THE AUTHOR’S REPLY. 
A few words in explanation, with reference to the criticisms made at the 
meeting on my paper. I quite agree with the Chairman that the evolution 
of religion is one thing, its development another. There is a development of 
religion starting from Revelation. But, if the origin of religion be from 
evolution merely, then the subsequent development is only the continuation 
of the same process. It is all evolution “ of ideas concerning the supernatural 
out of ideas concerning the natural,” and there is no need to distinguish the 
different stages of the process. 
Of course it is quite possible for ideas evolved out of the mind in the 
course of its intercourse with external things to have realities corresponding 
them, and so to be not a mere figment but actual knowledge. But if, as 
Mr. Herbert Spencer seems to maintain, the relation between the soul and 
that ‘‘absolute” which he concedes as existing be absolutely unknowable, 
then, however much the ideas evolved concerning the supernatural out of ideas 
concerning the natural may happen to correspond to realities, it is impossible 
to know that they do so, and they are for all practical purposes a figment 
merely. Moreover, Mr. Herbert Spencer, in the paper alluded to, proeeeds 
to explode and even ridicule all the highest known ideas of the relation 
between the soul and God, as mere figments, and absurd ones too. So that 
we can do him at least but little injustice in the statement that a religion 
drawn from evolution merely is purely subjective and has no basis of reality. 
Personally, I hold that there is a relation, and a knowable one, between the 
spirit of man and God, and that consequently religious ideas corresponding 
to realities may be developed by experience, though, as a matter of fact, they 
are only truly and rightly developed by Revelation.—It might certainly seem 
that all those individuals by whom religion has been really advanced have 
been inspired. But there is need of a distinction between what we may call 
religious genius and Inspiration. Every religious genius whom God has not 
made use of by inspiration to add to His revelation has made some mistake 
in his religious ideas, and caused some aberration in the development of 
religion. But these matters are, as I understand, beyond the scope of the 
Institute, and I meant merely to suggest them without stating them. 
