Cornell University Library BL263 .M17 1891 Evolution of man and Christ anity / by H olin 3 1924 029 074 841 Cornell University Library The original of tliis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029074841 THE EYOLTJTIOJS" OF MAIS' AI^fD OHEISTIANITT THE EVOLUTIOI^q' OF MAN AND OHRISTIAlSriTY BY THE Eev. HOWARD MAOQUEARY ^SW EDITION, BEYISED AND ENLARGED NEW YORK APPLETON AND COMPANY 1891 3 Copyright, 1890, 1691, By D. APPLETON AND COMPANY. TO PROF. JOSEPH LE CONTE, LL. D., BEEKELBY, CAL. My Dear Sir : This hook, the first-fruits of my pen, I dedicate to you, not simply because I would associate my name with that of one so emi- nent for piety and learning as yourself, nor because I would hold you responsible for any opinion it contains, but rather because I would fain express my heart-felt appreciation of the unfailing sym- pathy and invaluable assistance I received from you during the long, dark period of mental and spiritual struggle which resulted in my emancipation from the thralldom of a crude and irrational Tradi- tionalism. Earnestly trusting that this humble effort may be the means of promoting the great cause we have at heart — the cause of truth — I am, with deep respect. Very Cordially You/rs, HOWARD MACQUEARY". Canton, Omo, Oct. 1889. PREFACE TO THE SECOIHD EDITION. The criticisms of this book haye, of course, been both favorable and nnfayorable ; but the faTorable, I am glad to be able to say, have greatly outnumbered the unfavor- able notices. The secular press — especially the Boston press — has, with few exceptions, been not only just but most flattering in its notices of the book ; the religious press, as was anticipated, has not only denounced the book as " dangerous," but it has greatly misrepresented its teaching. Three notable exceptions are "All Souls' Monthly," the parish paper of Rev. R. Heber Newton's church ; the "Wyoming and Idaho Mission," the diocesan paper of that jurisdiction ; and the "Christian Register,^' of Boston, all of which have been very kind and fair in their notices of the book. Of course, the fact that the last-named paper is a Unitarian organ will, in the opin- ion of Trinitarians, weaken the weight and influence of its estimate; but it is a great pity that the Episcopal Church has no paper of the same depth and breadth of view and Christian charity as the " Register." To these and the secular papers, as well as to individuals who have kindly noticed this book, I would express my sincere grati- tude. To the unjust criticisms and misrepresentations of other papers I now make the following answers : First. It has been repeatedly asserted that I reject the Incarnation or the Divinity of Christ. This is false. Vlll EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRI8TIANITT. I accept the Catholic doctrine of the rncarnation as set forth in our Second Article of Religion. As more fully explained in the chapter on Miracles, the hirth and char- acter of our Lord are two distinct questions, and one may accept His divinity even if he believe that He had an earthly father— Joseph. Further : One may believe His birth to have beeu truly miraculous— that is, the result of a special operation of the Divine Will— and yet hold that this birth occurred along the lines of natural generation. In other words, the divinity of Christ depends upon the essential relation of the hu- man and divine spiritual elements in Him, not upon the mode of His birth. He may have been born in the ordinary way, while His (human) spirit was specially begotten of "God. the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life," working through the media of a man and woman. At any rate, I believe that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col., ii, 9), which influx of Deity into Humanity was due to a special operation of God's Will acting along the line of ordinary generation. ■ It has also been asserted that I reject the resurrection of Christ. I do attach little importance to the details of His lodily resurrection as given in the Gospels, because I consider these documents of too uncertain authorship to allow of attaching much importance to their details ; but I accept the resurrection or manifestation of Christ after death in a "spiritual body," as spoken of by St. Paul in First Corinthians, xv ; and this is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, as set forth in her burial service. Second. It has been said that I " accept the evolu- tion of man, body and soul, from the lower animals, but decline to give my reasons for this acceptance." This, also, is false. The whole of Chapters II and III of Part I — fifty of the one hundred pages devoted to man's PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. j^ origin — are a summary of the arguments based on the facts of paleontology, morphology, variability, and em- bryology, which prove. man's origin from a lower animal form, and disprove the popular theological view of his origin. The only shadow of justification which can be offered for this criticism is my statement, at the end of Chap- ter II, that, for want of space and its non-necessity, I could not give the facts and reasons proving man's spiritual evolution as I had done to show his physical development. But I refer to Spencer's "Psychology" and Romanes's " Mental Evolution " for proofs of the derivative origin of man's spirit. The mistake I made was in supposing that critics of the book would be can- did enough to admit that these facts and authorities could not be lightly set aside. Third. It has been said that I accept the results of "destructive criticism" at second hand, and without any reconstructive thought of my own. This, too, is false. A reference to the introductory chapter of Part II, on the Documents, will show that I have studied the early Christian literature itself, and quote directly from the "Fathers," and urge my readers to use all modern writers " simply as guides to the discovery of the facts for themselves." A comparison, too, of my conclusions with those of the so-called "destructive critics" will show suBBcient divergence in our views to justify my claim to independent thought of my own. To mention only one or two points of difference': I accept ten of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul as genuine works of the apostle; whereas, the radical skeptics accept only four or six. I believe. in. and defend the miraculous, albeit in a more refined and spiritual form than popular theology does ; whereas, the radical critics (Strauss, Eenan, Wellhausen, etc.) reject miracles in toto. I refer to as many books X EVOLUTION OF MAN AND OHRISTIAmTY. on the traditional as on the " destructive " side of the questions discussed. Again : It has been said that I am not learned or original. I make no pretensions to either erudition or originality. The book was not intended to he exhaustive, even of my own knowledge, but it was designed simply as a popular summary of scientifico-theological opin- ions from the evolution point of view ; and hence, by its very nature, it could not be either exhaustive or original. The following words from Emerson's essay on " Quotation and Originality " are instructive : " In a large sense, one would say there is no pure originality. All minds quote. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. We quote not only books and proverbs, but arts, sciences, religion, customs, and laws; nay, we quote temples and houses, tables and chairs, by imitation. There is imita- tion, model, and suggestion to the very archangels, if we knew their history." I do not pretend to be an archangel (many seem to consider me an arch-fiend rather !), and hence quotation and imitation on my part are surely par- donable. It is something to be able to appreciate the brilliant thoughts of others ; and if this little volume points to the gems of philosophical J;hought which lie imbedded in the Spencerian system and in German Bibli- cal criticism, it will have accomplished its purpose. It should be remembered that the distinctive feature of "orthodox theology" itself is not origiuality. The function of criticism is twofold — ^to specify er- rors and to suggest truth. The critic owes something to the author reviewed, and the public that reads his criti- cism. He should protect the latter as far as possible from errors, and help the former to correct them. Un- fortunately, in the present case neither has heen done except in one or two instances; and my correction of these mistakes shows my readiness to accept fair criti- PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xi cism. In the chapter on "Inspiration," it was pointed out, I apparently questioned the infallibility of our Lord. This I did not intend to do, as the context would show to a thoughtful, unprejudiced reader. I simply meant that, owing to the uncertain authorship of the Gospels, which contain all that we know of His teaching, we could not prove His absolute infallibility. For my own part, I accept this, because He seems to me, despite the uncertain authorship of the Gospels, the final goal of spiritual eTolution — ^the Perfect Man ; but it would be difiBcult to prove this fact to many even among professing Christians — some Unitarians, for instance. My views of Christ's birth and resurrection have been abundantly denounced, but not so criticised as to enable me to correct the errors which the critics say they contain. Still, I have rewritten those views, and, while I have not altered them, I have stated them more clearly and brought out the miraculous features of the events more strongly and distinctly. My aim in writing this book, especially the chapter on mira- cles, was to show that the substance of the Gospels and the articles of the Christian creed might be accepted even if, as the radical critics and skeptics claim, certain details must be given up. But my critics, instead of giving me credit for this conservative aim, have abundantly denounced my so-called " attack " on the faith, and have emphasized the negative part of my work — the concessions I made to the skeptics in order to save the substance of the truth — to the neglect of the conservative " orthodox " part of my views. Indeed, as stated above, they have greatly misrepresented those views, even accusing me of rejecting the Incarna- tion and the Kesurrection of Jesus, and in fact all miracles. But it is hoped that this further explanation and defense will be satisfactory. The difficulty was, to be popular, succinct, and clear, all at once. It would require sev- eral volumes to elaborate what is here condensed into xii EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GEBI8TIANITT. four hundred small pages ; and yet such elaboration would be necessary, to make the positions taken clear to all persons. Hence I urge readers of the book to consult the works referred to, if they are unacquainted with them, ere they criticise my views. This, of course, was addressed to young theologians, who are disposed to be even more dogmatic and "cock-sure" on profound prob- lems than older and more learned people are. I did not presume to suggest a course of reading to editors of "religious newspapers," much less to professional critics, and I earnestly hope that they will not be offended by advice which was never intended for them. The most serious defect, however, of the criticisms of the book is that many have not asked. Are the opinions true ? but they have rather asked, Are they compatible with the acceptance of the Creeds and Articles of the Episcopal Church ? In other words, the book has been looked at mainly from an ecclesiastical, not from a scien- tific or philosophic point of view, and even the ecclesias- ticism of the preface to the first edition has not been fairly considered. In that preface I contend that the BjDiscopal Church, being a Protestant Church, allows liberty of thought and speech — accepts the Bible as her rule of faith and practice, and holds that her Creeds and Arti-, cles must be interpreted by the Scriptures, not vice versa ; and, further, i,hat the Bible should be interpreted by facts and reasons as they appear to the individual. This contention has not been refuted, and may be more fully proved than it was in the preface to the first edition. Thus, the second ordination vow asserts, with the Sixth Article, that the "Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation." The third vow, which is the one so often appealed to and misinter- preted, asks the candidate, " Will you then give your faithful diligence, always so to minister the doctrine and PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xiii sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same ? " This is understood by many to mean that the minister promises to accept the Creeds and Articles of " this Church" as final ; but I maintain that "the doc- trine of Christ as this Church hath receiTed the same " is that " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," and that each one is at liberty — nay, is in duty bound — to interpret the Bible by facts and reasons as he understands them. The word " then" in this vow . refers us back to the second vow, and shows that the doc- trine there stated is " the doctrine of this Church." And what is the doctrine there stated ? That the Bible is our rule of faith. If this were not the meaning of the third vow, it would occupy the place in the service of the second vow, and instead of being asked, "Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doc- trine ? " the candidate would be asked. Are you per- suaded that the Apostles' and Moene Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles contain all doctrine necessary to salvation, and will you interpret the Bible by these for- mulas and teach them to the people committed to your charge ? But, no ; in the fourth vow he promises to " banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to "^the Creeds and Articles ? no! but contrary to — "God's Word." In the fifth vow he promises to "be diligent in prayers, and in reading Holy Scripture, and in such studies as help to a knowl- edge of the same." This last vow distinctly asserts not only the right but the duty of " private judgment." The minister is to use all diligence to ascertain for him- self what are the essential truths of Scripture, not of the Creeds and Articles, Really it is most remarkable that it should be necessary to say all this about the Church which was the mother of English Protestantism, and xiv EVOLUTION OF MAir AND CHRISTIANITY. whicli bears in her rery name the evidence of this fact. It is still more remarkable that some of her members should assert that, while the Thirty-nine Articles are man-made and alterable dogmas, yet her creeds, being the products of the first General Councils of the Church (at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) are infallible and unchangeable. This contention is refuted by Scripture, reason, history, and the Articles of the Church. The idea that a General Council — or a council of the whole Church — is infallible, rests on the absurd as- sumption that the infl.uence of the Holy Spirit depends upon the number of people seeking it ! On the contrary, our Lord said, where two or three are gathered together in His name there He will be (Matt., xviii, 20) ; nay, that any individual who would enter his closet and pray to the Father, would receive the Divine blessing (Matt., vi, 6). This shows that the Holy Spirit influences indi- viduals as truly as He does masses of people. But, be it observed, it is not said that He makes individuals infalli- ble ; and, if not, how can general assemblies of fallible per- sons enunciate infallible truths? Surely the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts ; and if the separate units of a General Council are fallible — and all insist upon this — then the council must be even more fallible. This is not only the common-sense view of this matter, but the Articles of our Church express precisely this opinion. The Twenty-first Article says, "Forasmuch as they [General Councils] be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things per- taining unto God." This article was omitted from the Prayer Book by the American revisers, but let no one thence infer that the American Episcopal Church accepts the infallibility of the first General Councils, for the Prayer Book states that the "other Articles" settle this PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xv question. Thus the Nineteenth Article says, "The Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome [the very Churches represented in the first General Councils] have erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, hut also in matters of faith." Why say more ? Is it not evident that those bishops and clergy who have denounced me as a Tiolator of solemn ordina- tion vows are themselves condemned by the Church whose doctrines they profess to believe and defend ?■ If, now, it be said that the foregoing theory of ecclesiastical authority leads logically to the destruction of all creeds or formulas, and therefore to a disorganization of the Chruch, I reply : 1. If so, I am not responsible for it, but the Reformers who framed our Articles. 3. This is not so, for the Republic exists very comfortably under a Constitution that admits of amendment, and why can not the Church so exist ? Indeed, common sense teaches that the Church should be at liberty to revise her articles of faith from time to time as new light is gained ; lut how is she to do this if every one who proposes either an interpretation of her formulas different from that commonly accepted, or an alteration in those formulas 4s forthwith excommunicated? Surely if we believe in the Holy Ghost, as we profess in the Creed ; if we believe that He will be with the Church — with each member of the Church — ^to the end of time, we must admit the truth of this view of the Church. At any rate, this view has not yet been refuted. The real reason why it is doubted, and the semi- infallibility of the Creeds is asserted, is that these Creeds have been accepted for centuries by the majority of Chris- tians. But those who think that, because a doctrine has long been accepted by the majority, it is therefore neces- sarily or even presumably true, should remember these facts : Christianity itself can not stand this test, since the followers of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, and Mo- xvi EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. hammed far outnumber Christians. Even in Christen- dom at one time the Divinity of Christ was rejected by the vast majority of Christians, and then it was Atha- nasius, a young archdeacon, against the world. "When Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, and Columbus first published their yiews, the world hooted and ridiculed. When the Eeformers of the sixteenth century proclaimed their great doctrines, they were denounced and persecuted by the majority; and had Luther submitted to the dicta- tion of the Church, or to numbers, there would to-day be no Protestant Church. Every departure from accepted opinions of any kind is necessarily inaugurated by a minority if not by one individual, and hence it is high time to have done with an appeal to what the majority believe as a refutation of any opinion. AW this is said, not because the writer claims originality, much less be- cause he classes himself with the great men referred to— for he does not consider himself worthy to untie their shoes — but it is simply a citation of facts in order to refute a superficial but powerful notion. Finally, it has been said that I stand alone in the Epis- copal Church. To a well-informed Episcopalian such an assertion is astonishing ! Has not this Church been the home of those great liberal theologians and devout Chris- tians, Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kingsley, Fred- erick W. Eobertson, Matthew Arnold, Frederick "W.' Farrar, Archbishop Tait, Deau Stanley, Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, Alfred Momerie, H. E. Haweis, Canon Freman- tle, Heber Newton, and numerous other liberal-minded men, who, however much they may have disagreed on un- essential points, are at one in their advocacy of the free- dom I claim ? Their interpretations