326 Evolution as Related to Religious Tliought. 



since that dim early morning when he breathed the breath 

 of life into a few forms or into one; for the thrusting back 

 of Deity into that infinitely distant past ? I doubt it very 

 much. <' There is a grandeur in this view of life," says 

 Darwin. Here speaks the specialist, enamored like Pygma- 

 lion with the perfection of his own completed work. But 

 to us occurs, just in the measure that we are not merely 

 scientific but poetic and religious, the sorrow of Pygmalion 

 that this completion is devoid of life. We sympathize with 

 the opposition that has always met the astronomer, the 

 geologist, the biologist, who has been engaged in jDushing 

 back the line of the divine activity into a remoter past. It 

 has not been irrational. It has been the soul's cry for a 

 real presence, a Deity in the present tense, no mere / tvas, 

 but the great / am. True, there are those whom Darwin's 

 original Creator of a few primordial forms grieves and 

 offends, not on account of his remoteness and insufficiency, 

 but because even then and there he seemed superfluous, 

 matter ^:»er se with nothing of Divine propulsion, or inher- 

 ent spiritual force, being, as they conceive, sufficient for 

 the cosmic work. But such are few compared with those 

 Avho least of all things dread too much of God ; whose hearts' 

 desire is answered by no far-off mechanician delegating 

 powers to certain primitive forms, only by One of whom 

 they can affirm, — 



"He dwells above, 

 With scarce an intervention ; presses close, 

 And palpitatingly, his soul over ours. 

 The everlasting minute of creation 

 Is felt here. Now it is as it was then. 

 His soul is still engaged upon his world." 



Moreover, these cannot conceive of laws impressed on 

 matter. Here as in the case of special creation, we have 

 mere words. Matter without laws is inconceivable. They 

 are no stamp put on. Their dye is in the wool. They are 

 the constant methods of the Inimanent and Universal Life. 



Do I seem to criticize and condemn where you ex])ected 

 only admiration and assent ? But my criticism and my 

 condemnation are not for the real Darwin, the Darwin of a 

 thousand nice experiments, ten thousand careful observa- 

 tions, hundreds of brilliant generalizations, all contributing 

 to the establishment of one mighty law ; they are for the 

 Darwin of a few ill-considered phrases at the conclusion of 



