332 Kvolutlon (IS litdated to Religlouti ThoiujUt. 



astonishing how generally this aspect of Spencer's doctrine 

 has been overlooked. It is an aspect that relieves it of all 

 those dreadful consequences for which it has been held re- 

 si)onsible. For however unknowable the ultimate concepts 

 of science, we have Mr. Spencer's Biology and Psychology 

 and Sociology to show us that we have no lack of scientihc 

 knowledge. If so much scientific knoAvledge in despite of 

 fundamental ignorance, Avhy not as much religious knowl- 

 edge ? There is nothing in the conditions of the problem 

 which prevents this happy consummation. No one need l)e 

 troubled by the assurance that an unrelated Abselute would 

 be inapprehensible, that an unmanifested Infinite could 

 never be found out, " in a universe full of visions and of 

 voices." Starting from his doctrine of the Unknowable, 

 Spencer proceeds to bring about the reconciliation of Science 

 and Eeligion. They are reconciled by reciprocal confessions 

 of an equal ignorance. Now I trust I shall not be thought 

 presumptuous if I say that I cannot conceive a more sense- 

 less and ridiculous reconciliation than this. If I am thought 

 presumptuous I can only say that I am so in the best of 

 comp"kny — that of as good a friend and loving an inter- 

 preter as Mr. Spencer ever had — Prof. E. L. Youmans, who 

 wrote, "the terms of compromise he proposes are dishonor- 

 able to both parties, no less so to science than to theology." 

 "Not what is most abstract but what is most concrete in 

 each is the basis of the final and harmonious adjustment. 

 * * Spencer, in the result he has reached, does more to 

 help forward this adjustment than in the basis he jDroposes. 

 When he gives us the demonstration of Science that all 

 phenomena are the result of one absolute and omnipresent 

 power, we see the first step in the process of reconciliation. 

 Science will demonstrate the fundamental truths of relig- 

 ion, while the extravagance of theology will be corrected 

 and its confusion made clear by the same process." 



The doctrine of evolution is not ]\[r. Spencer's private 

 property. He has not determined just what it shall or shall 

 not be for all time. Other men had labored and he entered 

 into their labors, and did more than any or than all who 

 had preceded him. Others have entered into his labors and 

 done great and glorious work. It is one of the most capa- 

 ble of these — Prof. Fiske — who writes, "The Doctrine of 

 Evolution asserts, as the Avidest and deepest truth which 

 the study of nature can disclose to us, that there exists a 



