354 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



objections which have been raised, on scientific grounds, to prayer, and 

 attempts to turn them by arguing that the proper objects of prayer 

 are not physical but spiritual. lie tells us that natural accidents and 

 moral misfortunes are not to be taken for moral judgments of God ; 

 he admits the propriety of the application of scientific methods to the 

 investigation of the origin and growth of religions ; and be is as ready 

 to recognize the process of evolution there as in the physical world. 

 Mark the following striking passage : 



And how utterly all the common objections to Divine revelation vanish away 

 when they are set in the light of this theory of a spiritual progression. Are 

 we reminded that there prevailed, in those earlier days, views of the nature of 

 God and man, of human life and Divine Providence, which we now find to be 

 untenable? That^ we answer, is precisely what the theory of development pre- 

 supposes. If early views of religion and morality had not been imperfect, where 

 had been the development? If symbolical visions and mythical creations had 

 found no place in the early Oriental expression of Divine truth, where had been 

 the development? The sufficient answer to ninety-nine out of a hundred of the 

 ordinary objections to the Bible, as the record of a Divine education of our race, 

 is asked in that one word — development. And to what are we indebted for that 

 potent word, which, as with the wand of a magician, has at the same moment 

 so completely transformed our knowledge end dispelled our difficulties? To 

 modern science, resolutely pursuing its search for truth in spite of popular oblo- 

 quy, and — alas ! that one should have to say it — in spite too often of theological 

 denunciation (p. 53). 



Apart from its general importance, I read this remarkable state- 

 ment with the more pleasure, since, however imperfectly I may have 

 endeavored to illustrate the evolution of theology in a paper published 

 in this Review last year, it seems to me that in principle, at any 

 rate, I may hereafter claim high theological sanction for the views 

 there set forth. 



If theologians are henceforward prepared to recognize the author- 

 ity of secular science in the manner and to the extent indicated in the 

 Manchester trilogy ; if the distinguished prelates who offer these 

 terms are really plenipotentiaries, then, so far as I may presume to 

 speak on such a matter, there will be no difficulty about concluding a 

 perpetual treaty of peace, and indeed of alliance, between the high 

 contracting powers, whose history has hitherto been little more than a 

 record of continual warfare. But if the great chancellor's maxim, 

 " Do ut des," is to form the basis of negotiation, I am afraid that 

 secular science will be ruined ; for it seems to me that theology, un- 

 der the generous impulse of a sudden conversion, has given all that 

 she hath ; and indeed, on one point, has surrendered more than can 

 reasonably be asked. 



I suppose I must be prepared to face the reproach which attaches 

 to those who criticise a gift, if I venture to observe that I do not 

 think that the Bishop of Manchester need have been so much alarmed 



