EVOLUTION BOUNDED BY THEOLOGY. i 47 



and observation for his instrument of acquisition ; the theologian has 

 the human mind for his field, and consciousness for the instrument of 

 his observation." This seems to me, I must confess, a very singular 

 utterance. In the first place, why should the scientist be said to 

 have an "instrument of acquisition" namely, observation, and theology 

 only an instrument of observation f In what sense can consciousness 

 be said to be an " instrument of observation " ? And if it is an in- 

 strument at all, how is it that its use is confined to the theologians ? 

 No doubt the theologian requires consciousness in order to observe, 

 but so, I fancy, does everybody else. These objections, however, tend 

 only to show that Dr. Abbott has used some rather crude and ill-con- 

 sidered expressions ; but when we pass to his dictum that natural 

 science has to do only with external Nature, and not with the human 

 mind the latter falling within the exclusive domain of theology a 

 stronger protest becomes necessary. The word " natural " here pre- 

 fixed to science seems almost as if it were intended to smooth the 

 way for the acceptance of a larger doctrine than the writer cared to 

 put expressly forward. What many would like to think is that science 

 human science has nothing to do with mind. Dr. Abbott does not 

 go as far as this : he only says " natural science," meaning, doubtless, in 

 his own mind, physical science ; but those who want to hold the wider 

 proposition will either overlook the word "natural" altogether, or will 

 interpret it as opposed to "spiritual." The real question is, Does 

 science such science as man can construct by the aid of his natural 

 faculties throw any light on mind? If it does, then we are not left 

 entirely to theology to interpret mind for us. If it does not, and if 

 theology does, then let us place ourselves in the hands of theology ; 

 for assuredly the subject is one on which we want all the light we can 

 get. The real fact is, that science is pushing its researches into mind 

 with no less vigor than into material things ; and in the face of such 

 works as those of Bain, Spencer, Maudsley, Taine, Wundt, and 

 many others, it sounds very odd to find a well-known and able writer 

 claiming the whole field for theology. 



To proceed, however, the first restriction which the evolution 

 philosophy is called upon to observe is expressed in the proposition 

 that " we are the children of God." " We " who ? The whole hu- 

 man family, it must be presumed, from the highest types of European 

 and American civilization to the most degraded savages that walk the 

 earth. This, we are told, is more than a revealed doctrine ; it is the 

 verdict of " the universal consciousness." If so, why put in a caveat 

 that evolution must not go counter to it ? Surely, if the very con- 

 sciousness of the evolutionists themselves, in common with that of the 

 masses of mankind, bears witness to this doctrine, it might be regarded 

 as reasonably secure against attack from any quarter. Yet evidently 

 Dr. Abbott, in spite of the sweeping character of his affirmation, has 

 doubts in regard to what the evolution philosophy may do or attempt 



