I.] INTRODUCTORY. 19 



unfortunate that he shoukl not have shown any apprecia- 

 tion of a position opposed to his own other than that gross 

 and crude one which he combats so superfluously — that he 

 should appear, even for a moment, to be one of those, of 

 v^hom there are far too many, who first misrepresent their 

 adversary's view, and then elaborately refute it ; w^ho, in 

 fact, erect a doll utterly incapable of self-defence, and 

 then, wdth a flourish of trumpets and many vigorous 

 strokes, overthrow the helpless dummy they have pre- 

 viously raised. 



This is what many do who more or less distinctl}^ oppose 

 theism in the interests, as they believe, of physical science ; 

 and they often represent, amongst other things, a gross and 

 narrow anthropomorphism as the necessary consequence of 

 views opposed to those which they themselves advocate. 

 Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they 

 have not devoted much time to the study of Christian 

 philosophy ; but they have no right to assume or accept 

 without careftd examination, as an unquestioned fact, that 

 in that philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between 

 the two ideas, " creation " and " evolution," as applied to 

 organic forms. 



It is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that 

 many distinguislied Clnistian thinkers have accepted and 

 do accept both ideas, i.e. both " creation " and " evolution." 



As much as ten years ago, an eminently Cliristian writer 

 observed : *' The creationist theory does not necessitate the 

 perpetual search after manifestations of miraculous powers 

 and perpetual ' catastrophes.' Creation is not a miraculous 

 interference with the laws of nature, but the very institu- 

 tion of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitraiy 

 intervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With 



c 2 



