but it is exactly these men who have the penetration to see, and the honesty to expose, the weakness of the evidence adduced in its support." It appears, then, that the conflict is not at all one as to the existence of a Creator, nor as to his power or ability to interfere at any time in His works, directing, adding to, or diminishing from them, but really as to what his plans of working and modes of carrying on His revelation in the Book of Nature are. Such being the case, it surely becomes us, viewing all the complicated relations of His works, and the innumerable and mysterious interactions of their forces and powers, to cherish the humblest spirit in our interpretation of them, and to allow to those who make these works and forces the study of their lives, the widest and fullest latitude in their labours. And it becomes the Christian apologist, of all others, conscious of the power and reality of the Truth which is specially in his keeping, to maintain an attitude of dignified confidence in the mighty power of Truth, remembering the wise advice of the old Jewish doctor, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
That many of the wisest and ablest theologians are realising that the attitude hitherto assumed of extreme condemnation is a mistake, is becoming very evident. There is a section, it is true, who must necessarily condemn and oppose, but happily it is a daily diminishing one. To all who believe in the strictly literal and plenary inspiration of every word in every chapter of the Bible, modern scientific discovery and thought, necessarily, can only be false and abhorrent. How such men can reconcile with their ideas such a simple text as this—"I have created the waster to destroy"—I know not. But, when we find a theologian of the stamp and in the position of Professor Leebody, of Londonderry, write as follows, in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for October last, it becomes those occupying a less prominent position in the study of theological doctrine to pause in any dogmatic utterances:—"Now, is there any necessary antagonism between Scriptural teaching and the Evolution theories propounded by modern science?