Evolution as Related to Bellf/ions Thought. 323 



which fairly represent a very general relation of enlightened 

 Orthodoxy to the doctrine of Evolution, there is a great deal 

 of bad accommodation. On the one hand the science, on 

 the other hand the religion, is wrenched from its most ob- 

 vious meaning. So it has been at every stage of reconcilia- 

 tion. The reconciliation has been often very superficial. 

 And often there has been no reconciliation ; only a giving 

 over of the fight, after which the theologians have gone on 

 very much as if nothing had happened. There has been 

 no such revision of theology as is demanded by the progress 

 of scientific truth. The average pulpit talk is wholly out 

 of keeping not only with the doctrine of Evolution but with 

 the Copernican and Newtonian astronomy, the antiquity of 

 the Cosmos, of the Earth and Ishm. At the same time it is 

 evident that the protest of the theologians has not been 

 wholly irrational or in vain. It has often forced the party 

 of science to a revision of its statement, and still oftener to 

 a surrender of certain hasty inferences from its main posi- 

 tions. This also must be said, that the religious feeling 

 which has inspired much of the most strenuous opposition 

 to the successive generalizations of science of the highest 

 rank has been entirely sound. It has been a variation of 

 the hymn, '*' Nearer my God to thee, Nearer to thee." The 

 Copernican and Newtonian astronomy, and the geological 

 and anthropological doctrines of the antiquity of the earth 

 and man, have seemed to put him further oif. The doctrine 

 of Evolution has seemed to do not only this, but to impeach 

 the dignity of human nature. The dignity of human nature 

 has rightly seemed a more important article of faith than 

 the origin of men from anthropoidal apes. I honor those 

 who have opposed the generalizations of science until they 

 have been proved compatible with a large and generous and 

 inspiring thought of God and Man. 



Are the generalizations of Darwin and of Spencer thus 

 compatible ? I am aware that Darwin's generalization is 

 but a single illustration of the scheme of universal evolu- 

 tion which Spencer has endeavored to unfold, but it is such 

 a characteristic illustration that I shall not apologize for 

 confining myself to it very largely for a time. What really 

 concerns us is not some isolated expression of theological 

 opinion on the part of Darwin here or there, but the signifi- 

 cance of his system of biology in its widest range and its 

 completest implications. It matters little that in his 