of Scripture are essentially the same in principle. In particular, Dr. Abbott, Dr. Newton, and Mr. Haweis hold essentially my views— or rather I hold theirs— on the authorship and PREFACE TO THE SECOND EBITION. xvii authority of the books of the Bible. And we also agree ia our views of miracles. Dr. Abbott, in his book entitled "The Kernel and the Husk" (Koberts Brothers, Boston), rejects the Virgin-birth and. accepts the spiritual resurec- tion of Jesus. Dr. Newton has not expressed himself publicly on the birth, but in a sermon on " Eobert Els- mere," published in " All Souls' Monthly " for December, 1888, he accepts the spiritual resurrection of our Lord. EeT. Mr. Haweis, in his " Picture of Jesus " (vol. ii of his " Christ and Christianity " ), takes the same view of our Lord's birth and resurrection that I do. Canon Fre- mantle, of Canterbury Cathedral, in an article published ia " The Popular Science Monthly " for June, 1887, takes the same view. Eev. Prof. Momerie, in his " Church and Creed," takes the ground that whosoever doeth righteous- ness is a member of God's (Christ's) Church, which means that good Jews, Turks, JBuddhists, Chinese, etc., must be included among the faithful. I ^m at liberty to quote some passages from letters he has written me. He says : " I have not said much about miracles [in his books] ex- cept implicitly. I, of course, do not believe in them, except as the subjective fancies of unscientific men." In his "Church and Creed " (pp. 237-231 et seq.) he accepts the view of the resurrection advocated in this book. Again, in a letter he says, " The facts you insist on (in this book) must be recognized (italics his) by the Church on pain of perishing everlastingly," and adds, "Prof. Jowett some years ago said in a sermon at the Abbey [Westminster], ' People would soon give up believing in miracles as they had given up believing in witchcraft.' " The liberal opinions of Tait, Stanley, Maurice, Farrar, etc., on inspiration, the atonement, future retribution,- and the like, are well known. The point is this : these clergynien represent, and are known to represent, a large and growing school of thought in this Church, and yet xviii EVOLUTION OF MAN AND 0ERISTIANIT7. the Church not only tolerates them but has given them prominent and influential positions. Why, then, should it be thought a thing so heinous in me to adopt and propagate views -which violate no principle of the Church, and which she tolerates and upholds in other cases ? It is said that we can not conscientiously repeat the Creeds of the Church in the regular service, but this is not true. It would, indeed, be well if the Church al- lowed an alternate form of the Article on the birth, as she does in the case of the Article on Christ's descent into hell. If the words "or born of Joseph and Mary" were put in the margin of our Prayer Book as a substi- tute, when preferred, for the words " born of the Virgin Mary," we should be better satisfied. But as it is we can explain to our people that there are two views of Christ's birth in the Bible : one which assigns only one parent to Him, and another (Matt., xiii, 55, etc.) which gives Him two parents — either of which may be accepted without violating the principles or doctrines of this Church. We have scriptural authority (Isaiah, vii, 14) for the use of the word "virgin " in the sense of "young woman " merely. We do not believe that God has hands, though the Creed says Christ "sitteth at the right hand of God " (see Article I). No intelligent person believes in a literal resurrection of the body, though the Creed speaks of such, and Bishop Pearson and all the older theologians held this view. We believe in " the spirit- ual body," spoken of by St. Paul, and as we shall each have such a body, so Christ, we may believe, had such a body— did not take " His body, with flesh and bones," and thus ascend into heaven ; but appeared in a spirit- ual form, and then withdrew into the spiritual world that lies back of and gives shape to the material, visible world, somewhat as our soul inhabits our body (see chapters on Miracles, and Heaven and Hell). PREFACE TO TEE SEOONB EDITION. xix From all this it is apparent why I did not resign from the ministry of the Episcopal Church when I reached these views, as I was advised to do by some friends. I knew that I did not violate the fundamental principles of the Church — that my departure from traditional views was not greater than that of others who were honored by the Church ; and I felt it my duty to stay in the Church and do what I could to make it accomplish its purpose by meeting the wants of the age. I am strongly opposed to sectarianism, and determined I would not willingly be guilty of it ; if the Church excommunicated me, it must bear the blame. Moreover, I felt that it could be only a few years, at most, before such views as are advocated in this volume would be pretty generally accepted by the Church ; for, whether they be true or false, they are being taught in all the leading educational institutions of the land ; and the rising generation, which will furnish re- ligious, moral, and intellectual teachers to the next, is being thoroughly imbued with such teaching. If, there- fore, the Church were wise, she would gladly accef)t the services of all earnest-minded men, who lead pure lives, and would fain do what they could to advance her in- tellectual and spiritual life. But it seems that the folly of centuries will not teach her that excommunication neither converts the "heretic " nor refutes or suppresses his " heresy " ; and so we find, even in this "enlightened generation," the spirit, if not the cruelty, of the old In- quisition. It is hoped that this preface will tend to vindicate my mental and moral, my theological and ecclesiastical character. HowAED MacQubaet. Ganion, Ohio, January, 1891. PEEFATOET. "Theee can be little doubt in the mind of the thoughtful observer that we are now on the eve of the greatest change in traditional views that has taken place since the birth of Christianity. This change means not a readjustment of details only, but a reconstruction of Christian theology." * It is because I am firmly convinced of the truth of these profound words that I have written this book. Three great forces, among others, will efEect the theo- logical and ecclesiastical revolution predicted — ^viz.. Physi- cal Science, Biblical Criticism, and the Social Movement. Our young men and women who enjoy the privileges of the higher education are becoming thoroughly imbued with the teachings of Physical Science, which, backed by Biblical Criticism, is aiming deadly blows at the» miracu- lous features of popular Christianity, and, as will appear from the following pages, it is destined to profoundly modify our idea of miracles, and this means a complete reconstruction of traditional and popular theology. Evo- lution is " in the air," and its fundamental tenets are being accepted (perhaps unconsciously) by all classes of minds — from a Huxley to a hod-carrier. It behooves us, * Prof, Joseph Le Conte, " Evolution and Religious Thought," p. 277. 8 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. then, as religious teachers to recognize this fact, and adjust our theology accordingly. The Social or Labor movement is assuming (has assumed) an anti-church attitude. The laborer imagines that the Church is not his friend, and that its doctrines — its " fish-stories," etc. — have been ex- ploded by Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and others. I speak from personal knowledge as well as from the testimony of others.* The Church (i. e., primarily the Clergy and sec- ondarily the Laity) must arouse itself to an exact recogni- tion of the facts of the case and prepare to meet the issues before it. This book is written in the hope of drawing attention more generally to the salient points of the work before us. No one is more conscious of its defects than its author, but he asks his readers to give him credit for at least honesty and loftiness of purpose. He has not hesitated to reject the teachings of the most venerable and the most eminent when they seemed to him to conilict with fact and i-eason. He has done this, however, not from presumption and conceit, but simply because his conscience and intellect would not allow him to accept such teachings. He is conscious of having used strong language in some places, but he begs his readers to remember that he did not mean to stoop to personal abuse, but only spoke strongly because he felt strongly, and be- cause strong language alone can impress certain minds. Every person, whose views I oppose in this book, has my profound respect, and indeed it is because I respect them that I oppose their theories ; and, could we be thrown to- gether, they would find in me a warm-hearted friend. Of course, I anticipate great opposition from various quarters, and any courteous criticism of my position will be thankfully received and duly considered, but the prime * See Prof. E. T. Ely's " Labor Movement in America," pp. 244, 245. PREFATORY. 9 object of the book is not to stir up bitter controTersy, but to help those, of all classes, who are troubled by the diffi- culties of traditional and popular theology, to a plane of thought from which they may espy the Celestial City and escape the miasmas of time-worn Traditionalism. It is needless to say that I have drunk deeply of the quiet waters of popular " Orthodoxy," and hence can sympathize with those who still find in it a haven of rest for their souls. It is also needless to say that in putting forth from that haven I have experienced the usual storms of mental and spiritual disturbance which beat upon one in his voyage over the ocean of free thought. " It is an awful moment," says Frederick Eobertson, " when the soul be- gins to find that the props on which it has blindly rested so long are many of them rotten, and begins to suspect them all ; when it begins to feel the nothingness of many of the traditionary opinions which have been received with implicit confidence, and in that horrible insecurity begins also to doubt whether there be anything to believe at all. It is an awful hour — let him who has passed through it say how awful — when this life has lost its meaning, and seems shriveled into a span ; when the grave appears to be the end of all, human goodness nothing but a name, and the sky above this universe a dead expanse, black with the void from which God himself has disap- peared. In that fearful loneliness of. spirit, when those who should have been his friends and counselors only frown upon his misgivings, and profanely bid him stifle doubts, which for aught he knows may arise from the fountain of truth itself, to extinguish as a glare from hell that which for aught he knows may be light from heaven, and everything seems wrapped in hideous uncertainty, I know but one way in -which a man may come forth from his agony scathless : it is by holding fast to those things which are certain still, the grand, simple landmarks of 10 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. morality. In the darkest hour through which a human soul can pass, whatever else is doubtful, this at least is certain. " If there be no God and no future state, yet, even then, it is better to be generous than selfish, better to be chaste than licentious, better be true than false, better to be brave than to be a coward. Blessed beyond all earthly- blessedness is the man who, in the tempestuous darkness of the soul, has dared to hold fast to these venerable land- marks. Thrice blessed because his night shall pass into clear, bright day. At last he will stand upon the rock, the surges stilled below him, the last cloud drifted from the sky above, with a faith, and hope, and trust which neither earth nor hell shall shake thenceforth forever." * "Who- ever launches out on the river of thought involved in the word " Evolution " will experience the tempest thus elo- quently described ; he will be carried out into a sea which has its dangers, its. quicksands, its deceitful currents; and it will require wary sailing and good pilots in order to make a safe voyage : but it ought to be a subject of earnest thought whether it is better to be sailing there, on to something better in the Infinite, or riding at anchor in the tranquil, landlocked bay of Traditionalism. During the preparation of this book I have been asked more than once, how could I hold such views consistently with my ordination vows ? And as this question may be asked by the different readers of the book, I shall here answer it. As a clergyman in the Protestant Episcopal Church I was asked at my ordination this question : " Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doc- trine required as necessary to eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ ? And are you determined out of * Robertson's " Life and Letters," by Brooke. " Second Address to Workingmen." PREFATORY. \\ the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture ? " To which I answered, " I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God's grace," and I am of the same opinion still. Let us compare with . this ordination vow the Sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. It reads, " Holy Script- ure containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved there- by, is not to be required of any man, that it should be be- lieved as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." | It then gives a list of the gen- erally accepted " canonical books " which we understand to be Holy Scripture. Now observe, first, that the ordination vow and the article both assert plainly the Riglit of Private Judgment : each man is to study the Bible and ascertain for himself what things in it are necessary articles of faith. The creeds and articles, therefore, are mere summaries of what their oi'iginators considered the essential truths of the Bible, but every one must test them by the Bible^ and this I claim to have done in the following pages. For instance, in refusing to accept the literal meaning of the story of the Virgin- Birth of the Saviour, I claim to be fol- lowing Isaiah. I attach to the word " virgin " the mean- ing he gave it — namely, that of " young woman." And, again, in rejecting the doctrine of a gross ma- terial resurrection I claim to be following II Peter, lii, 10, which teaches, with modern physical science, that " matter " is not to be eternal. Secondly. Neither the ordination vow nor the article asserts any theory of Inspiration : they merely say, " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation," and this I heartily believe. 12 EYOLVTION OF MAN AND CERI8TIANITT. Thirdly. Nowhere does our Church lay down any for- mula concerning the authorship of the books of the Bible. The Sixth Article merely enumerates these, but says not a word as to when or by whom they were written, and hence every Episcopalian is at liberty to freely inves- tigate this subject for himself. Fourthly. The subtle Athanasian theories of the God- head, the Calvinistic view of the Atonement, etc., find no place in our formulas, and an evolutionist holding the views expressed in the following pages can conscientiously use our Liturgy. Fifthly. On the vexed question of Future Punishment our Church has not a single line save in the Litany, where we pray to be delivered from "everlasting damnation." But, as Archdeacon Farrar long ago pointed out, -this is no formula, and, even if it were, the words " everlasting damnation" could only mean what they mean in Holy Scripture, and what that meaning is I have explained in the chapter on " Evolution : Heaven and Hell." Finally. On the question of man's origin our Church has not a single word, and the Ninth Article (on " Origi- nal Sin ") may be dealt with in one of two ways : we may either appeal from it to Holy Scripture, as I do in this work, or we may claim that the state of original innocence which it speaks of is, in the evolutionist's opinion, merely the period during which man existed as an irresponsible animal— i. e., the period between his origination and the birth of his moral sense or " Conscience." I think, how- ever, that the Ninth Article is a crude, Calvinistic state- ment of the Biblical idea of Sin. The Bible emphasizes, not the supposed fall of Adam, but the universal fad of Sin. Theologians, mistaking an allegory for literal his- tory, have supposed that whenever the Bible speaks of sin it means that in Adam all mankind fell from a state of perfect righteousness into a state of utter moral depravity. PREFATORY. 13 This, I attempt to show, is false. It seems never to have occurred to my interrogators that their questions had pre- sented themselves to my mind at an early stage of my in- quiries, and, by earnest thought and the help of bishops, doctors, and professors, I had been enabled to avoid tak- ing the course of a " Robert Elsmere." The truth is, Epis- copalians — and more especially non-Episcopalians; — do not fully realize the real catholicity of our Church. They think that the « Church of Henry VIII " (falsely so called) is as narrow as any sect in Christendom, and it is mainly because I wish to show that it is at least as hroad as the Bible itself that I write this preface. A Channing or a Beecher might have found a comfortable home within our fold, so far as the Prayer-Booh'' s teaching is concerned, and if '■' the powers that be " will only act in the spirit of the Prayer-Book, the American Episcopal Church may yet become the rallying-point of many broad-minded men and women, who else would drift away into vague wmbe- lief or absolute disbelief; and this is not my opinion merely, for, in a letter to me, Prof. Alexander Winchell, a Methodist, said, "It has been my good fortune to find several church rectors with views as broad and liberal as the truth itself." Then, mentioning those " rectors " by name, he added, " It looks as if Episcopal rectors were destined to become leaders in liberal Christian thought." One can not help being reminded by these words of our Kingsleys, Maurices, Stanleys, Robertsons, Fan-ars, Ar- nolds, Fremantles, etc. — all of whom, however much they may have differed on minor points, were and are distin- guished as "leaders in liberal Christian thought," and they believe that they are loyal to the real spirit and mean- ing of the Prayer-Book. " These are the men," to apply Dean Stanley's words to his own class — " these are the men, wherever they are, and whosoever they may be, and howsoever they may be 14 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. neglected, or assailed, or despised — these are the silent healers, who must bind up the wounds of their age in spite of itself ; they are the good physicians who must knit together the dislocated bones of a disjointed time ; they are the reconcilers who must turn the hearts of the children .to the fathers, or of the fathers to the children. They will have but little praise or reward from the par- tisans, who will be loud in indiscriminate censure and ap- plause. " They will be attacked from both sides ; they will be charged with not going far enough or with going too far ; they will be charged with saying too much or with saying too little ; they will be regarded from either partial point of view and not from one which takes in the whole/ But, like Samuel of old, they will have a far higher reward in the Davids who are silently strengthened and nurtured by them in Naioth of Ramah — in the glories of a new age, which shall be ushered in peacefully and happily after they have been laid in the grave." * This school has been more than once accused of teach- ing " negative theology," f and I have reason to anticipate such a charge against this book. Let me say, then, once for all, that my aim has been to substitute new truths in the place of the old ; and while I have been compelled to tear down certain theories, in no case have I failed to offer what I consider more rational, credible, and Script- ural views in their place. I claim, therefore, a decidedly positive character for my theology. But let it ever be. remembered that Christianity consists, not in theories of any sort, but in a Personal Life— the life of Jesus. He is its center and circumference, and my aim in this book- nay, the effort of my whole life— is, and shall be, to lead * Stanley's " Jewish Church," lecture xvili. t Robertson's "Life and Letters," introduction, p. vii. PREFATORY. 