238 THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION 



the rock of Christianity was in a rather precarious 

 condition, and he felt bound to infer that it was in 

 a state of retrogression or disintegration. Well, 

 I think I need not discuss this point, for some mean 

 one thing and some another in speaking of this rock. 1 



When I referred to it at the conclusion of my 

 third lecture, I meant what is common to all 

 Christians, and in some sense also to the Jews, viz. 

 the theistic view of man s position in the universe, 

 as this view has existed in its historical form for 

 two thousand years. What meaning has been 

 assigned to it by others in the course of to-night s 

 discussion is quite indifferent to me. 



I must, however, refute one charge that Dr. 

 Schmidt-Jena brought against me when he asserted 

 that I acknowledged myself to be an adherent of 

 deism rather than of theism* 



Theism accepts the existence of a personal God, 

 who created the world and laid down the laws of 

 nature, and allows the world to develop independ 

 ently by refraining from any arbitrary interference 

 with the laws which He has imposed. This is quite 

 correct, but, in adopting Theism, we must not over 

 look the fact that it represents this God as present 

 in all creatures, and as participating in all their 

 actions. This is not Deism, nor is it Pantheism. 

 It sounds like Pantheism, but why ? Because 

 Pantheism borrowed it from the old theistic idea of 



1 Cf., for instance, the remarks made by Dr. Bolsche, p. 117. 



2 For a full explanation of these terms, see my remarks on Dr. Schmidt s 

 speech, p. 198. 



