17 -t TIIIIID ANNUAL KEPOET OP 



as chimerical and blasphemous before they were demonstrated.' 

 Truth must, however, in the end prevail I 



Science and theology have little in common, and will, perhaps, 

 always oe at variance, but science and true religion are twin-sisters, 

 and will ever go hand in hand. In the present question, theology at'- 

 linns supernatural causes beyond man's investigation, and conse- 

 quently sets an embargo on inquiry; while science affirms natural 

 •causes within the limits of investigation : the one appeals to -man's 

 senses, the other appeals to man's reason, whose throne should never 

 be abdicated, and whose power to trace effects to antecedent causes 

 is unlimited. 



The belief that Darwinism is irreligious and atheistic, is wide- 

 spread ; but this belief is the direct result of prejudging and 

 •unfounded prejudice. For no one who understands the theory 

 can entertain such an idea for a moment. The individual is not 

 •created by a special miracle, but develops by natural means. Yet no 

 one would claim that the individual was any the less a creation. And 

 •so when it is argued that species also develop by natural means — ac- 

 cording to natural law; they are none the less therefore creations ! 

 It is only a question as to the method which the Almighty employs; 

 for not only does the development hypothesis imply an Infinite cause, 

 but to use Prof. E. L. Youman's language "its conception is as much 

 grander than the common theological idea, as the conception of the 

 Oosmos which science has revealed, transcends the petty ideas of the 

 world which were entertained in the grovelling infancy of the race!" 

 Creation by a process of development is tangible and conceivable, 

 whereas we can have no knowledge and no conception of creation 

 without any process. 



Haeckel, one of Darwin's strongest supporters, says : "In recog- 

 nizing the unity of nature and the efficacy of the Divine Spirit in 

 everything, we may perhaps lose the hypothesis of a personal Creator, 

 but we evidently gain the idea o( a Divine Spirit, which pervades the 

 whole universe. God is the highest, the most living, the most active 

 unit through all things which only appear as sensuous representa- 

 tives for sensuous creatures." Can such men be called atheists or 

 materialists ? 



The supposition that the creative mind produced ail things as we 

 now find them, by a single act of unstinted power, requiring only such 

 time as can be reckoned by ourselves, is the direct outgrowth of our 

 own comparatively feeble minds — is to gauge the power of the Al- 

 mighty by our own. The supposition that he works through natural 

 law, originally ordained, and by a constant exercise of his preroga- 

 tive, is a far higher and more comprehensive conception ; for it helps 

 to broaden our views and enables us to grasp something more than 

 we have hitherto done. It carries us back aeons in the past, and shows 

 us that creation has notonlv been continuous but still endures, and it 



