Three Gains: I. A Juster Method 479 
is only valid in the region of abstract science. For every science 
depends for its advance upon limitation of attention, upon the 
selection out of the whole content of consciousness of that part or 
aspect which is measurable by the method of the science. Accord- 
ingly there is a science of life which rightly displays the unity 
underlying all its manifestations. But there is another view of life, 
equally valid, and practically sometimes more important, which 
recognises the immediate and lasting effect of crisis, difference, and 
revolution. Our ardour for the demonstration of uniformity of process 
and of minute continuous change needs to be balanced by a recogni- 
tion of the catastrophic element in experience, and also by a 
recognition of the exceptional significance for us of events which 
may be perfectly regular from an impersonal point of view. 
An exorbitant jealousy of miracle, revelation, and ultimate moral 
distinctions has been imported from evolutionary science into 
religious thought. And it has been a damaging influence, because 
it has taken men’s attention from facts, and fixed them upon 
theories. 
Il. 
With this acknowledgment of important drawbacks, requiring 
many words for their proper description, I proceed to indicate certain 
results of Darwin’s doctrine which I believe to be in the long run 
wholly beneficial to Christian thought. These are: 
The encouragement in theology of that evolutionary method of 
observation and study, which has shaped all modern research : 
The recoil of Christian apologetics towards the ground of religious 
experience, a recoil produced by the pressure of scientific criticism 
upon other supports of faith: : 
The restatement, or the recovery of ancient forms of statement, of 
the doctrines of Creation and of divine Design in Nature, consequent 
upon the discussion of evolution and of natural selection as its 
guiding factor. 
(1) The first of these is quite possibly the most important of all. 
It was well defined in a notable paper read by Dr Gore, now Bishop 
of Birmingham, to the Church Congress at Shrewsbury in 1896. We 
have learnt a new caution both in ascribing and in denying signifi- 
cance to items of evidence, in utterance or in event. There has been, 
as in art, a study of values, which secures perspective and solidity in 
our representation of facts. On the one hand, a given utterance or 
event cannot be drawn into evidence as if all items were of equal 
consequence, like sovereigns in a bag. The question whence and 