15 men's minds away from all theories, whether of my own making or of somebody else's, to Him — to the humble, self-renouncing, noble, Godlike Son of Man. If this is " negative theology" I rejoice to "plead guilty," and cry for more such negation. Where is the man that can say aught against Him ? Who is ashamed to take his stand by His side ? Where is the father who would not have his son follow His example — be His disci- ple? When even an E. G. Ingersoll can say, "For the man Christ I have infinite respect; to that great and serene Man I gladly pay — gladly pat — the tribute of my admiration and my tears," surely there is no need of insisting on his transcendent character. We do not real- ize what a treasure we have in that Character ; we do not realize how we dishonor that Character by our irrational or imperfect theories about it ; we do not know what in- finite harm we do to religion by giving men the stones of dogmatic theology instead of the bread of that grand Life. If this book hammers down any of the stone walls that have been built round that inviolable shrine and makes men cling more closely to the Eock of Ages — if it leads any one to think less of Theology and more of Christ — the charge of preaching " negations " can not be justly brought against its author. I long to hear the Master's summons re-echo through his church, '■'■Follow me." I long to see his test of religious character applied once more, and if I can help in its application, I can bear even the charge of " negative theology," which is often another name for positive Christianity. I conclude this too extended " preface " by making one request, which I earnestly hope all readers of this book will grant : If they should feel inclined to criticise it, they will greatly oblige the author by reading, iefore they make such criticism, all the boohs referred to which they may not have read, if there be any. 16 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. A bit of experience which I had during the prepara- tion of this work leads me to make this request. I was corresponding with a bishop on some of the questions dis- cussed, and I asked him what he thought of Dr. Keim's views of the birth and resurrection of Jesus. He did not, in his reply, answer directly this question, and I remarked to a friend to whom I read his letter that I did not believe the bishop had read Keim. He laughed at the idea of a 'bishop's not having read this work ; but in a correspond- ence with another (an English) bishop, a very learned and liberal man, I found that Ae had not read Keim, but judged him from quotations which others made from his writings. This bishop was good enough, however, to buy Keim's great work and to read it. At first he thought that Keim agreed essentially with Eenan, Baur, and their followers; but he discovered his mistake. This experi- ence proved to me two things : First, that many learned people are not as widely read as they are supposed to be ; and. Secondly, it is a great mistake to judge one from hear- say. Dr. Keim's work, it will be noted in the sequel, is one of the most important works cited, and I specially in- sist on my readers studying his views and those of other Biblical critics quoted, if they have not studied them, for, as a learned friend who has seen the manuscript of this book tells me, " the chapter on New Testament Scriptures (Introduction to Part II) will be unsatisfactory to some, because it is necessarily so brief; such (he adds) will, or ought to, consult the originals from which you quote." It is not presumption, then, nor a reflection on any one's intelligence to make such a request as this. The book is intended to be popular and suggestive — to suggest lines of thought which every one may follow out for himself, and hence he should consult all the works referred to, if he have not, and others which they refer to PREFATORY. 17 — provided, of course, he be not satisfied with the views herein expressed. If he should imagine, for instance, that, because he is familiar with Eenan, Strauss, and Baur, he can judge of Keim's position and conclusions (as the good bishop did), he may greatly err. Keim may advance an argument or state a fact on some particular point which others have ignored or merely glanced at, and this argument or fact might absolutely change one's opinion. So with other writers. But there are many, even now, who "would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead." As a friend, already quoted, says : " Most people won't receive a great new truth, not because of want of evidence, but because it requires a complete readjustment of their mental furni- ture ; and most people's furniture is screwed down to the flooring of the mind in such wise that it requires a rip- ping up of the whole- mental structure." But while I can not hope to influence this class of minds, yet there are others who are not ^so stereotyped in prejudice as to be absolutely unimpressible by facts and reasons, and there are some, even in the Church, who may gladly receive old truths in new forms. The Authob. CAjfTON, Omo, October, 1889. CONTENTS. PART I. THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. OHAPTEE I. — God and Nature .... PAGE . 21 n. — Man's Origin according to Science . 37 III. — Man's Origin according to Theology . 72 IV. — The Age or the Human Kace . 84 V. — ^Man's Primitive Home and Condition . 113 PART 11. THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY. Inteoditction — The DocuMEUTa I. — Evolution and Miracles II. — Evolution and Inspiration . III. — ^Evolution and the Thihitt. rV. — Evolution and the Divinity of Christ V. — E7OLUTI0N AND THE ATONEMENT VI. — Evolution: Heaven and Hell VII. — Evolution and the Problem op Evil VIII. — Evolution and Bodily Resurrection IX. — Evolution and Immortality X. — ^The Church of the Future . 138 . 191 . 231 . 256 . 277 . 295 .,312 . 337 . 363 . 376 . 394 THE EYOLUTIOlir OF MAN AND OHEISTIANITT. CHAPTER I. GOD AKD NATUKE. None but the fool can say, " There is no God," and, as a matter of fact, the deepest thinkers even among the agnostics acknowledge the existence of God, al- though they prefer another name for Him. Thus Mr. Herbert Spencer, the Corypheus of agnosticism, sajs: " One truth must grow ever clearer — the truth that there is an Inscrutable Existence everywhere mani- fested, to which man can neither find nor conceive either beginning or end. Amid the mysteries which become the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will remain the one absolute certainty ihstt he is ever in the presence of an Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed." * And when he adds, elsewhere, that it is this same Power which "in ourselves wells up under the form of conscious- ness," we find it quite unnecessary to dispute with him on this subject. Call Him what you will, God is ; and the only remaining question is. What is His character ? * Spencer's " Ecclesiastical Institutions," p. 843 ; cf. p. 839. 22 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. Mr. Spencer thinks that this is " utterly inscruta- ble," but many, even among the members of his own school of thought, disagree with him on this point. Thus Prof. John Fiske, one of Spencer s most ardent admirers and brilliant disciples, says: "Though we may not by searching find out God ; though we may not compass infinitude or attain to absolute knowledge, we may at least know all that it concerns us to know, as intelligent and responsible beings. Deity is un- knowable just in so far as it is not manifested to con- sciousness through the phenomenal world — ^knowable just in so far as it is thus manifested ; unknowable in so far as infinite and absolute — ^knowable in the order of its phenomenal manifestations — knowable, in a sym- bolic way, as the Power which is disclosed in every throb of the mighty rhythmic Hfe of the universe — knowable as the Eternal Source of a moral law which is implicated with each action of our lives and in the obedience to which lies our only guarantee of the happi- ness which is incorruptible, and which neither inevita- ble misfortune nor unmerited obloquy can take away. There is a " reasonableness," he adds, " in the universe such as to indicate that the Infinite Power, of which it is the multiform manifestation, is psychieal, though it is impossible to ascribe to Him any of the limited psychical attributes which we know or to argue from the ways of man to the ways of God." No wonder, then, that our author should say : " How far my view agrees with his "(Mr. Spencer's) "I do not undertake to say. On such an abstruse matter it is best that one should simply speak for one's self."* I do not see * Fiske's " Idea of God," preface, pp. xxiv, xxviii, xxix, etc. aOD AND NATURE. 23 what more a Christian could desire from science than this. Indeed, Dr. Martensen, whose learning and piety will not be questioned, expresses essentially the same view when he says : " We may liave a true, though not an adequate knowledge of the nature of God. We can not have an adequate knowledge of God — that is, a hnowledge coextensive in every feature with its subject. We can, however, have a true knowledge; that is, a knowledge true in principle, true in its tendency, and true in the goal at which it aims — true, because it goes out from and leads to God." He further assures us that " even the profoundest speculative knowledge must be supplemented by a believing ignorance ; and the deepest attempts to fathom the mystery of God reveal to us unfathomable abysses which no eye can reach." * Theologians and Scientists being thus agreed as to the knowledge of God attainable by man, it seems un- necessary to consider this subject at length. We may have a true though not a perfect or complete knowl- edge of God, and that knowledge is obtained in two ways : viz., by the contemplation of man, and by the study of the external world. It is not, however, my purpose to undertake to prove the existence of God, since all that it is necessary to say on this point will be said incidentally in the fol- lowing pages. But I may remark, in passing, that while the doctrine of Evolution has exploded the forms in which the old arguments for God's existence were cast, the essence of those arguments is not destroyed but rather cleared and strengthened by Evolution. Thus, we may not, in Paley-fashion, argue, " The hu- * Martensen, " Christian Dogmatics," pp. 90, 91. 24 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND OHRISTIANITT. man eye shows as much intelligent design in its con- struction as an eye-glass does, and, therefore, its De- signer must be a being like unto the optician." Evolution reveals an important difference between the formation of the eye and of the eye-glass : the one grows from a little speck, and the other is made all of a piece. Hence we must go back to' the gerin and urge that the Power which originated a germ capable of de- veloping into Man, with his wonderful powers of mind and body, must be infinitely superior in wisdom and might to a finite being, like Man. In other words, we can no longer confine our attention to some special feature of the process of Evolution or Creation, but we must take a larger view ; we must consider it as a whole, and if we do this, we shall understand the profound truth of Prof. Huxley's words on this subject. " The teleology," he says, " which supposes that the eye, such as we see it in Man or one of the higher vertebrates, was made with the precise structure it ex- hibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which pos- sesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its death-blow " (from Mr. Darwin). " JSTevertheless, it is necessary to remember that there is a toider teleology which is not touched hy the doctrine of Evolution, hut is actually based upon the fundaTmntal proposition of Evolution.^'' * Evolution affords the very strongest evidences of the existence of an Infinite Intelligence and Will back of and in Nature. God is the Alpha and the Omega of all Evolution. Without Him it could not begin or con- tinue its mighty work, but the God of Evolution is not * "Critiques and Addresses," p. 305, cited in " Popular Science Monthly," June, 1888, p. 312. GOD AND NATURE. 25 the God of traditional or popular theology ; and since it is absolutely necessary to have as clear a notion on this subject as possible — since much that will follow can not otherwise be understood — since, in a word, it seems to the writer that a more or less vague and erro- neous view of God vitiates and obscures much that is said and written by even learned theologians on Evolu- tion, I have determined to state as clearly as I can the theory of Divinity which will be applied in this book, God and Nature are the opposite poles of all thought, and so we can not discuss the one apart from the other. What, then, shall we think of Nature ? What is it ? Three answers are given to this important question : First, one school of thought — the Materialistic — says, " Matter and Force " constitute the sum and sub- stance of Nature. Matter is that which occupies space — as, for instance, this pen with which I write, which is composed of infinitely small particles called " atoms," that are held together and in certain positions by " forces " residing within them. But Prof. Huxley most effectually disposes of this view in the following masterful manner : " When I was a mere boy," he says, " with a perverse tendency to think when I ought to have been playing, my mind was greatly exercised by this formidable problem, What would become of things if they lost their qualities? As the qualities had no objective existence, and the thing without quali- ties was nothing, the solid world seemed whittled away — to my great horror. As I grew older, and learned to use tlie terms ' matter ' and ' force,' the boyish prob- lem was revived — mutato nomine. On the one hand, the notiim of matter without force seemed to resolve the world into a set of geometrical ghosts too dead even 26 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. to jabber. On the other, Boscovich's hypothesis, by which matter was resolved into centers of force, was very attractive. But when one tried to think it out, what in the world became of force considered as an objective entity? Force, even the most materialistic philosophers will agree with the most idealistic, is noth- ing bnt a name for the cause of motion. And if, with Boscovich, I resolved things into centers of force, then matter vanished altogether, and left immaterial entities in its place. One might as well frankly accept idealism and have done with it. I must make a confession," he adds, " even if it be humiliating. I have never been able to form the slightest conception of those ' forces ' which the materialists talk about, as if they had samples of them many years in bottle. They tell me that mat- ter consists of atoms, which are separated by mere space, devoid of contents ; and that, through this void, radiate attractive and repulsive forces whereby the atoms affect one another. If anybody can clearly conceive the na- ture of these things which not only exist in nothingness, but pull and push there with great vigor, I envy him for the possession of an intellect of larger grasp, not only than mine, but than that of Leibnitz or of Newton. " Let it not be supposed," he concludes, " that I am casting a doubt upon the propriety of the employment of the terms ' atom ' and ' force ' as they stand among the working hypotheses of physical science. As for- mulae which can be applied with perfect precision and great convenience in the interpretation of Nature, their value is incalculable; but, as real entities, having ob- jective existence, an indivisible particle, which, never- theless, occupies space, is surely inconceivable; and with respect to the operation of that atom, where it is GOD AND NATURE. 27 not by the aid of a ' force ' resident in nothingness, I am as little able to imagine it as I fancy any one else is." * With such arguments, and backed by such author- ity, we may set the materialistic view of Nature on one side, and pass to the second — the Ideahstic — view, of which that great Irishman, George Berkeley, Bishop of Oloyne, who lived two hundred years ago, was one of the most eminent advocates. " Ideahsm," says Dr. Krauth, in his admirable edition of Berkeley's " Princi- ples of Human Knowledge," (page 66) " is on the whole, with reference to the part it has played in the history of human thought, the greatest of systems. Like Eng- land, its drum-beat follows the sunrise till it circles the world." " The essence of idealism," says Frederick Schlegel (ibid., page 67), "consists in holding the Spir- itiial alone as actual and truly real, in entirely denying to bodies and matter existence and reahty, in explain- ing them as mere appearance and illusion, or at least transmuting and resolving them into Spirit." Accordingly, Berkeley remarks : " It is an opinion strangely prevailing among men that houses, mountains, rivers, and, in a word, all sensible objects, have an exist- ence, natural or real, distinct from their heing perceived iy the understanding.^' But he maintains that " there is not any other substance than Spirit, or that which per- ceives. ... It is said," he adds, " that extension is a mode of matter, and that matter is the substratum that supports it. Now, I desire that you would explain to me what is meant by matter as supporting extension. It is evident ' support ' can not here be taken in its usual or literal sense, as when we say that pillars support a * "Popular Science Monthly," February, 1887, pp. 499, 500. 28 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. building ; in what sense, therefore, must it be taken ? For my part, I am unable to discover any sense at all that can be applicable to it." Thus, Berkeley denies that matter is the " substra- tum " of things, and asserts that " Spirit is the only substance " ; and hence he inverts the popular thought on this subject, putting Mind in place of Matter, and allowing only a relative existence to the latter. He does not deny utterly all reality to Matter, but only its independent, absolute existence. He believes it exists in relation to Mind, somewhat as the shadow is related to the body which reflects it. The shadow has an ex- istence, but not apart from the body ; and so Berkeley says : " The table I write on exists — that is, I see and feel it ; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning that if I were in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does per- ceive it." * Hence, Dr. Krauth weU observes that " the absolute existence of sensible objects — i. e., in themselves or with- out a mind — is the principle Berkeley argues against as either meaningless or contradictory." And it is because so many fail to clearly grasp this fundamental propo- sition of Berkeleyism that they misunderstand and mis- represent it. "When our philosopher says that the table in his study exists either in relation to his mind or to " some other Spirit " that " actually does perceive it," he sounds the key-note to his whole system. He teaches that all sensible objects exist only in relation to the Di- vine or Human Mind. Nature is mere " visible Spir- * Berkeley's " Principles of Human Knowledge," Krauth's edi- tion, pp. 195-305. aOD AND NATURE. 