146 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



read. There is, however, probably no use in pressing this point fur- 

 ther. Dr. Abbott simply formulates a policy the policy of those who 

 know enough and have reflected sufficiently to understand that the 

 recent work of science calls for some readjustment of ancient opinions 

 even in theological matters, but who would prefer not to ascertain too 

 precisely what the amount of that necessary readjustment is. There 

 are others, of course, who make no terms with the scientific enemy, and 

 persist in holding all declarations of Scripture as equally challenging 

 and commanding the most submissive acceptance. Thus Mr. Moody, 

 not long ago, desiring to flout the skeptics with an extreme example, 

 declared his firm belief in the historical truth of the narrative of 

 Jonah ! The doctrine of evolution does not trouble Mr. Moody in the 

 least. He takes the Bible as he finds it, disdaining all criticism that 

 does not start from the assumption of its infallibility. The position 

 of Dr. Lyman Abbott is different : evolution troubles him just to this 

 extent, that he would apparently like to chain it to three theological 

 cannon-balls, and then let it roam about with whatever ease and free- 

 dom might be possible to it under the circumstances. 



It becomes a question, therefore, whether the proposed limitations 

 of the doctrine of evolution, or rather of philosophy in general, can 

 be accepted without sacrifice of the supreme interests of truth. The 

 latter truth in the widest sense is and must be the ultimate stand- 

 ard. However valuable or important a system of thought may be in 

 the eyes of its adherents, it can not safely be made a standard by which 

 to test other doctrines : these may always claim a free and fair trial 

 apart from all presumptions created by the credit attached to estab- 

 lished opinions. Once make any system, the supreme arbiter, and an 

 intellectual tyranny has been created, the ultimate effects of which can 

 not fail to be disastrous. The world has seen such tyrannies in the 

 past ; and, unhappily, is not rid of them in the present. The Romish 

 Church is such a tyranny, setting itself up, as it does, as the supreme 

 arbiter of truth. The Westminster Confession is the symbol of an- 

 other tyranny of an essentially similar character. Could certain per- 

 sons to-day have their way, a kind of composite evangelical doctrine 

 would have its place in public-school instruction, and would thus be 

 created into a tyranny over the community at large. " Ye know not 

 what mind ye are of," was said by the founder of Christianity to some 

 of the more zealous of his disciples ; and the remark might well be 

 addressed to-day to those who are trying to gain for their private be- 

 liefs the authority and support of the state. Could they have their 

 way, the time would undoubtedly come when they would rue it. 



Before proceeding to define the doctrines by which he would pro- 

 pose to check the hypothesis of evolution, Dr. Abbott assigns to the 

 scientist and the theologian the fields in which they are respectively 

 permitted to. work, and describes their respective methods of opera- 

 tion. " The scientist," he tells us, " has external Nature for his field, 



