MAN. 103 
ginning. Hence it cannot be denied that also men would 
have remained what they once were according to the 
notions of materialists. Only if from the beginning 
the light of spiritual life was enkindled in them, could 
they become, what they are to-day.” (“Matcrialismus,” 
p. 59 £.) 
It will be noted that when we hear the specialists 
in anatomy and biology, their expressions on the sub- 
ject of man’s ancestry are, as a rule, characterized by 
a strong dissent from the development theory, while 
the belief in a development of man from an ape-like 
ancestor, uttered with a note of cocksureness, is found 
mainly among amateurs in these sciences. Moreover, 
even among the believers in a rise of our race from 
brute origins, many, and the most distinguished among 
them, assert that the faculties of the human mind are 
indeed to be accounted for only on the basis of a special 
creative act of God. They cling, however, to the notion 
that the body of man is evolved from the lower animals, 
—a view which has been very ably met by Prof. Orr of 
Glasgow, one of the foremost Biblical scholars of our 
time. He writes: 
“Tt is well known that certain distinguished evolution- 
ists, while handing over man’s body to be accounted for 
by the ordinary processes of evolution, yet hold that 
man’s mind cannot be wholly accounted for in a similar 
manner. The rational mind of man, they urge—I agree 
with the view, but am not called upon here to discuss it 
—has qualities and powers which separate it, not only 
in degree, but in kind, from the animal mind, and put an 
unbridgeable gulf, on the spiritual side, between man and 
the highest of the creatures below him. In other words, 
there is, in man’s case, a rise on the spiritual side—the 
constitution of a new order or kingdom of existence— 
which requires for its explanation a distinct supernatural 
