THE RELATION OF EVOLUTION TO MATERIALISM 51 



Christians — i.e. , that we were made by a process of evolution. Observe 

 that this latter combines and reconciles the other two, and is thus the 

 more rational and philosophical. Now, there are also three exactly 

 corresponding theories concerning the origin of species. The first is 

 that of many pious persons and many intelligent clergymen, who say 

 that species were made at once by the Divine hand without natural 

 process. The second is that of the materialists, who say that species 

 were not made at all, they were derived, "they growed." The third 

 is that of the theistic evolutionists, who think that they were created 

 by a process of evolution — who believe that making is not incon- 

 sistent with growing. The one asserts the divine agency, but 

 denies natural process; the second asserts the natural process, but 

 denies divine agency; the third asserts divine agency by natural process. 

 Of the first two, observe, both are right and both wrong; each view is 

 right in what it asserts, and wrong in what it denies — each is right 

 from its own point of view, but wrong in excluding the other point 

 of view. The third is the only true rational solution, for it includes, 

 combines, and reconciles the other two; showing wherein each is right 

 and wherein wrong. It is the combination of the two partial truths, 

 and the elimination of the partial errors. But let us not fail to do 

 perfect justice. The first two views of origin, whether of the indi- 

 vidual or of the species, are indeed both partly wrong as well as 

 partly right; but the view of the pious child and of the Christian con- 

 tains by far the more essential truth. Of the two sides of the shield, 

 theirs is at least the whiter and more beautiful. 



But, alas! the great bar to a speedy settlement of this question and 

 the adoption of a lational philosophy is not in the head, but in the 

 heart — is not in the reason, but in pride of opinion, self-conceit, 

 dogmatism. The rarest of all gifts is a truly tolerant, rational spirit. \ 

 In all our gettings let us strive to get this, for it alone is true wisdom. 

 But we must not imagine that all the dogmatism is on one side, and 

 that the theological. Many seem to think that theology has ?i^ pre- 

 emptive right " to dogmatism. If so, then modern materialistic science 

 has ^^ jumped the claim J^ Dogmatism has its roots deep-bedded in the 

 human heart. It showed itself first in the domain of theology, because 

 there was the seat of power. In modern times it has gone over to the 

 side of science, because here now is the place of power and fashion. 

 There are two dogmatisms, both equally opposed to the true rational 

 spirit, viz., the old theological and the new scientific. The old clings 

 fondly to old things, only because they are old; the new grasps eagerly 



