1 62 MAN'S PRIMITIVE STATE 



ness, on the other hand. I do not say that it is impos- 

 sible; but it is certainly very difficult.^ I emphasize 

 all this because I believe it to be important that you 

 should understand the great plausibility of the views 

 which have caused a rejection of the doctrine which I 

 am concerned to defend; and that you should take 

 note of the conditions, both scientific and speculative, 

 which appear to account for the fact that many Chris- 

 tian writers consider the doctrine of man's primitive 

 state to be a weak point in traditional theology. We 

 cannot successfully meet attacks on Christian doc- 

 trine without appreciating the causes which make 

 them dangerous; and they must be met, if Christian 

 doctrine is to retain its hold upon those who have been 

 unsettled by them. 



II 



In reckoning with the scientific conclusions which 

 I have been formulating in this lecture, I shall devote 

 especial attention tQ_jhe princ iple of conti nuity — the 

 principal, that is, that nothing can happen which is v 

 not rationally connected in causation with what has I 

 previously happened, and with what will occur in the 

 future.^ I shall consider this principle at some length, 

 because upon the use that is made of it largely depends 



1 How difficult, is apparent in Jas. Orr's God's Image, the ablest 

 defence of the protestant view as against the attacks of evolutionists. 

 Dr. Orr is forced to minimize the scientific claim of the evolutionary 

 theory, and does not seem adequately to face the issues which its 

 possible validity raises. 



2 Some anticipatory remarks have been given in pp. 99-100, above. 



