478 The Possibility of a Future Life. [Oétober, 
philosopher like Sir David Brewster could scarcely name 
with patience. They admit the still more dreaded doétrine 
of organic evolution, and do not even positively insist on the 
necessity of a special intervention for the origin of man. 
This is much. But they go still further; they distin€&ly 
formulate the view that man is not merely entitled, but even 
bound, to push back as far as possible all such Divine inter- 
vention. 
We must beg our readers to make especial note of an admis- 
sion so pregnant. 
Nevertheless the writers are theologians even more de- 
cidedly than philosophers. ‘They are at home in the sphere 
of the divine, and regard everything instinctively from his 
point of view. They are familiar with the Bible and with 
the views of commentators. They are versed in the my- 
thology of all nations. ‘‘ The existence of a Deity who is 
the Creator of all things” they ‘‘ assume as absolutely self- 
evident,’’—one of their critics remarking in reply that “‘ it is 
evident” is merely another mode of saying “I do not know 
how to prove.” But for all this we doubt whether religious 
orthodoxy will accept them as its duly authorised advocates 
and representatives. Their Deity, though tri-une; has a less 
personal and more pantheistic character than Christianity 
recognises. Nay, if we do not misunderstand the authors; 
they seem to surmise that the creation of the universe may 
have been effected, not by the Supreme himself, but by sub- 
ordinate though still mighty agents. On the origin of Evil, 
also, their views can scarcely be accepted as orthodox. They 
regard it as “eternal,” not confined to that planet which 
we inhabit, and they remark that “‘the dark thread known 
as evil is one which is very deeply woven into that garment 
of God which is called the Universe.” They urge also that: 
—‘‘ The matter of the whole of the visible universe is of a 
piece with that which we recognise here, and the beings of 
other worlds must be subjeét to accidental occurrences from 
their relation with the outer universe in the same way as we 
are. But if there be accident, must there not be pain and 
death? Now these are naturally associated in our minds 
with the presence of moral evil.” 
Without entering into any criticism of the views thus ex- 
pressed, we ask how they are to be reconciled with certain 
ordinary and supposed essential doétrines of Christianity ? 
The Scriptures, it is generally conceded, teach that man 
was created immortal and perfect, in a perfect world, and 
that death, sin, and “ all our woe” only entered through his 
disobedience. ‘This is certainly not the place for a formal 
