268 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



agreement there is between the teach- 

 ings of one and the other. Such is 

 the position of the Archdeacon of 

 Manchester. In examining the the- 

 ory of evolution he sees, in the first 

 place, that it is no way inconsistent 

 with theism ; and, in the second, that 

 it throws no difficulty hi the way of 

 recognizing the personality of the 

 Divine Being that theologians were 

 not already aware of and familiar 

 with in connection with their own 

 special studies. That problem would 

 subsist even if no theory of evolution 

 had ever been formulated. To quote 

 the speaker's words: "No cell of a 

 body could interpret the personality 

 of the whole ; and similarly we could 

 not grasp the personality of God and 

 his love and Fatherhood when we 

 were thinking of all Nature as the ex- 

 pression of his will." As regards the 

 creation of man, the archdeacon does 

 not consider that there is any conflict 

 between the theory of evolution and 

 any essential Christian doctrine. " It 

 was no part," he said, " of the doc- 

 trine of the Church it was a com- 

 paratively modern theory of the 

 naturalists, rashly accepted by the 

 theologians of two centuries ago 

 that man was a special and underived 

 species. He could imagine no sub- 

 limer conception of the nature or the 

 dignity of man than that which saw 

 all Nature as the self-manifestation 

 of God rising into self- consciousness 

 in man. Christian doctrine could 

 adopt the evolutionary view of the 

 creation of man; it was pledged to 

 no other." 



Passing to the doctrine of the Fall 

 of Man, the speaker acknowledged 

 that, in the light of evolution, the 

 generally received view required con- 

 siderable readjustment. We quote 

 again : "Man fell, according to sci- 

 ence, when he first became conscious 

 of the conflict of freedom and con- 

 science. Now, this conflict of free- 

 dom and conscience was precisely 



what was related as ' The Fall ' sub 

 specie historic^. It told of the fall 

 of a creatvire from unconscious ig- 

 norance to conscious guilt, express- 

 ing itself in hiding from the presence 

 of God. But this fall from innocence 

 was in another sense a rise to a higher 

 grade of being. It was in this sense 

 that the theory of evokition taught 

 us to interpret the story of the Fall. 

 It gave a deeper meaning to the truth 

 that sin was lawlessness." Closely 

 connected with the doctrine of the 

 Fall is the doctrine of Atonement, 

 and that, too, the speaker stated, 

 must undergo modification and ac- 

 cept a broader basis. Such is the 

 evident meaning of the following 

 passage : " The theory of evolution 

 is, indeed, fatal to certain quasi- 

 mythological doctrines of the Atone- 

 ment which once prevailed, but it is 

 in harmony with their spirit. It has 

 become impossible to regard redemp- 

 tion as an afterthought, as a plan 

 devised by a resourceful Creator, in 

 Miltonic fashion, to meet an emer- 

 gency. It has become impossible to 

 the evolutionist to retain what was 

 once the ordinary view of the super- 

 natural as an interference with the 

 natural, as an interposition from an- 

 other sphere. Such dualism is re- 

 pugnant to him. All progress being 

 the result of struggle and sacrifice, 

 the Atonement is God's identification 

 of himself with the human race in 

 that ceaseless struggle, manifested 

 specially in the supreme sacrifice of 

 the sinless Christ, but also in all 

 human life lived in the spirit of 

 Christ. This identification is the 

 Atonement, the reconciliation, and 

 in it the evolutionist, not less than 

 the theologian, finds new hope and 

 power, a release from sin, a real 

 forgiveness and redemption." The 

 speaker did not profess to be able to 

 see his way through all the difficul- 

 ties of his subject, but he made the 

 broad statement that 



"thought is 



