Of course, there is the sharpest antagonism, if we interpret the opening chapter of Genesis with strict literality. But theologians are universally agreed that we are not warranted in giving a strictly literal interpretation to this portion of God's Word. If that be so, then we are not obliged to interpret Scripture as inculcating the view of special creations rather than that of creation by development."
So, too, Professor Bruce, D.D., of Glasgow, on the same subject, says:—"It is very necessary that the Church should preserve this attitude of calm confidence. It is the best defence against two vices of opposite character—to one or other of which panic-stricken men are prone—the vice of overdone antagonism on the one hand, and that of a spirit of surrender on the other. The cause of Truth has suffered greatly from both. From the one cause has proceeded the defence of many an untenable position, e.g., when Protestant theologians allowed themselves to be carried by their zeal against the Romish doctrines of tradition, into so exaggerated a view of the infallibility and inspiration of Scripture, as to maintain that the Hebrew vowel-points are inspired, and that the text of Scripture has been preserved absolutely incorrupt."
Putting aside, therefore, the opinion of such dogmatic literalists as in no sense now representing the mind of the Christian Church, I am justified in saying that not too soon are theologians of the best stamp recognising that, after all, they are not justified in the bitter opposition hitherto displayed. Professor Leebody says:—"In opposition to both these conflicting doctrines, the purely scientific and the extreme theologic—the extreme doctrine of continuity and that of discontinuity—the position we maintain is so and so. * * * But we shall also seek to establish that there is nothing necessarily atheistical or contrary to Scripture in the acceptance of Evolution theories; there is nothing necessarily atheistical or contrary to Scripture in the Nebular hypothesis; there is nothing necessarily atheistical or contrary to Scripture in the theory of development, as applied by Darwin to account for the variation of species; and, finally, the whole tendency of modern discovery is in favour of the acceptance of the doctrine of continuity in a slightly modified form. * * * So far, then, as the direct teaching of Scripture is concerned, we believe we are free to accept the principles of the doctrine of continuity either as applied to cosmogony or the variation of living beings. But is not the teaching of Scripture indirectly opposed to the acceptance of those principles? To the belief that it is, we may trace most of the opposition and dislike of Evolution theories shown by many eminent and earnest men. Scripture teaches that God exercises a constant personal supervision over his universe. 'Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father, and the very hairs of our head are numbered. The eyes of all things wait upon God, and He giveth them their portion of meat in due season.' Now, is the conception of the universe, as a great mass of matter evolving itself and developing under the influence of forces originally impressed on the primeval atoms, compatible with this? Again, it is said that the doctrine, that things which are now fitted to fulfil the functions assigned to them have only attained this fitness by slow degrees, is inconsistent with rational views of the Divine forethought and wisdom. * * * If we regard the Deity as a being the same in kind as we are, and only surpassing us in degree, the objection is unanswerable. * * * But God is a being differing from us in kind as well as in degree. * * * God is not, as extreme special creationists would have us believe, limited in His working, as we are, by the properties of matter and force. He is not, as those who utterly repudiate any concession to Evolutionists implicitly assert, 'altogether such a one as we are.'
