THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 383 



them all " — to them the study is not only of the deepest interest 

 in itself, but, by increasing their knowledge and appreciation of 

 the wonderfully intricate works of the great Creator, it assures them 

 that if He can so carefully arrange the complicated adjustments 

 which are necessary for the well-being of the whole organic world, 

 and can watch over all the smallest organisms that He has created, 

 so much the more they, who are formed in His image, after His 

 likeness, are His special care. Thus, amid the thousand ills they 

 suffer, they may, through Nature, be again led up to Nature's God, 

 and acknowledge that He, the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the 

 Omnipotent, "hath done all things well." 



Dr. J. C. Shairp * says, " The ground of all religion, that 

 which makes it possible, is the relation in which the human soul 

 stands to God. This relation is the root one, and determines 

 what a man really is. As A Kempis says, ' What thou art in the 

 sight of God that thou truly art.' The practical recognition of 

 this relation as the deepest, most vital, most permanent one, as 

 that one which embraces and regulates all others — this is religion. 

 And each man is religious just in proportion as he does practically 

 so recognize this bond, which binds him to his Maker." \ 



* "Culture and Religion in some of their Relations,'' pp. 14, 15. 



t Senhor Arthur Vianna de Lima, son of H. E. the Baron de lauru, 

 Brazilian Minister at Berlin, has just (December, 1885) published a work 

 entitled, " Expose sommaire des theories transformistes de Lamarck, Darwin, et 

 Hseckel. " The Morning Post, in a lengthy telegram from its correspondent in 

 Vienna, dated December 7, concludes thus : " M. Lima's book is destined to 

 create a sensation in literary and scientific circles, and will powerfully contri- 

 bute to throw ridicule on a modern school of philosophers, who have done very 

 little ■towa;rds the perfection of man and the progress of science." 



It is much to be regretted that the Morning Post, a distinctly religious 

 paper, should have inserted such unqualified praise of a book which is evidently 

 written by an avowed Atheist. I feel compelled, therefore, to give one or two 

 extract's, which will at once show the tendency of the work. 



After most violent vituperation against the credibility of Holy Scripture, 

 and a blasphemous allusion to our blessed Lord, " one of the sons of Mary " 

 (p. 275), the author proceeds (p. 276) : " The constant observation of nature 

 leads to this necessary conclusion, and the only true one — the eternity of matter 

 in motion." He considers he has then settled the matter, and sees no difficulty 

 in the illogical statement that follows (p. 278) : if we allow " Creation, it is 

 necessary to suppose that it is the work of an Almighty workman {artisan 

 tout puissant), we must then ask, ' Who, then, was the father of God ? ' As to 

 admitting that the Creator Himself had no beginning, that He existed uncreate 