29 it"; is the Living Garment, in which the All-Beautiful has robed His mysterious loveliness — is simply and only "an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spir- itual " Being— an externalized, objectified mode of the Divine Mind. Now, while Prof. Huxley thinks that any hypothe- sis which may be held on the subject in hand is only a speculation incapable of demonstration,* yet it is inter- esting to read these words from his pen : " The good Bishop Berkeley, if he were alive, would find such facts " (as those revealed by physical science) " fit into his system without the least difficulty." f And many others, even among those who are not Idealists, say the same; and hence, in these days, when theology and physical science are at swords'-points, a large num- ber of thinkers is found turning to Berkeley for relief. For my own part, I think that something like Berkeley- ism is the only philosophy which can meet the demands of the case. Science has forever exploded the low view of God, which regarded (and regards), Him as a sort of Man, and has taught us that a close and vital union exists between Him and Nature ; and yet we are apt to be lost in the whirlpool of Pantheism — to think of the Deity as One " whose body Nature is," if we give up the old view of God which holds that He exists apart from and above the world. What is needed above all things is a philosophy which will reconcile the old and the new views ; which, while it teaches God's immanence in Nature, also as- * "Science and Culture," pages 268-370. D. Appletoii & Co., 1883. t "Popular Science Monthly," February, 1887, p. 503. 30 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. serts His transcendental character ; and the Berkeleyan system seems to me to afford at least the hasis for such a philosophy. Canon Fremantle says : " God may be conceived of as transcendental — that is, as transcending all the visi- ble cognizable universe, as existing apart from it and working upon it from without ; or, as immanent, dwell- ing within it as its moral and spiritual center, its guid- ing force. The two ideas are by no means incompati- ble ; they are both of them expressed in Scripture, and it would probably be a great spiritual loss so to dwell upon one of them as to exclude the other. But it is certain that the thought of a transcendental God deal- ing with the world db extra has been dwelt upon in the past in such a way as to exclude the thought of an im- manent God working upon the world from within. It is certain, also, that this idea of a transcendental God is one which by seeming to imply continual interference with the regular course of the world is peculiarly diffi- cult to grasp in. a scientific age."* It is certain that not only has the idea of a transcendental God been dwelt upon to the exclusion of the idea of a God imma- nent in Nature, but even a lower view prevails among many otherwise well-informed people, especially among the laity. What Prof. Fiske says about his idea of God when he was five years of age is true of many more matured notions. " I imagined a narrow office," he says, "just over the zenith, with a tall standing desk running lengthwise, upon which lay several ledgers bound in coarse leather. There was no roof over this • Premantle's Bampton Lectures, 1883, " The "World as the Sub- ject of Redemption," p. 17. GOD AND NATURE. 31 office, and the walls rose scarcely five feet from the floor, so that a person standing at the desk could look out upon the whole world. There were two persons at the desk, and one of them a tall, slender man, of aqui- line features, wearing spectacles, with a pen in his hand and another behind his ear, was God. The other was an attendant angel. Both were diligently watching the deeds of men and recording them in the ledgers." * Most men doubtless entertain some such notion of God as this at some period of their lives, and in my own case it clung to me for quite a while after I began the study of theology. When I realized that " God is without body, parts, or passions " — pure, invis- ible, intangible Spirit — I experienced a painful shock which lasted for several days, and which others of my acquaintance have experienced when they have been made to realize the same deep truth. But, of course, it would be said just here, " Only half-educated people hold the low view of God just stated " ; and there is truth in this assertion, yet I am thoroughly convinced that men's early notions of God, in many cases, cling to,, them with a more or less firm grip through life, and unconsciously influence their philosophizing on this sub- ject. While, therefore, they do not hold the anthropo- morphic conception in all its crudeness, as stated by Prof. Fiske, yet their notion of a Personal God is so inextricably blended with the idea of a Man-God — a Bodily-God — that it vitiates much of their reasoning on this ubject. The doctrine of God's personality undoubtedly con- tains a great and indispensable truth ; it emphasizes the * " Idea of God," p. 116. 32 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. fact that He is Intelligent Power ; but it seems to me tliat we should express His personality as Christ did when he said, " God is Spirit." At any rate, throughout this work I shall use the word " God " to denote the Infinite Spirit who resides in and presides over the ma- terial world ; and if I be asked to illustrate my idea more clearly, I can not do it better than by citing Charles Kingsley's remark that "souls secrete their bodies as snails do their shells." God secretes physical Nature as the snail secretes its shell ; and, although this illustra- tion not only fails to illustrate perfectly, but also savors of Pantheism, I know of no more perfect illustration (for what can illustrate the Infinite ?), and I can simply assert that it is not intended to teach Pantheism. But if Canon Fremantle's assertion that the notion of a transcendental God is not incompatible with that of an immanent God be true (and I think it is true), I can scarcely formulate this idea of God otherwise than as I have attempted to do. The physical universe, according to my view, floats, . so to speak, in an ocean of Spirit ; this infinite Spirit permeates somewhat as the ether is supposed to perme- ate all things, sustains all things, transcends all things, and is essential intelligence. But, before saying anything more on this subject, I must glance at the third and last view of Being which it is possible to hold, viz., the Agnostic theory. If I understand Agnosticism, it teaches that mind and matter are neither of them real substances, hut only parsing manifestations of an unknown and unhnowahle reality ; are mere bubbles on the great ocean of Being, which ap- pear for a little while and then vanish away. « The Unknowable," says Mr. Herbert Spencer, the aOD AND NATURE. 33 acknowledged authority on this subject, " as manifested to us within the limits of Consciousness in the shape of Feeling, being no less inscrutable than the Unknowable as manifested beyond the limits of Consciousness in other shapes we approach no nearer to understanding the last by rendering it into the first," and hence he concludes that " our only course is to recognize our symbols (' Mind ' and ' Matter ') as symbols only of some form of Power absoluteh/ and forever wiknown to us." * In the first quotation Mr. Spencer rejects IdeaHsm ; in the second he defines and accepts Agnosticism. We have already seen that Prof. Fiske — a Spen- cerian, when not a Fiskean — -thinks that the Infinite Power of which the universe is the multiform manifes- tation is by no means so unknowable as Mr. Spencer considers it. On the contrary, he says not only that " Deity is knowable just in so far as it is manifested to consciousness through the phenomenal world," but, fur- ther, that "there is a reasonableness in the universe such as to indicate that the Deity is psychical." This is precisely my own view. " If there were not intelli- gence at the root of things, it could not be turned up as the crown of the development of life " ; and since this Intelligence, as far as we can ascertain, is coextensive with the universe ; since it manifests itself to us and in us, we must believe that so far we have a true knowl- edge of Deity, although this knowledge is not com- plete — ^that is, it is not " a knowledge coextensive in every feature with its subject." However, if any Agnos- tic object to this view, then I would take an entirely different position. " You admit," I would say, " that * Spencer's " Principles of Psychology," vol. i, pp. 159, 163. 34 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. any theory — Materialistic, Idealistic, or Agnostic — which may be formulated on the subject in hand must be only a speculation, a working hypothesis,* and hence you must admit that one has a right to — nay, 'must — adopt whatever hypothesis seems to him to satisfy all the de- mands of the case. The Idealistic view seems the most rational to my mind — it alone, I think, satisfactorily ex- plains the reasonableness everywhere manifested in Nature, and so I adopt it, granting you the same privi- lege of choice." Two facts recognized by the best physical science of the day seem to lend confirmation to the Idealistic view : First, as Prof. Huxley so ably and clearly shows, the material " atom " can not stand a close and searching an- alysis, but must be regarded as a hypothetical entity. Second, while " material force " shares the same fate, yet we ourselves are powers, as consciousness dem- onstrates, and hence we have a right to argue from the nature of the Self -Power as revealed in conscious- ness to the JSTon-Self-Power manifested around us. This argument need not be complicated by any consideration of the freedom of tlie human will. Whether the will be absolutely free or not (no one believes this f), all must admit \hefact that it is a force — a power — and from it alone can we form any notion of force. While, there- fore, we are landed in hopeless difficulties if, with the Materialist, we look outside ourselves and analyze Na- ture as though it were an absolutely independent, self- existent machine, yet if we turn the eye inwa/rd and contemplate Self we may get, first, an idea of Being', * Huxley's " Science and Culture," p. 370. t Canon Row, " Present Day Tracts," No. 30. GOD AND NATURE. 35 secondly, an idea of Power ; and, thirdly, an idea of It^- telUgence ; and with these we may proceed to formulate a yiew of the world which none can destroy and few will attack. Such a view would be somewhat as fol- lows : Spirit — ^i. e., Intelligent Power — is the only Eternal Absolute Substance. Nature is an outward and visible sign of this inward-underlying-Energy or Being. Its phenomena are naught else than oljectified modes of the Eternal I Am ; the forces of Nature are naught else than different manifestations of one Divine Will ; the laws of Nature, naught else than the regular modes of operation of that will, unchangeable because He is un- changeable.* The great doctrine of the " Correlation of Forces," ■so triumphantly established by modem Science, con- firms this view. It means simply that what we call '■^forces of Mature" are different forms of one and the same thing. Thus the " force " which causes a stone to fall to the Earth (" gravity "), the "force" by which two gases unite to produce the dew-drop (" chemical affinity "), the " force " which causes the grass to grow (" Life "), and Man to think (" Mind "), are all streams issuing from one fountain-head ; and that fountain-head is believed to be Spiritual or psychical in its nature, since otherwise the reasonableness everywhere displayed in the universe is inexplicable. The Evolution of the idea of God thus imperfectly sketched will be further considered in the chapter on * Prof. Joseph Le Conte, " Evolution and its Relation to Re- ligious Thought," p. 383. Cf. Prof. Winchell's admirable paper on " Speculative Consequences of Evolution," in University of Michi- gm Philosophical Papers, Second Series, No. 3. 3 36 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GERISTIANITT. " Evolution and the Trinity," and so I need only say that Prof. Fiske,* Mr. Herbert Spencer, f Sir John Lubbock,:]: Dr. E. B. Tylor, and others, have laid at least the foundation of a true theory of the development of ideas of Deity. I say " at least the foundation," for we may not accept either or all of their theories m toto. * " Idea of God." J " Origin of Civilization,'' chaps, v-vii. I " Sociology," I, chaps. xx-xxvL OHAPTEE II. man's OEIGESr ACCOEDING TO SCIElfCE. " Everybody nowadays," says a brilliant writer, " talks about Evolution. Like Electricity, the Cholera- germ, Woman's rights, the great mining boom, and the Eastern question, it is ' in the air.' It pervades society everywhere with its subtile essence ; it infects small talk with its peculiar catchwords and slang phrases ; it even permeates that last stronghold of rampant Philis- tinism, the third leader in the penny papers. Every- body believes he knows all about it and discusses it as glibly as he discusses the points of race-horses he has never seen, the charms of peeresses he has never spoken to, and the demerits of authors he has never read. Everybody is aware, in a dim and nebulous semi-con- scious fashion, that it was all invented by the late Mr. Darwin, and 'reduced to a system by Mr. Herbert Spencer, don't you know, and a lot more of those scien- tific fellows. It is generally understood in the best-in- formed circles that Evolutionism consists for the most part in a belief about Nature at large essentially similar to that applied by Topsy to her own origin and early history. . "It is conceived, in short, that most things 'growed.' Especially is it known that, in the opinion of the Evolu- 38 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND OEBISTIANITY. tionists as a body, we are all of us ultimately descended from men with tails, who were the final offspring and improved edition of the common gorilla. " It is scarcely necessary," our author adds, " to in- form the intelligent reader, who, of course, differs fun- damentally from that inferior class of human beings known to all of us in our own minds as ' other people,' that almost every point in the catalogue thus briefly enumerated is a popular fallacy of the wildest description. "Mr. Darwin did not invent Evolution any more than George Stephenson invented the steam-engine, or Mr. Edison the electric telegraph. "We are not descended from men with tails any more than we are descended from Indian elephants. There is no evidence that we have anything in particular more than the remotest fiftieth cousinship with our poor relation — the West African gorilla. " Science is not in search of 'a missing link' ; few links are anywhere missing, and those are for the most part wholly unimportant ones. If we fotmd the imagi- nary link in question, he would not be a monkey, nor yet in any way a tailed man." * As an illustration of this profound ignorance of the nature, scope, and truth of Evolution, even among those who are supposed to be very learned people, I may mention the fact that an eminent Doctor of Divinity in a city in which I once lived, said in a public lecture, " When a crab develops into a monkey and a monkey into a man, I will accept Evolution " ! And this absurd ignorance passes for learning ! Hence it is necessary to briefly state the nature and scope of Evolution. * " Popular Science Monthly," March, 1888, pp. 636, 637. MAN'S ORIGIN AGOOBDINO TO 8GIENGE. 39 Prof. Joseph Le Conte, of the University of Cali- fornia, thus defines Evolution : " Evolution is (1) con- tinuous progressive change, (2) according to certain laws, (3) and by means of resident forces.''^ The first part of the definition is well illustrated in the development of the individual. Each one of us is an evolution. We begin our existence as a minute germ, -which adds cell to cell, tissue to tissue, organ to organ, and function to function, until we are finally evolved as infants ; and then we continue to develop into men and women. Here we see " progressive change " ; and this happens according to certain laws which are, generally speaking, three, viz., the Law of Differentiation, the Law of Progress of the Whole, and the Law of Cyclical Movement. The Law of Differentiation simply means the law of dvvefgence, and is illustrated by the developrhent of the acorn into the oak. The tree begins as a little seed, and by successive branching and rebranching, each branch taking a different direction and all growing wider and wider apart (differentiating), it finally stands forth as monarch of the forest. So, too, with the plant and animal kingdoms. Birds and reptiles, or fishes and reptiles, for instance, started from a common stock or root, and by successive branching and rebranching, each branch taking a different direction, and all growing wider and wider apart (differentiating) the movement has at last resulted in the present bird, reptile, and fish classes. Of course, in this process, during the long time of development, many intermediate forms — " con- necting links" — would die out, just as the buds and branches of a tree die and disappear ; and so the con- necting links between bird and reptile, fish and reptile, 40 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. man and the lower animal, may be forever lost ; yet this fact is quite unimportant : evolution rests on a different and more solid basis. Each branch of the bird and reptile classes has been traced back to the point where they shade into each other, so that it is impossible to say whether we should call the tirst known bird a reptiliam.-'bird or a hird-Uke reptile, and the significance of this fact can not be misr understood by the thoughtful mind. But the half hath not been spoken. There are myriads of Httle creatures which may be ca!i\.e^ plant-animals or animal-plants; for there are just as many reasons for naming them plants as there are for calling them animals ; and, on the other hand, there are just as many reasons for classing them among animals as there are for considering them plants. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that "the difference between animal and plant is one of degree rather than of Mnd ; and the problem whether, in a given case, an organism is an animal or a plant, may be essentially insoluble." * Suppose, then, that in the beginning of the history of life on earth, there existed creatures with plant-animal (or animal-plant) natures, which began to develop the one or the other side of such nature ; by successive branching and rebranching, each branch taking a different direction and all growing wider and wider apart (differentiating), we would in due time be presented with the plant and animal' kingdoms as we now have them. This is what is meant by the Law of Differentiation in the sphere of living organisms. * Huxley, " Science and Culture," p. 186. MAN'S ORIOIHr AG CORDING TO SCIENCE. 