126 Notices of Books. [January, 
sary thorough-going scrutiny. Mr. Main, it seems, rejedts the 
dodtrine of Evolution because Professor Nicholson’s conclusions, 
which seem to have been formed from a very careful consideration 
of the subjedt in some of its branches, seem to show that Darwin’s 
theories are of very limited application.” The words we have 
italicised throw some light on the logical rigour which Mr. Main 
would substitute for the rash theories and the love for hasty and 
paradoxical generalisation of which he accuses the nineteenth 
century. “ The student of natural philosophy,” he continues, 
“ is, in my opinion, quite justified, on philosophical grounds, in 
declining to accept the ancestry offered him.” Now, unless Mr. 
Main is a biologist, his opinion on such a question is not worth 
recording. He is exadtly like a lawyer who should pronounce 
an opinion on the bearing of certain documents without under- 
standing the very language in which they were drawn up ! 
After an excuse for not entering further into the Darwinian 
controversy, the author gives a brief survey of “ the most inportant 
physical discoveries, chiefly astronomical, which have been 
made during the last few years, being careful to avoid details, 
and to consider them only with reference to their hearing on 
religion .” In this survey it is interesting to note that he admits 
substantially the nebular theory of Laplace, which but a few 
years ago was proclaimed essentially atheistic in its tendencies, 
and was denounced accordingly with no less acrimony than is 
now bestowed upon the dodtrine of Evolution, of which, indeed, 
it forms an integral portion. Can Mr. Main and his friends 
learn no lesson from all this? 
The author then makes “ a passing allusion to two books 
recently published, which exhibit perhaps the lowest stage of 
religious belief which has been given in this century as the result 
of the final and sober conclusions of two very deep thinkers, 
devoted the one to the study of philosophy and the other to 
that of biblical criticism.” The works in question, Mills’s “ Essays 
on Religion” and Strauss’s “ Old and New Faith,” do not come 
within our cognisance, and we must therefore pass over the 
examination which they receive from Mr. Main. The remainder 
of the pamphlet is taken up with a subjedt which is by this time 
almost thread-bare — the “ Belfast Address.” We have already 
examined this address and have declared that, in our humble 
opinion, Professor Tyndall went beyond the legitimate sphere of 
science and made a too great use of his imagination. There is 
consequently the less need that we should revive the discussion. 
One passage, however, must claim a brief notice. Says Mr. 
Main — “ Why is Giordano Bruno set so prominently before us 
but because he revived the dodtrine of atoms, though in a very 
confused way, and asserted pantheistic principles ; and because 
he was a martyr of science, and thus a rare (?) opportunity was 
given of showing the cruelty and obstrudtiveness of the Church ?” 
Does the author mean to deny the “ obstrudtiveness of the 
