out the process of creation, so long as God stands back of it you cannot shake my faith in Jehovah.  In Genesis it is written that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and I can stand on that proposition until I find some theory of creation that goes farther back than “the beginning.”  We must begin with something—­we must start somewhere—­and the Christian begins with God.

I do not carry the doctrine of evolution as far as some do; I am not yet convinced that man is a lineal descendant of the lower animals.  I do not mean to find fault with you if you want to accept the theory; all I mean to say is that while you may trace your ancestry back to the monkey if you find pleasure or pride in doing so, you shall not connect me with your family tree without more evidence than has yet been produced.  I object to the theory for several reasons.  First, it is a dangerous theory.  If a man links himself in generations with the monkey, it then becomes an important question whether he is going toward him or coming from him—­and I have seen them going in both directions.  I do not know of any argument that can be used to prove that man is an improved monkey that may not be used just as well to prove that the monkey is a degenerate man, and the latter theory is more plausible than the former.

It is true that man, in some physical characteristics resembles the beast, but man has a mind as well as a body, and a soul as well as a mind.  The mind is greater than the body and the soul is greater than the mind, and I object to having man’s pedigree traced on one-third of him only—­and that the lowest third.  Fairbairn, in his “Philosophy of Christianity,” lays down a sound proposition when he says that it is not sufficient to explain man as an animal; that it is necessary to explain man in history—­and the Darwinian theory does not do this.  The ape, according to this theory, is older than man and yet the ape is still an ape while man is the author of the marvelous civilization which we see about us.

One does not escape from mystery, however, by accepting this theory, for it does not explain the origin of life.  When the follower of Darwin has traced the germ of life back to the lowest form in which it appears—­and to follow him one must exercise more faith than religion calls for—­he finds that scientists differ.  Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation.  Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.

If I were compelled to accept one of these theories I would prefer the first, for if we can chase the germ of life off this planet and get it out into space we can guess the rest of the way and no one can contradict us, but if we accept the doctrine of spontaneous generation we cannot explain why spontaneous generation ceased to act after the first germ was created.