41 Bat can we go further? Can it be shown that Life itself has been dev^eloped from some lower form of force ? There are two radically different views, as is well known, on this subject : one holding that Life was an essentially Tiew force infused into Nature at a certain point in the process of evolution ; the other claiming that Life is only another manifestation of that Energy which on a lower plane is called " gravity " or " chemi- cal affinity." In support of the first view it is urged that Life can not now be produced by any combination of physical and chemical forces ; it must come from a living germ. But, in answer to this, Evolution urges that, in the beginning, the earth was in a different condition from what it now is, and hence combinations of lower forces or manifestations of the one eternal Energy may have occurred then which never can occur again in the history of, terrestrial life. Evolution must, of course, insist on this view, and I for one think it highly rational and probable, and see no more Materialism or Atheism in it than in that which holds that Life was specially created — ^i, e., was a new force infused into Nature at a given time ; for, even if we grant that Life was produced by a combination of lower forces, under peculiar con- ditions, the question inevitably arises, Whence 6ame thase forces and peculiar conditions 9 This takes us to the root of this whole maitter — to the time when " the earth was without form and void," when only a mighty cloud of atoms filled the realms of universal space. Further back than this Science can not take us ; here the mighty evolution of things commences. Beginning with this original nebula or cloud of atoms, with its in- herent forces, evolutionists argue that by branching and 42 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. rebranching, eacli brancli taking a different direction and all growing wider and wider apart (differentiating) the universe in all its magnificence and complexity has been produced. And this is what is meant by the Law of Differentiation as applied in evolutionary philosophy. The second Law is that of Progress of the "Whole. " Many imagine," says Prof. Le Conte, " that progress is the one law of evolution ; in fact, that evolution and progress are coextensive and convertible terms. They imagine that in evolution the movement must be up- ward and onward in all parts ; that degeneration is the opposite of evolution. This is far from the truth. There is, doubtless, in evolution, progress to higher and highes planes, but not along every line nor in every part ; for this would be contrary to the law of differen- tiation. It is only progress of the whole organic Tcing- dom in its entirety P An illustration will make this clear : " A growing tree branches and again branches in all directions, some branches going upward, some sidewise, and some downward — anywhere, everywhere, for light and air ; but the whole tree grows, ever taller in its higher branches, larger in the circumference of its outstretching arms, and more diversified in structure. Even so the tree of life, by the law of differentiation, branches and rebranches continually in all directions, some branches going upward to higher planes (progress), some pushing horizontally, neither rising nor sinking, but only going farther from the generalized origin (specialization) ; some going downward (degeneration), anywhere, everywhere, for an unoccupied place in the economy of Nature, but the whole tree grows ever higher in its highest parts, grander in its proportions, and more complexly diversified in its structure." MJJf'S ORIGIN ACGORDIFG TO 80IEN0E. 43 The third Law of Evolution is tliat called the Law of Cyclical Movement. In other words, although the evolutionary movement has ever been "onward and up- ward, yet it has not traveled at a uniform rate in the whole, much less in the parts, but it has moved in suc- cessive cycles. " The tide of evolution rose ever higher and higher, without ebb, but it nevertheless came in suc- cessive waves, each higher than the preceding and over- borne by the succeeding." This successive culmination of higher and higher classes of beings has also been aptly compared to a growing tree — to the flowering and fruiting of successive higher and higher branches. " Each uppermost branch, under the genial heat and light of direct sunshine, received in abundance, by reason of position, grew rapidly ; but quickly dwindled when overshadowed by still higher branches, which, in their turn, monopolized for a time the precious sun- shine." But when each ruling class declined in im- portance, it did not perish altogether, but continued in a subordinate position — a degenerated state — a sort of stepping-stone to higher things — an Ichabod of Evor lution. Thus, the first two sections of our definition of Evo- lution, namely, that it is a progressive change according to the laws of differentiation, cyclical movement, and progress of the whole, have been explained. The last section, which teaches that these changes are produced Jyy forces residing in, the organisms themsel/oes, is per- haps the most important. But I dispose of this part of the subject in the judicious and philosophic words of Prof. Le Conte. " When the Evolutionist," he says, "speaks of the forces that determine progressive changes in organic forms as resident or inherent, all that he 44 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CERISTIANITT. means, or ought to mean, is that they are resident in the same sense as all natural forces are resident ; in the same sense that the vital forces of the emhryo are resi- dent in the embryo — in other words, they are natural, not supernatural. This does not, of course, touch that deeper, that deepest of all questions, viz., the essential nature and origin of natural forces ; how far they are independent and self-existent, and how far they are only modes of Divine Energy. This is a question of philosophy, not of science." * And I have given my views on this subject in the first chapter of this work. Having now given an idea of the laws and scope of' evolution, I pass to its factors or causes. But I shall mention only the five chief factors so far ascertained. First, there is Environment or surrounding conditions, climate, food, light, water, etc. When an oyster, for instance, is transferred from the shores of England into the Mediterranean Sea, its shell undergoes certain changes which are due to a change of external condi- tions. When Ohio sheep are transferred to Texas, in. a few years their wool loses the distinctive quality it formerly had, and takes on a new character belonging to the breeds of Texas. Indeed, the common fact that one has to become " acclimated " to a new region illus- trates this, as sojne believe, " the primordial factor of organic Evolution "^ — e. g., Spencer, Kiley.f A second cause of Evolution is use and disuse of organs. The athlete develops his muscles by exercise, while he reduces them when he deserts the gymnasium * " Evolution and its Relation to Religious Tliought," pp. 8-31. t " Popular Science Monthly," February, 1889, p. 489. MAN'S ORIGIN AGOORDINQ TO SCIENCE. 45 or the field for the study. The giraffe has, probably, acquired its long neck by constant reaching u.p to the boughs of trees ; the monkey has acquired its opposable thumb by constant grasping at the neighboring branches ; and the serpent has acquired its sinuous shape by con- stant wriggling through the grass of the meadows. At least, this was the view of the great French naturalist, Lamarck, who flourished during the first half of this century, and the two factors in question are now gen- erally recognized by scientists. To these Mr. Charles Darwin added two other factors, namely, " lliTatural Selection " and " Sexual Selection." The first simply means that, among the manifold varieties of plants and animals which are constantly originated in Nature, some are better adapted to surrounding conditions than are others, and by virtue of this constitutional advantage they survive in " the struggle for existence " which rages everywhere in the animal and vegetable world, while their weaker fellows are killed off, and thus bet- ter varieties, species, genera, races, etc., are produced. Illustrations of this law will occur to every mind. The little pig ("runt"), for instance, which is beaten away from the trough by his more vigorous relations until he dies of abuse and starvation, affords a very common in- stance of the operation of " Natural Selection." " Sexual Selection " means that choice of the strong- est and most attractive males which the females gener- ally exercise in selecting family partners. " Among all animals," says Mr. Darwin, " there is a struggle for the possession of the female. Hence the females have the opportunity of selecting one out of several males, on the supposition that their mental capacity suflSces for such a choice." This being generally true, the females 46 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. select the strongest and most attractive, and ttus im- prove and diversify their species. Perhaps our " society belles," who select ths " dudes," instead of men of supe- rior intellectual and moral character, might learn a lesson jEroin their humbler relations. To these four factors — modification by environment, modification by use and disuse of organs. Natural Selection, and Sexual Selection — must be added that formulated by Dr. Ro- manes, called " Physiological Selection." This eminent scientist observed and emphasized the fact that the re- productive organ is, of all other organs, the most subject to variation in its degrees and hi/nds of fertility, and this, he thinks, explains the origin of many so-called " species." Owing to the extreme variability of the reproductive organ, radical variations from the parental type would occur, by which the offspring would be rendered infer- tile with the parent stock, and yet they would be per- fectly fertile among themselves. Here, then, we would have the beginning of a (so-called) species. To illus- trate : the common dog was made by a mixture of several species of wolf. Suppose that, in the beginning, there occurred some variation in the wolf type due to a change in the reproductive organ by which a " doggish " offspring was produced which was infertile with the parental stock, but fertile with animals which varied in the same direction. A cross between these, which would naturally and necessarily happen, would, of course, produce a more " doggish " creature, which, in turn, would produce another, and so on, until the com- mon dog would be the result. It thus appears that " Physiological Selection " throws much light upon the origin of species, and especially upon the knotty ques- MAN'S ORIGIN AGO ORBING TO SCIENCE. 47 tion of hybridism. The common objection, based upon the fact that a cross between certain animals (an ass and a horse, for instance) produces a hybrid (a mule), which is incapable of breeding, has received not a little attention from scientists, and Physiological Selection an- swers, to a very great extent, this objection. By virtue of the operation of this law, infertility is produced be- tween certain branches of the animal kingdom, and these continue to grow farther and farther apa/rt until the possibility of interbreeding them becomes as hope- less as the attempt to nnite the ends of a tree's boughs ; we must go down the trunk, begin at the bottom, and work upward. But the thoughtful reader is, of course, asking : " What makes the reproductive orgam,, or, in- deed, any other organ, vary from its original type f What is the prime factor in this process ? " To which I reply : It is just here that those differences of opinion arise which half -informed people — but only these — fancy are fatal to the whole theory of evolution, or rather to the fact of evolution ; for it should be care- fully borne in mind that the theory of evdlution and the fact oi evolution are two entirely different things. All, or nearly all, scientists accept the latter ; but there are many and different schools (Latnarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian, etc.) of evolutionists, and these are charac- terized by the advocacy of the different theories con- cerning the causes of evolution which Lamarck, Dar- win, or Spencer has formulated. I am an evolutionist. I believe that man has been evolved, hody and soul, from a lower animal form ; but without accepting any of the aforementioned theories, I aim to separate the chaff of error from the grain of truth. I believe, with Mr. Spencer and others, that " it is as yet far too soon 48 EVOLUTION OF MAW AND CHRISTIANITT. to close the inquiry concerning the causes of organic evolution."* Mr. Spencer's discussions on this sub- ject, together with what Darwin wrote in his various works, and what Semper wrote in his " Animal Life," express the most satisfactory view of the subject ; while Prof. Riley's admirable address before the (1888) meet- ing of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is an excellent popular exposition of the causes of variation.f A careful perusal of these authors will — or ought to — convince the most skeptical that the day is not distant when a satisfactory theory of evolution will be formulated. But, however this may be, let.it be remembered that the fact of evolution is fully estab- lished and almost universally accepted by those who are authorities in science. Thus, Prof. Le Conte says: "We are confident that evolution is absolutely certain ; not, indeed, evolution as a special theory — Lamarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian — for these are all more or less successful modes of explaining evolution ; nor evolution as a school of thought, with its following disciples — for in this sense it is still in the field of discussion — ^but evolution as a law of derivation of forms from previous forms j evolution as a law of continuity, as a universal law of hecoming. . . . The words evolutionism and evo- lutionist ought not any longer to be used, any more than gravitationisin and gravitationist." ^ Hence it would be well for those who fancy that an explosion of Mr. Darwin's or Mr. Spencer's theories is * " Popular Science Monthly," June, 1886, p. 305. CI. Principles of Biology I, Plate III, Chapter viii-xi. f " Popular Science Monthly," February and April, 1889. * "" Byolution and its Eelation to Religious Thought," pp. 65, 66. MAN'S ORIOm AOGORDma TO 80IENCE. 49 tlie destmction of evolution, to look more carefully into the subject. The evidences of man's development from a lower animal form are derived chiefly from fov/r sources, viz., Paleontology, Morphology, Yariability, and Em- bryology. I. It is a most significant fact- that the farther hack m time we go, the simpler the forms of animal and plant life heoome, and those forms occur, in the order of their origination, just as if they were devdoped one from another. The lowest and oldest form of animal life so far found in the bowels of the Earth is the Eozoon,* or "Dawn Animal," discovered and named by Prof. J. W. Dawson, of McGill University, Canada. Eozoon " seems to have been a sessile creature resting on the bottom of the sea, and covering its gelatinous body with a thin crust of carbonate of Hme, or lime- stone, adding to this, as it grew in size, crust after crust attached to each other by numerous partitions, and per- ;forated with pores for the emission of gelatinous fila- ments. ... In the modern seas, among the multitude of low forms of life with which they swarm, occur some in which the animal matter is a mere jeUy, almost without distinct parts or organs, yet unquestionably endowed with life of an animal character." These small and often microscopic animals are not so large as Eosoon, which somewhat resembles them. Eozoon is not the oldest organism, but only the oldest yet discovered. " The existence of such creatures," says Prof. Dawson, " supposes that pf other organisms, probably microscopic * "-There is much doubt now as to the nature of "^oaoSw, whether orgaaie or mineral in origin." — Le Conte. 50 EVOLUTION OF MAW AND GHEISTIANITY. plants, on which they could feed. No traces of these have been observed, though the great quantity of car- bon in the beds probably implies the existence of larger sea-weeds. No other form of animal has yet been dis- tinctly recognized in the Laurentian limestones, but there are fragments of calcareous matter which may have belonged to organisms distinct from Eozoon." * It is not necessary to my purpose to discuss either the question of organisms lower than the Eozoon, though, of course, on evolution principles, such must have existed, or the question whether such organisms were developed from non-living matter (I have already given my opinion on this subject) ; but I may take Eozoon as the starting-point of animal life, and coming up the scale (see diagram), we notice that higher and more complex organisms arise until the progress ends in man, " the lord of creation." Beginning with the " Protozoa " {Eozoon, etc.), we find Crustaceans, Corals, and Mollusks ; then Fishes and Amphibians ; 'then Reptiles and Mammals ; and, finally, Man. Of course, there are many missing pages in this geological history; for instance, "between the time when Eozoon Ocmadense fiourished in the Laurentian period and the Cambrian age a great gap (Huronian period, see diagram) evidently exists in our knowledge of the succession of life " (Dawson), and this imperfec- tion of the geological record has, of course, been cited by anti-evolutionists as a complete refutation of the doc- trine of descent. But there is just about as much reason in this procedure as there would be in citing " the gap " in a book, some of whose leaves had been torn out, • Dawson's " Story of the Earth and Man," pp. 23-35. , MAN'S OBiaiN ACCORDINa TO SQIENOE. 51 Diagram of the Earth's History. Periods. Animals. Plants. 'Modern. Post-pliocene, Pliocene. Miocene. Eocene. Age of Man and Mammals. Age of Angiosperms and Palms. ■g (Cretaceous. o - Jurassic. g Triassic. Age of Reptiles. Age of Cycads and Pines. c5 ■3 r Permian. Carboniferous. Devonian. Silurian. Cambrian. . Huronian. Age of Amphibians and Fishes. Age of Acrogens and Gymnosperms. Age of MoUusks, Corals, and Crustaceans. Age of Algs. .S ) 1 -Laurentian. Age of Protozoa, Bozoon, etc. Plants not deter- minable. 52 EYOLUTIOR OF MAN AND CHRISTIAmTT. which yet had an index to show that such leaves must have once existed. We shall see that Embryology fur- nishes an index to the book of life which necessitates the existence of the missing leaves in the geological record. JS[one are more fully aware of the imperfec- tion of the geological record than evolutionists them- selves, and tbey have successfully met all the objections of their opponents. Thus, Prof. Le Oonte, while gen- erously acknowledging that there is much force in the objection under consideration, disposes of it in a most satisfactory manner. He gives several solutions of the diflBculty, the most conclusive of which is the follow- ing : " The steps of evolution m-e not uniform, Near- ly all evolutionists have assumed and even insisted on uniformity, as the opposite of catastrophism and of su- pernaturalism, and therefore as essential to the idea of evolution. They say that the constancy of the action of the forces of change necessitates the uniformity of the rate of change. "Eut, in fact, this is not always nor even usually tnie. Causes or forces are constant, but phenomena every- where and in every department of Nature are paroayys- malP To illustrate : " Water running with great re- sistance in small pipes is checked, but soon accumulates additional force, which overcomes the resistance, only to be again checked, and so on, and therefore runs in pulses. ISTow, the course of evolution of the whole earth may be likened to such a current : there are forces of movement and forces of resistance — progressive forces and conservative forces. The progressive force is accu- mulative, the resisting force is constant. Thus, in all .evolution or history, whether of the earth or of society, there are periods of comparative quiet during which MAIf'S ORIGIN AGOORDINO TO SOIENGE. 63 the forces of change are gathering strength and periods of fevohition or rapid change, during which these forces show themselves in conspicuous effects. " The consequence is, that there is an apparent break (oftentimes) in the continuity of hfe-forms ; but un- doubtedly this is only apparent, and if we could recover the record, as indeed we sometimes do, we should find' in all cases that there is no break, but only more rapid rate of change at these times."* When " the gaps " in the geological record may be thus easily explained, it is surely folly to insist that they present insuperable difficulties. Prof. Alexander Win- cheU, of Ann Arbor, summarizes ihe paleontologioal evi- dence of evolution thus : " In spite of all this (imperfection), paleontology has been able to establish the following principles : " 1. There has been gradual improvement in the structural rank of the leading type of animals as the history advanced from age to age. " 2. The earlier condition of each animal type was a comprehensive one, in which certain characteristics of two or more families or orders were united in one spe- cies. " 3. The tendency of change has been toward the resolution of comprehensive types, so that the charac- teristics of each separate family or order should finally be embodied in separate species. "4. While this process of resolution of comprehen- sive types has been in progress, still further differentia- tions and specializations, both in the comprehensive and the resolved forms, have taken place. * " Evolution and its Kelation to Religious Thought," pp. 232-247. 54 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRISTIANITY. " 5. The progress of discovery has gone so far that we have established not only a steady progression up- ward in the animal series at large, but also in several ramifications of the series." Prof. Winchell traces the line of development in the Bird, the Camel, and the Rhinoceros series ; but to avoid, as much as possible, the use of technical terms, I shall trace the evolution of the Horse only, which in- stance will su^ciently illustrate the evolution of other animals. " The horse," saj s Prof. Le Conte, " came from a ^'VQ-toeA, plantigrade ancestor, but we are not able to trace the direct line of genesis quite so far. The earliest stage we can trace with certainty, in this line of descent, is found in the JEohippus of Marsh. This was a small animal, no bigger than a fox, with three toes behind and four serviceable toes in front, with an additional fifth palm-bone (splint) and perhaps a rudimentary fifth toe like a dew-claw. This was in early Eocene times " (see diagram). " Then, in later Eocene, came the (higher form) Orohippus, which differs from the last chiefly in the disappearance (absorption) of the rudimentary fifth toe and splint. Next, in the Miocene (diagram) came the .MesoMppus and Miohippus. These were larger animals (about the size of a sheep), and had three serv- iceable toes all around ; but in the former the rudiment of a fourth splint in the fore-limb yet remained. Then in the Lower Pliocene (diagram) came the Protohippus and PlioMppus. These were still larger animals, being about the size of an ass. In the former the two side- toes were shortenirfg up and the middle toes becoming larger. In the latter the two side-toes had become splints. Lastly, only in the Qivaternary (latest forma- tion) comes the genus Equus, or true horse. The size MAN'S ORIOm AOOORBING TO SOIENOE. 55 of the animal is become greater, the middle toe stronger, the side splints smaller; but in the side splints of the modem horse we have still remaining the evidence of its three-toed ancestor. Similar gradual changes may be traced in the two bones, which have consolidated into one ; in the teeth, which have become progressively longer and more complex in structure, and therefore better grinders ; in the position of the heel and wrist, which have become higher above-ground ; in the gen- eral form, which has become more graceful and agile ; and, lastly, in the brain, which has become progressive- ly larger and more complex in its convolutions — to give greater battery power — to work the improved skeletal machine." * This beautiful instance of evolution illustrates Prof. Winchell's remark that there has been "not only a steady progression upward in the animal series at large, but also in several separate ramifications of the series." The first known bird (as we have seen) may be consid- ered either a reptilian-bird or a bird -like reptile, so nearly does it approach the bird and reptile series ; in short, it is " the connecting link " between these, and they have both been differentiated and developed from this common source, as Prof. Winchell shows. Lastly, he says : " The tendency of fresh discovery is continually to fill up pre-existing gaps. Serial successions are being completed from year to year ; connecting links are coming to light ; terms thought misplaced are found, through new discoveries, to be in proper successional order. . . . We anticipate, accordingly, that in the course of time it will be shown that our earth has been * "Evolution and its Relation to Eeligious Thought," pp. 108-110. 56 EVOLUTION' OF MAN AND OHRISTIANITT. ' the abode of complete successions of animal types lead- ing backward from each of our modern generic or fam- ily groups by ever-converging lines, toward ancestral centers, and from these centers other lines pointing toward some common center in the remoter past. We expect to see the consecutive terms in these various se- ries graduating structurally into each other ; and every characteristic conformed and arranged as if there had been a gradual descent of all our modern mammals- along a set of diverging lines from some primitive, planti- grade, five-toed ancestor. " This is the generalization which the known facts and the known tenor of the facts authorize us to draw." * If, now, the radical skeptic, deaf alike to the voice of reason and fact, still insist that, although the forms of animal life do occur in the history of the earth just as if they were developed out of one another, yet we can not. demonstrate such development, we reply by citing the facts of embryology which Prof. Winehell truly says do " demonstrate that the derivative relation of such terms as paleontology presents is an ever- repeated reality." II. Next, we consider the Morphological evidence of evolution — that is, the evidence afforded by a study of the structure of various animal types ; and here again I follow Prof. Winehell, partly because his summary of evidence is brief and masterly, but especially, because I hope the words of a Christian and a practical scientist may have more weight in certain quartel's than either my own opinion or those of agnostic and skeptical natu- * Winchell's " Sparks from a Geologist's Hammer," pp. 339-341. MAN'S ORIGIN AGOOBDINO TO SGIENOE. 57 ralists. " Every one," says Prof. Winchell, " understands what is meant by saying one person bears a family re- semblance to another. It implies that there is a blood connection between them. In some generation more or less remote their lineage converges, and the same parents stand as common ancestors to both persons. Precisely the same thing is involved in the statement that the dog, the wolf, and the jackal have a family re semblance — or the cat, the lynx, the ounce, and the panther. The resemblances in these families are not so close as in the human family ; but they are of the same kind, and they impress themselves on us in the same way and with the same effect. The children of John Smith are quite certain to resemble their parents, and may reproduce predominantly traits of their grand parents or remoter progenitors." This happens, of course, according to the well-recog- nized law of heredity. " It is certainly safe," continues Prof. Winchell, " on grounds of natural evidence, to admit that family resemblances among animals, as among mankind, imply community of descent. "This principle achieved, very much is found in- volved in it. Resemblances of the same nature as those called family resemblances exist between groups of ani- mals and plants quite widely differentiated from each other. We do not say the mouse and the rhinoceros pos- sess a family resemblance, but it is demonstrable that they do possess profound resemblances aggregating vastly more than all their differences. Their differences relate to size, covering, habits, and other trivial circumstances ; while their resemblances include skeletal framework, circulatory, digestive, respiratory, and reproductive or- ganization, as well as the general plan, arrangements, 58 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. juxtaposition, connection, and coaction of these sys- tems, and all the minuter plan, substance, structure, de- velopment, and action of bone, nerve, skin, fibers, mem- branes, etc. Finally, both have warm blood, respire air, and nourish their young with milk. " How can we escape the conviction that these ani- mals, also, owe their amazing similarity of constitu- tion to their common descent from some remote an- cestor?"* If this conclusion seems startling to any of my read- ers, it will appear less so the more they study Mor- phology Thus, Prof. Le Conte shows, by a comparison of the fore-Kmbs of mainmals, birds, reptiles, and fishes, that they are all constructed on the same fundamental plan. He traces the gradual changes in the collar-bone, in the position of the elbow, in the bones of the forearm, in the position of the wrist, in the tread, number of toes, modifications for flight, etc. He concludes by saying that, in an early period of the eartli's history, " fishes were the only representatives of the vertebrate (back- bone) type of structure. The vertebrate machine was then a swimming-machine. In the course of time, when all was ready and conditions were favorable, reptiles were introduced. Here, then, is a new function — that of locomotion on land. We want a walking-machine. Shall we have a new organ for this function ? No ; the old swimming-organ is modified so as to adapt it for walking. Time went on, and birds were introduced. Here is a new and wonderful function, that of flying in the air. We want a flying-machine. Nature (unlike * " Sparks from a Geologist's Hammer," pp. 333-335. MAN'S ORIGIN ACCORDING TO SCIENCE. 59 man) modifies the fore-limbs for tKis new purpose. If we must have wings, we must sacrifice fore-legs. "We can not have both without violating the laws of Mor- phology. " Finally, ages again passed, and, when time was fully ripe, man was introduced. Now we want some part to perform a new and still more wonderful function. We want a hand, the willing and efficient servant of a ra- tional mind. But, if we want hands, we must sacrifice feet. Again, therefore, the fore-limbs are modified for this new and exquisite function. Thus, in the fin of the fish, the fore-paw of a reptile or mammal, the wing of a bird, and the arm and hand of a man, we have the same part variously modified for many purposes." Prof. Le Conte, in the chapter immediately following the one just referred to, discusses the structures of the Articulates, or jointed animals, such as worms, cray- fishes, lobsters, etc., and shows ihat, whether they origi- nated by derivation one from another or not, " it is certain that the structure of the articulate animals is ex- actly such as would be the case if all these animals were genetically connected and came originally from a pri- mal form something like one of the lower Crustaceans, or perhaps a marine worm." * Hence it is incumbent upon the anti-evolutionists to formulate a more rational theory of creation, which, we feel sure, can not be done. Such, then, is what Morphology has to say about the origination of the manifold forms of plant and animal life ; and what an inspiring study it is ! What infinite wisdom is displayed in the marvelous modifications of * " Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought," pp. 92-130. 4 60 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GERI8TIANITT. the original forms ! How mueli nobler is this view than that which presents us with a " workshop " of the Almighty Maker, thus reducing Him to a sort of tinker ! * III. The third source of evidence proving man's evolution from a lower form is found in the facts of Variahility. What is meant by this will appear from the following anecdote told me by a friend, a pigeon- fancier : He once made a bet with a friend that within a year from that time he could get a pair of perfectly white pigeons out of his flock, although he had no. bird with a single white feather in his plumage to begin with. Of course, the bet was accepted, and my friend eagerly awaited the advent of some pigeon with a white feather in his coat. In due time one came from a neighbor's yard, and he caught and cooped him up with one of his own birds. The result was the produc- tion of an offspring with some white feathers in its plumage, and my friend continued to select and match together the birds which varied in the white feather direction until, sure enough, he got his white pair of pigeons within a year, and won his bet. And it is well known to pigeon-fanciers that all pigeons — the pouters, tumblers, carriers, fantails, etc. — are descendants from one kind — the Kock Pigeon. Having in mind the doc- trine of evolution, I asked my friend if he thought it possible by artificial selection, to entirely change the type of the pigeon, to make another bird out of him. " Oh, no," he replied, " it will always be essentially a pigeon." Now, this has been the universal opinion until a com- * See Dawson's " Story of the Earth and Man,'' p. 27, where this phrase is actually used. MAN'S ORIGIN ACGOSBING TO SGIENOE. 61 paratively recent period. Species were (and are still in some quarters, chiefly theological) considered groups of plants or. animals staked ofE from certain others by in- surmountable barriers. But it was the glory of the late Mr. Charles Darwin to show, in his great work, " The Origin of Species," that some such process as that adopted by my friend takes place among wild animals, and he earnestly and ably contended that there is no such thing as an absolutely unchangeable Species. The terrible storm which his book created in the scientific and theological world has scarcely died away even now ; but its thunders are only heard in the distance, and his views are pretty generally accepted among scientists, while they are growing in favor with theologians. "Some cases of transmutation of spe- cies," says Prof. Winchell, " have actually been traced, and evidence has been gained that the gradational series connecting species of animals and plants long regarded as distinct, are, in truth, only transitional states of one of the species in its passage over to the other." In the case of birds, for instance, "certain forms have long been known from widely separated regions and universally regarded as distinct species — as distinct as any. But by minute examinations of intermediate regions, a complete series of intermediate forms has been picked up. This has occurred not only in one case, but in many cases, and not only in birds, but in many other classes ; examples increase with our increas- ing knowledge. The only answer to such evidence is, that these are not true species. Now, see the fallacy lurking here. Anti-Evolutionists define species as forms distinct and without intermediate links, and require us 62 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. to find such intermediate links ; and, finally, when with infinite pains, some such links are found, they say : " Oh, I see we were mistaken ; they are only varieties." "But there are some cases in which this subterfuge will not do. There are cases in which the transitions are between forms so extreme that they can not, by any stretch of the term, be called varieties. In Wiir- temberg (Germany), near the little village of Steinheim, are found certain fresh -water deposits which are ex- tremely rich in fossil shells, especially of the genus called Planorbi^. As the deposits seem to have been continuous for ages, and the fossil shells very abundant, this seemed to be an excellent opportunity to test the theory of derivation." Accordingly, Prof. Alpheus Hyatt, of Boston, made a most thorough examination of these shells in 1880. " In passing from the lowest to the highest strata the species change greatly, and many times, the extreme forms being so different, that, were it not for the intermediate forms, they would be called not only different species, but different genera. And yet the gradations are so insensible that the whole series is nothing less than a demonstration, in this case, at least, of origin of species by derivation with modifica- tions. The case is striking, partly because it is a very favorable one, but mainly because it has been so care- fully studied. There can be no doubt that equally careful study vrould reveal the same transitions in many other cases. !N"or are such transitions confined to the lower forms of life, though they are probably more abundant there. According to Prof. Cope, the nicest gradations may be traced between some of the extinct mammalian species so abundant in the Tertiary deposits of the West," and Prof. Le Conte thinks that " the same MAN'S ORiam AOCORDING TO 8GIEN0E. 63 is probably true of many extinct species of the horse family." * Thus, at last, this common but superficial objec- tion to evolution has been exploded. " The sum total of the variational evidence shows us that the de- rivative origin of types in paleontological history is a natural possibility." lY. But, in the fourth place, we have the Enibryo- logioal evidence — that is, proofs afforded by the devel- opment of each individual from a minute speck called the enibryo. "This seems to us to bring all the other evidence to a focus and complete the conviction that the derivative origin of species is a fact. It affords not only a picture of the succession of extinct forms., but it is a picture in which the successive terms are hnown to be derivatively related to each other." (Win- cheU.) "It is a curious and most significant fact," says Prof. Le Oonte, " that the individual animal in embry- onic development passes through temporary stages which are similar ia mauy respects to permanent conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group. To give one example for the sake of clearness : the frog, in its early stages of embryonic development, is essentially a fish, and if it stopped at this stage would be so called and classed- But it does not stop ; it passes through the fish stage and several other stages. In its tadpole (or first) state it is a gill-breather. It has, therefore, its gill- arches, three on each side, like a fish, and for the same reason viz., the aeration of the blood. But when its gills dry up and lung-respiration is established, its now * " Evolutioa and its Relation to Religious Thought," pp. 61, 236-239. 64 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. useless gill-arclies still remain as aortic arches to attest their previous condition." Take another example, the lizard. " If one examines the large vessels going out from the heart of a lizard, he will find six arches (called aortic arches), i. e., three on a side. These all unite he- low the heart to form one descending abdominal artery. Now, there is no conceivable use in having so many of these arches, as we know from the fact that birds and mammals have only one aortic arch, and the circulation of the blood is as effective as, nay, much more effective in these than in reptiles. The explanation of this anomaly," Prof. Le Conte adds, " is revealed at once as soon as we examine the circulation of a fish. The multiplication of aortic arches is here, of course, nec- essary, for they are the gill-arches. If, now, a lizard were ever a fish and afterward turned into a lizard, changing its gill-respiration for lung-respiration, then, of course, the useless gill-arches will remain to tell the story. " Now, although a lizard never was a fish in its indi- vidual history, yet it was a fish in \\& family history, and therefore it yet retains, by heredity, this curious and useless structure as evidence of its ancestry." We thus see that " the embryo of a higher animal of any group passes now through stages represented by lower forms, hecause in its evolution its ancestors did actually have these forms. From this point of view, then, the history of each individual (its development) is a brief repetition as it were, from memory, of the main points of family history. ... It is a most curious and signifi- cant fact that, in the early embryonic condition of birds and mammals, including man, we find on each side of the neck several gill-slits, each with its gill-arch, and MAIf'S ORiam AGGORDINQ TO SCIENCE. 65 there are several aortic arches on each side precisely as we hare already described." These arches are subsequently, some of them, oblit- erated ; some modified to form the one aortic arch, and some of them still more modified to form the other great arteries coming from the heart to supply the head and fore-limbs. This is a beautiful and convincing ex- ample of evolution. " See, then, the gradual process of change through the whole vertebrate (backboned) de- partment. In the lowest of all vertebrates, if vertebrate it may be called (for what corresponds to its backbone is an unjointed fibrous cord) — i. e., in the lancelet — there are about forty gill-arches on each side. As we rise in the- scale of fishes, these are reduced in number. In the lamprey there are seven ; in the sharks usually five ; in ordinary fishes there are four, sometimes only three on each side, the others being aborted. Thus far the change is only by diminution of numbers, but the further change is one of adaptive modification. In some reptiles (the lizard for instance) the three gill- arches on each side all retain the form of aortic arches ; in some reptiles only two retain this form. In birds and mammals only one arch is retained, in the form of aortic arch, the others being modified to form the great outgoing vessels of the heart, or else aborted." Having thus made it clear, I hope, that " the indi- vidual higher animal in embryonic development passes now through temporary stages which are similar in many respects to permanent or mature conditions in some of the lower forms in the same group," and this " because in its evolution its ancestors did actually have these forms," I now quote Prof, Le Conte's masterly sketch of the evolution of man's brain, which shows 66 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITT. that he is a descendant of fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals : " The very early condition of the human brain " (in embryo), says our author, " is nothing more than the intercranial continuation of the spinal cord enlarged a little into three swellings (ganglia). . . . This stage may be regarded as lower than that of the ordinary fish. I have, tberefore, called it the sub-fish stage. The cere- bellum is a subsequent growth from the medulla, as is the cerebrum and olfactive lobes from the thalamus. This next stage, therefore, may" be said to represent fair- ly th.e fi^h-stage. Henceforward the principal growth is in the cerebrum and cerebellum, both of which are subsequent outgrowths of the original simple ganglia, the medulla, and the thalamus. " The cerebrum especially increases steadily in rela- tive size, first becoming larger than but not covering the optic lobes. This represents the r&ptiliom stage. Next, by further growth it covers partly the optic lobes. This may be called the hird stage. Then it covers wholly the optic lobes, and encroaches on the cerebel- lum behind and olfactive lobes in front. This is the mammalian stage. Finally, it covers and overhangs all, and thus assumes the human stage." Prof. Le Oonte, in the chapter from which I have thus quoted at length,* gives woodcuts of all these stages of development of man's brain ; and any one who will read the chapter carefully and understand it must, I think, be convinced that the human brain passes through such stages of development because and only because * " Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought," Part II, chap. vL MAN'S OBiam AOOORDma to science. 67 man is a descendant of animals which possessed brains corresponding to these temporary stages of embryonic evolution. " Fishes," says Prof. Le Conte, "were the only vertebrates living in the Devonian times (see dia- gram). " The first form of brain, therefore, was that charac- teristic of that class. Then reptiles were introduced ; then birds and marsupials ; then true mammals ; and, lastly, man. The different styles of brains characteristic of these classes were, therefore, successively made by evolution from early and simpler forms." Man's de- velopment, therefore, in embryo, " is a brief repetition from memory, so to speak, of his family history." To prevent misunderstanding, it seems necessary to quote and emphasize Mr. Spencer's remarks on the popular misapprehfension of this argument made by popular treatises on evolution. " An impression," he says, " has been given by those who have popularized the statements of embryologists, that, during its devel- opment, each organism passes through stages in which it resembles the adult forms of lower organisms ; that the embryo of a man is at one time like a fish, and at another time like a man. This is not a fact. The fact established is, that wp to a certain point the emhryos of a man and a fish continue simila/r, and that then differences hegin to ajppea/r and increase — the, one -em- hryo approaching more and more towa/rd the form of afijsh, the other diverging from it more and more. "And so with resemblances to the more advanced types. Supposing -the germs of all kinds of organisms to be simultaneously developing, we may say that all members of the vast multitude take their first steps in the same direction ; that at the second step one half of 68 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHBISTIANITY. this vast multitude diverges from the other half, and thereafter follows a different course of development; that the immense assemblage contained in either of these divisions very soon again shows a tendency to take two or more routes of development ; that each of the two or more minor assemblages thus resulting shows for a time but small divergences among its mem- bers, but presently again divides into groups which separate ever more widely as they progress; and so on, until each organism, when nearly complete, is ac- companied in its further modifications only by organ- isms of the same species ; and, last of all, assumes the peculiarities which distinguish it as an individual — diverges to a slight extent to the organisms it is most like. The reader must also be cautioned against ac- cepting this generalization as exact. The likenesses thus successively displayed are not precise, but approx- imate." But the important question is, Why these approxi- mate likenesses ? Why should there be any such strik- ing embryonic resemblances, if all animals be not genet- ically related — do not belong to one great genealogical tree ? Mr. Spencer replies, with all other evolutionists, that this question is unanswerable except on the evolu- tion-hypothesis. He believes, as firmly as any other evolutionist, that the embryonic resemblances are due to community of origin.* And so, to quote Prof. Winchell's forcible summary of the evidences of man's development from lower forms : " Paleontological history exhibits a series in which the continued interpolation of newly discovered terms pro- * " Principles of Biology," I, p. 143 ; of. Part III, chap. v. MAIf'S ORIGIN' ACCORDING TO SCIENCE. 69 duces the suspicion of a perfectly graduated and genetic line. It suggests material continuity as a jpossMUty and a promise. Morphological relations present such continuity as something which within the range of ob- servation is 2i ;prohahility. The phenomena of Vari- ahility reveal a disposition and an aptitude on the part of Nature to fulfill the ' promise,' and make the ' prob- ability ' cpmpletely a fact. The data of Embryology (note well) demonstrate that the derivative relation of such terras as paleontology presents is and ever — re- peated actuality. Now, with the work completed in the ontogenetic epitome, and with this proof of Na- ture's method and the variational proof of Nature's method and means, it is little stretch of belief to grant that Nature pursued the method of derivative origi- nations during the whole period of paleontological history." * Under the pressure of these and similar facts and arguments, some scientists and theologians have been compelled to grant that man's physical organism has been developed from a lower animal form, but they draw a line at his spiritual nature ; assert that his spirit could not have been evolved from the anima of animals. But the ground is being rapidly cut from under their feet by Mr. Herbert Spencer, Prof. Eomanes, and others.f For my own part, I see no possibility of drawing so imaginary a line, and therefore I accept the * "Sparks from a Geologist's Hammer," p. 348. Cortipare Mr. Spencer's " Biology," I, chapters iv-vii, on the Evidences of Evolu- tion, and Dr. Romanes's pamphlet on " The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution," Humbolt Library, No. 40. t Spencer's " Psychology," Romanes's " Animal Intelligence," " Mental Evolution in Animals," " Mental Evolution in Man," etc. 70 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRISTIANITT. evolution of man, hody and soul, from tlie lower ani- mals. We have been compelled to grant evolution in Astronomy, Geology, and Biology, and it is folly to ask the evolutionists to stop short at Psychology and Sociology. We should gratefully accept their deliver- ies on these subjects and readjust our theology accord- ingly. In saying this, however, I would not be under- stood as indorsing or adopting any particular theory of Evolution (Lamarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian, or other) ; but I mean to say we should accept the fact of evolution in all its length and breadth and depth and height, and give due weight to all the factors or causes of evolution which the diEEerent scientists discover, wait- ing patiently till all the laws and causes of evolution be discovered before we formulate an evolutionary creed. In view of the statements just made concerning the evolution of man's mind, it may be thought that I should give the facts and reasons upon which such state- ments are based. This 1 shall not do, for two cogent reasons : First, space will not permit it ; and, seisondly, if one accept the evolution of man's physical nature, he will not hesitate very long to accept mental evolu- tion — especially if he will read Mr. Spencer's "Psy- chology " and Prof. Romanes's works referred to above. These able treatises seem to me quite satisfactory, and therefore I content myseK with referring the reader to them. Let me add that no one is more conscious than I am of the imperfection of the sketch of Man's evo- lution thus given ; but it was impossible to make it more perfect in the space allotted to me, and my simple object has been to give the reader the right point of view, to break down popular superficial objections to the doctrine of evolution, and to show that it is on MAN'S ORIGIN AGOORDINQ TO SOIJENGE. 71 ctimera, but a fact. If I have succeeded in doing this, I am satisiied to refer my reader for full information to the works of Mr. Darwin,* of Mr. Spencer,f of Prof. Huxley, X of Prof. Dawson (an anti-evolutionist),* of Prof. Le Conte, || of Prof. Winchell,'^ and other leading scientists. * " Origin of Species," "Descent oi Man," etc. t " Synthetic Philosophy." X "Man's Place in Nature," "Science and Culture," "Lay Ser- mons," etc • " Story of the Earth and Man," " Origin of the World," etc. \ "Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought," etc. ■*■ " Sparks from a Geologist's JEammer," etc. CHAPTEE III. man's oeigin accoeding to theology. "Wb rejoice in the enlightenment and tolerance of our age, but the historian of the future will have the painful dutj to perform of recording instances of intol- erance and bigotry which find their prototypes in the history of the sixteenth century. Not only were Mr. Darwin and his co-evoliitionists denounced and anathe- matized by the pulpit and religious press, but even so late as the year 1888 an ecclesiastical assembly (Presby- terian) deprived a theological professor of his chair because he inclined to accept a modified form of evolu- tion — believed that Adam was formed not of inorganic but of organic dust. If the rack and thumb-screw are abolished, the odium theologioum still exists and pro- duces essentially the same effects, albeit by more refined and excruciating methods. " Persecution," said the late Eev. Frederick Kobertson — and he spoke from bitter experience — ^" persecution is that which affixes penal- ties upon views field, instead of upon life led. Is per- secution only fire and sword ? But suppose a man of sensitive feeling says. The sword is less sharp to me than the slander ; fire is less intolerable than the refusal of sympathy ! " The man who adopts certain " views " need never expect ecclesiastical preferment. Protest- MAN'S ORIGIN AGGORDING TO THEOLOGY. 73 antism is quite as intolerant as Bomanism. Although no Protestant church has a specific dogma on the subject of man's origin, yet the general consensus of Protestant theologians is so decidedly anti-evolution in spirit that a clergyman who aspires to be a " doctor," " professor," or " bishop," would better beware of " science falsely so called." True, the fundamental tenet of Protestantism is the " Eight of Private Judgment " in religious matters, and hence no one has a moral (and no one ought to have an ecclesiastical) right to debar one the honors of the Church on account of views, but nevertheless "the powers that be" have and exercise such authority. Ifot only has Protestantism no dogma concerning man's oi^igin, but theological writers who claim that " Man is a special creation " — a being " created in the image of God " — " out of the dust of the ground "— seem utterly unable to tell us exactly what they mean by these phrases. Thus, Dr. Van Oosterzee asks, " Whence, then, is man ? ... It is not enough," he an- swers, " to say that he, as everything else, has his origin from God. The question is whether any more accurate definition concerning the proper origin of the human race can be attained. Without reason this question is put on one side, as not belonging to the domain of Theology but to that of Physical Science." * When I read these words my heart leaped for joy, for having looked in vain through the works of other theologians and scientific advocates of "special creations " for an " accurate definition " of man's origination, I thought that at last I had found it. Imagine my disappoint- ment when I read the following definition : "Man, the * Van Oosterzee, " Christian Dogmatics," vol. i, p. 360. 74 EVOLUTION OF MAN ANB CHBISTIARITY. most excellent being upon earth, owes his origin to a definite creative act of God, in consequence of which he may in no sense be called the merely natural product of a lower order of creatures, but rather a link in the chain of animated beings." Let us analyze this defini- tion : First, who doubts that man is " the most excellent being on earth " ? Nobody. Secondly, who doubts that " a definite creative act of God " takes place in the pro- duction of every creature ? None but the atheist. Mr. Spencer recognizes " An Eternal Energy " from which all things proceed, and this by most "definite" acts. Thirdly, Dr. Yan Oosterzee, like so many other theo- logians, uses the word " Natural " in an widejimd sense, and he would do well to ponder the words of Prof. Huxley on the meaning of the terms " Natural Order," "Laws of Nature," etc.* These are mere names ap- plied to certain phenomena, but they by no means ex- plain those phenomena. Finally, we are told that man is " a separate link in the chain of animate beings," but not one word is said about how this link was forged. In short, this " accurate definition " is meaningless. Another definition of man's origin is given by the Eey. Dr. Charles Hodge, in the second volume of his large work on " Systematic Theology " (p. 3), where he quotes the account of man's creation in Genesis (i, 22, 27, and ii, 7), and adds : " Two things are included in this account. First, that man's body was formed by the immediate intervention of God. It did not grow ; nor was it produced by a process of development. Second- ly, the soul was derived from God. He breathed into man the ' breath of life.' " * " Popular Science Monthly," January, 1888, p. 355. MAN'S ORIGIN AOGOBDINO TO THEOLOGY. 75 One question explodes this " definition," viz., What is meant hy " tJie immediate intervention of God " ? This is precisely what we desire to have defined, but our author is so haunted by " anti-Scriptural theories " of creation that he has no time to formulate a Scriptural theory. There is plenty of denunciation of " Natural- ism," etc., in the writings of both these eminent divines, but I have looked in vain for an " accurate definition " of what they consider the Bibhcal idea of man's origina- tion. Surely they do not mean that God came down (or up) to some spot, say in the plains of Mesopotamia, and toot up dust and made a mud-man, and breathed into his nostrils the'breath of life. Nor can they mean that the Energy (God) which constantly operates in Nature, causing the stone to form, the plaTit to grow, and the animal to think, on one occasion, by a peculiar exertion of itself (Himself), made the particles of dust collect themselves into a human form, into which the same Energy infused the power of motion, life, and thought. If they mean this, let it be said in plain words, but let us not be expected to accept vague, general terms as " definitions." The question, therefore, returns with redoubled force: If man's body (and soul) were not derived, ac- cording to the well-recognized laws of Morphology, Embryology, and Psychology, from a lower animal form ; if the human frame is not genetically related to lower organisms, how was it produced ? It is interest- ing to note that Dr. Hodge, in his little bbbk on " "What is Darwinism?" — a most unsatisfactory production in every respect — ^virtually contradicts his opinion just quoted. He says: "Man is, according to the Scripture, as concet-ns his body, of the earth. So far he belongs 76 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. to the animal kingdom."* But if man's body were formed by " the immediate intervention of God," how- can it belong to the animal kingdom ? The doctor evi- dently grew — became more of an evolutionist — between the time of the publication of his " Theology" and this later work ; he inclines to accept the physical evolution of man ; but this, as already remarked, involves his men- tal evolution. Other advocates of the special creation of man, be they scientists or theologians, fail as abso- lutely as the two just quoted to tell lis exactly what they mean by such a creation. Dr. Cunningham Geikie, in his " Hours with the Bible" (Vol. I, Chaps. X and XI), discusses man's origin quite fully, and attempts to refute the evolution- ary theory, but formulates no other theory. Dr. Mar- tensen, in his " Christian Dogmatics " (page 136 et seq., T. and T. Clark's Library), talks most mystically about man's creation in the image of God, but gives us no definite idea concerning the mode of his origination. Dr. Arnold Guyot is equally unsatisfactory,t and Prin- cipal Dawson does not help his theological friends out of their dilemma, although he has written one work specially for this purpose. % But while the advocates of " special creation " can not tell us exactly what they mean by this phrase, they, nevertheless, insist that man was a new creation — a new link in the chain of life, radically different in soul, and probably also in body, from all lower animal forms. On what do they base this claim ? On the facts of Morphology, Embryology, Paleontology, etc. ? No ; for we have seen that all * " What is Darwinism % " p. 5. f " Essay on Creation," p. 123 et seq. X " Origin of the World." MAN'S OBIQIN ACCORDING TO TEMOLOOY. 77 sncli facts point to man's derivation from the lower animals. "What, then, constitutes the foundation of the theological view ? A document whose meaning and authorship are so hopelessly uncertain that the most learned and devout minds can not agree on either the one or the other. It is now generally acknowledged, among even "conservative" commentators, that the Book of Genesis consists of traditions, oral or vrritten, which were handed down from patriarchal times. Thus, to quote only one " conservative " writer. Bishop Harold Browne says : " It is not necessary to deny that Moses had certain documents or traditions referring to the patriarchal ages, which he incorporated into his history. Indeed, it is most likely that such traditions should have come down through Shem and Abraham to Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt ; and there can be no reason why an inspired historian should not have worked up such trustworthy materials into the history of the an- cestors of his people." * The idea of " an inspired his- torian " working up another's documents into a produc- tion of his own seems utterly absurd, for why could not and did not the Inspirer originate an entirely new ac- count? Surely it would have been quite as easy as it was to inspire Moses to use traditions which had existed for hundreds of years, perhaps in oral form, and may have been corrupted. Surely the Inspirer had no reason for economizing his sources of wisdom. If so, the documentary theory does not prove it. That theory really gives up the Mosaic authorship of those parts of Genesis which con- sist of the said traditions. And when the reader re- * " Speaker's Commentary," vol. i, Introduction, p. 2. 78 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND OHRISTIANITY. members, or - is informed, that the late George Smith, among others, discovered " A Chaldean Genesis " — ^i. e., accounts of creation, the deluge, etc. — written on clay tablets, brought from that section of the country where Abraham was reared — Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis xi, 28-31) — he will not be long in concluding that our Genesis is only one of several accounts of creation which originated among the religious poets and sages of that age and country ; and although it is superior to any of those accounts, and most valuable as a monu- ment of ancient philosophy, the student will not accept it as absolutely and literally infallible until it is proved to he so. It is utter folly to ask us to accept a document as Divinely inspired without giving a single reason for so wonderful a conclusion — without even telling ns who wrote that document. " But hold ! " cries the advocate of traditionalism ; " Christ and His Apostles indorsed Genesis as an inspired work — the work of Moses." " If we consult the Bible " (says Dr. Yan Oosterzee), " we learn from the Lord Jesus that it is God who has • made them male and female (Matthew xix, 4). St. Paul speaks in a like sense (I Corinthians xi, 8-12, and I Timothy ii, 3), and his words are only the echo of the Old Testament. All these voices refer us to the records of Moses (Genesis i, 26, and ii, T)." Upon this it may be observed : First. The genuineness and authenticity of a docu- ment can hardly be established by citing statements from still more questionable documents. For all well- informed people know (and the uninformed reader wiU subsequently learn) that the authorship of the Gospels ia no more certain than that of Genesis. It would be well MAIL'S ORIQJN AOGOBDING TO THEOLOGY. 79 for those who are ever trying to press our Lord into the service of Biblical Criticism and Dogmatic Theology to remember that He never wrote out His views on such subjects, and it is much more probable that we heme in the booles of the New Testament the opinions of pious Jews than it is that we have ov/r Lord^s views. "We may be sure at any rate that He, if He were on earth to-day, would be the last one to fly in the face of fact and reason iu order to preserve the letter of the first and second chapters of Genesis. He regarded Na- ture and the Human Spirit as no less revelations of God than the Bible. But — Secondly. Even granting that Christ and St. Paul did utter the words (the latter certainly wrote First Corinthians) which are attributed to them, those words neither prove the authorship and inspiration of Genesis nor disprove man's derivation from the lower animals. Nobody doubts that " God created them male and female," but the question is, How did He so create them ? Neither Christ nor St. Paul answers this ques- tion, because they were teachers of religion, not of physical science, and it was suiBcient for their purpose to say, " God did it." They therefore merely refer to or " echo " the account in Genesis, but do not explain the precise meaning of that account, which is exactly what we now desire to have done. We are therefore forced to interpret Genesis as best we can, and the fol- lowing seems to be the only view which modern discov- ery permits us to hold : The accounts of creation, the deluge, etc., in Genesis were written probably about fifteen hundred or two thousand years before Christ, in Chaldea, by some of the religions sages who there pon- dered the great problems of Being. When Abraham 80 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. left " TJr of the Chaldees," he gathered together these accounts, took them with him, and handed them on to his children ; they passed them on to their children, and finally they were embodied (by Moses or some one else) in the Pentateuch, and so became the heritage of the Jewish JS'ation. These narratives can not be inter- preted literally, and, as a matter of fact, no one attempts to so interpret them. They were not written to give a scientific account of the origin of the world, but for a strictly religious pur- pose. The author's (or authors' — for there may have been several) contemporaries were Nature-worshipers, and so he (they) aimed a deadly blow at such worship by proclaiming " that the heavens and the earth " were "created," and hence men should worship a higher Being ; and the lesson which he (they) aimed to teach has to be learned by many of this materialistic genera- tion ; but it is simply folly to cite these narratives as refutations of a scientific theory so well established as the theory of Evolution. Two facts, however, stated in Genesis (ii, 7) concern- ing man's origin modern science confirms, viz. : first, that man's body consists of dust ; and, secondly, that the soul of man is not identical with his body. While the commonly observed fact of decomposition at death may have suggested the first truth to the ancient sage, yet his apprehension of the second is surely wonderful. Our modern s MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 119 counted for exce]3t on the assumption tliat the Script- ural account of primitive man is correct." Does any one believe that the Oolden Age of Greece ever really existed in the sense here defined ? No ; and it is most perilous to appeal to such traditions to confirm an " in- spired" record, for we might rationally believe that .both the traditions and the record have the same origin — an origin which Science, if not Theology, can and does explain. The third and fourth reasons which our author assigns for believing that Genesis is literally true are essentially the same, and are no reasons at all, for all Science recognizes the high state of civilization in Egypt and elsewhere, but Archeology shows that such civilization was not primitive, but a development from a lower state. Finally, " Comparative Philology," as we shall see, so far from confirming the popular doc- trine, shows that language itself has been a slow devel- opment, and so refutes the common view. We are now free to consider the scientific view of primitive man. " However imperfect the relics of prehistoric men may be," says Prof. Huxley, " the evidence which they afford clearly tends to the conclusion that, for thousands of years, before the origin of the oldest. known civiliza- tions, men were savages of a very low type. They strove with their enemies and their competitors ; they preyed upon things weaker or less' cunning than them- selves ; they were born, multiplied without stint, and died for thousands of generations alongside the mammoth, the urus, the lion, and the hyena, whose lives were spent in the same way." * " Human life," says Dr. * " Popular Science Monthly," April, 1888, p. 736. 120 EYOLUTIOy OF MAN AND CERI8TIANITT. Tjlor, " may be rouglily classed into three great stages, savage, barbaric, civilized, whicb may be defined as fol- lows : The lowest or savage state is that in which man subsists on wild plants and animals, neither tilling the soil nor domesticating creatures for his food. Savages may dwell in tropical forests where the abundant fruit and game may allow small clans to live in one spot and may find a living all the year round, while in barer and colder regions they have to lead a wandering life in quest of the wild food which they soon exhaust in any place. In making their rude implements, the materials used by savages are what they find ready to hand, such as wood, stone, and bone ; but they can not extract metal from the ore, and therefore belong to the Stone Age. Men may be considered to have risen into the next or harbaric state when they take to agriculture. With the certain supply of food which can be stored till the next harvest, settled village and town life is estabhshed, with immense results in the improvement of arts, knowledge, manners, and government. Pastoral tribes are to be reckoned in the barbaric stage, for, though their life of shifting camp from pasture to pasture may prevent set- tled habitation and agriculture, they have from their herds a constant supply of milk and meat. Some bar- baric nations have not come beyond using stone imple- ments, but most have risen into the Metal Age. Lastly, civilized life may be taken as beginning with the art of writing, which, by recording history, law, knowl- edge, and religion for the service of ages to come, binds together the past and the future in an unbroken chain of intellectual and moral progress. " This classification of three great stages of culture is practically convenient and has the advantage" of not de- MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 121 scribing imaginary states of society, but such as are act- ually known to exist. So far as the evidence goes, it seems that civilization has actually grown up in the world through these three stages, so that to look at a savage of the Brazilian forests, a barbarous New-Zea- lander or Dahoman, and a civilized European, may be the student's best guide to understanding the progress of civilization ; only he must be cautioned that the com- parison is but a guide, not a full explanation." * These last words express the main principle which anthropolo- gists adopt in their consideration of the rise of civiliza- tion — the principle, namely, that " the condition of primitive man is represented by the condition of the low- est race of modern times." " I know of no method," says Prof. Winchell, " of avoiding this conclusion." f But Dr. C. Geikie, among others, decidedly objects to this principle. " It is the mode of this school (the evo- lutionist)," says Geikie, "to collect all the most de- graded and savage customs and usages of any people, and assume that they are traces of the original condi- tion of the race. But such a course is utterly unphilo- sophical, for it may with equal force be urged that they are illustrations of the decay of a primitive civili- zation." Tet he accepts this very principle in the sec- ond chapter of his work. " It is hard," he there says, " to carry ourselves back to the infancy of the world and think aright of the childhood of the human mind. . . . The simple fancies of savage tribes at the present day were then, in fact, the sober belief of all races' X ^ * Tylor's " Anthropology," pp. 33-25. t " Preadamites," p. 413. X " Hours with the Bible," I, pp. 16, 164 122 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. we are to take the intellectual status of " savage tribes at the present day " as representative of primitive man's intellectual condition, it is hard to see why we should refuse to accept their " customs and usages " as typical of primeval customs and usages, for these are only out- ward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual condi- tion. Hence Prof. Winchell's conclusion seems valid. A pplying this principle, Mr. Spencer and others give us a more or less complete picture of primitive man — physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and religious. " Physioally,'''' says Winchell, " the men of the Palaso- lithic Epoch, judging from the few skulls and skeletons discovered in Belgium and England, were of rather short stature." * Spencer also thinks that the primitive man was smaller in stature, less powerful, more callous and phleg- matic than man now is. f " Sociall/y cmd intellectually" continues Winchell, " Palaeolithic man, in the regions in question (Europe), seems to have existed in a most primitive condition. Dwelling in wild caverns, he hunted beasts with the rudest stone implements and clothed himself in their skins. We find no evidence of the use of fire, though probably known, and there are some indications that he made food of his own species. Few attempts at pottery have been discovered, and in these the product was rude, hand-made, and simply sun-dried." This asser- tion that " we find no evidence of the use of fire " in the Palaeolithic Period, is contradicted by M. Joly, among others, who says : " It can not be denied that * " Preadamites," p. 413. t " Principles of Sociology," i, chap. v. MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 123 the use of this element was known to the earliest qua- ternary men. Numerous hearths, ashes, cinders, bones partly or entirely carbonized, fragments of rude pottery blackened by the smoke, etc., have been found in caves belonging to the age of the cave-bear, etc. With fire prehistoric men burned the bodies of the dead," etc.* In the sixth and seventh chapters of his " Sociology " Mr. Spencer considers the emotional and intellectual characteristics of primitive men. He thinks that they were impulsive, improvident, unsociable, self-satisfied, caring nothing for the approbation of one another, and brutal toward women. They could form no " concep- tion of general facts," no " abstract ideas," only limited " associations of ideas," no notion of natural law or " uniformity of Nature," and possessed simply " a remi- niscent, not a constructive imagination." It is interest- ing to contrast this view of primitive man with that which was held in past years. " As to knowledge, our first parent," says Dr. Geikie, " has been supposed to have excelled all men since. It was a favorite mode of stating this, among Christian writers before the Refor- mation, to say that the great master Aristotle was almost as learned as Adam." f Dr. G-eikie apparently does not believe that our forefather was quite so learned as this, yet, if he believed the creed which the doctor, following a German rabbi, formulates as " the religious belief of our first parents," he certainly must have surpassed Aristotle in knowledge and faith. ''jEstheticallyr Prof. Winchell thinks, " Palseolithic * " Man before Metals," p. 196 ; and Tylor's " Early History of Man," chap. ix. t " Hours with the Bible," i, p. 91. 124 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHBISTIANITT. man had advanced no further than the use of necklaces formed of natural beads, consisting of fossil forami- nifera from the chalk. Some Hints from the river-drift of St. Acheul present rough sketches which, it has been conjectured, may have been prompted by the ar- tistic feehng. Some of them bear remote resemblances to the human head in profile, three-quarter view, and full face ; also to animals, such as the rhinoceros and mammoth." * Did primitive man possess Language f " There was a time," answers Prof. W. D. "Whitney, " when all existing human beings were as destitute of language as the dog."f But, if we hold, with this writer, that language is " everything that bodies forth thought and makes it apprehensible," X we must claim language for our progenitors. Prof. Whitney agrees with Dr. Tylor that " there are various ways in which men can communicate with one another. They can make gestures, utter cries, speak words, draw pictures, write characters or letters." It is well known that Tylor believes that gestures consti- tuted the primitive language of man, or at least that it is the lowest form of communication. The next step consists of " emotional cries," as " ah ! " " oh ! " " ur-r-r," " puh ! " etc. Then " imitative signs " follow, such as a deaf and dumb child's imitating the act of washing the face, etc. The union of " gesture-actions and gesture- sounds forms what may be called a Natural Language," which language " really exists." This natural language "is half-way between the communications of animals * " Preadamites," p. 416. f " Enoyolopsedia Britanniea,'' article " Philology." % " Life and Growth of Language," p. 1. MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 125 and full human speech," and how the latter was devel- oped Dr. Tylor shows very satisfactorily in his admirable little work on " Anthropology," and in his " Early His- tory of Mankind." * M. Joly believes that primitive man " had at least the power of creating language." He indorses Sir John Lubbock's remark that " Languages are human in the sense that they are the work of man; divine in the sense that man, in creating them, made use of a faculty with which Providence had endowed him. . . . We be- lieve that languages themselves are organisms which have their life in embryo — their infancy, their ripe age, their changes, their distant and repeated migrations, their decadence and death." He thinks that " quater- nary man expressed his feelings by cries resembling interjections, his most vivid perception by onomato- poeia " — i. e., imitative sounds. He agrees with "Whit- ney and others that there was no " single parent lan- guage whence all others are derived." f " The original formation of language," says Tylor, " did not take place all at once, but was a gradual process extending through ages, and not absolutely stopped even now," and hence " it is not a hopeful task to search for primitive lan- guages." It is hoped that the reader may consult the works of these authors on this intensely interesting and important question ; and having, I tmst, made it clear that primitive man possessed a very low form of lan- * Compare Dr. Romanes's admirable work, " Mental Evolution in Man,'' chaps, v to xv, inclusive ; Lubbock's " Origin of Civilization," chap, ix ; Max MilUer's " Lectures on Language," etc. ; Tylor's " An- thropology," chaps, iv to vi; and "Early History of Mankind," chaps, ii to iv. t "Man before Metals," pp. 313-330, 126 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRI8TIANITY. guage, consisting, probably, of gestures and emotional cries, which gradually developed into full human speech, I pass to a consideration of the most important question of all concerning our forefather, viz., his religious con- dition. The popular view, it is well known, holds that he was created absolutely pure and perfect, was placed in a paradise, where he was tempted in some mysterious way, so that he was finally induced to eat the " forbid- den fruit," and thus partially or totally corrupted his nature, and was consequently banished from Eden ; the ground and all other creatures were cursed for his sake, and so on. Dr.Geikie, as already stated, formulates a creed for Adam. He thinks our forefather believed : 1. " That God alone created the universe. That He existed of necessity before creation, and must exist forever without change, which would imply that He is Immaterial and Eternal. 2. " That harmony prevails throughout creation ; . . . and hence the great Master of the Whole was One, Only, and All-Wise. 3. " That this Great Being made the world from nothing ; that the existence of all creatures depends absolutely on his will ; that He interrupts the course of Nature, that is, works miracles, when he thinks fit ; that He is, therefore. Supreme and Almighty. 4c. " That all that has been or is owes its first source to Him, and has been and is upheld directly by Him — that is, He is Omnipresent. 5, " That He created man as to this soul in His own image ; that is, spiritual, free, and immortal. Hence He must love virtue and hate vice, or, in other words. He must be a Holy God. MAN'S PRIMITIVE SOME AND CONDITION. 127 6. "That the lot of man is often found to correspond with his conduct, thus showing the Kighteousness of God. But, the fact that this is not always realized here, is an absolute proof that our conduct and our lot will be brought, hereafter, to correspond. Hence Adam must have believed in a Future State. 7. " That God watches with an all-embracing Provi- dence over all things ; especially over man at large, and each individual in particular, and thus must be the All-Good. 8. " That man is weak and wrought upon by im- pulses from within and temptations from without ; that when he sins, God pardons him, on seeing and repent- ing of his faults. Thus Adam must have believed in the Tender Pity and Mercy of the Heavenly Father. 9. " That God demands, not on His own account, but for the good of man himself, our homage and obe- dience to His sovereign Will, not only in the most secret thoughts, but also outwardly ; and that He has hence given us Commands and Prohibitions — some of abiding force, others for particular circumstances and times. 10. " He had a trust in the mysterious promise of a Future Deliverer — the ' Seed of the Woman,' who should bruise the head of the Serpent, and undo the ruin of the Fall." No wonder, then, that the doctor should add, " It is impossible, indeed, to conjecture how much may have been disclosed to one who stood in such unique rela- tions to his Maker." * If Adam possessed all tliis knowledge of and faith in God, he not only surpassed * " Hours with the Bible," I, pp. 93-95. 128 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. an Aristotle and a Bishop Bntler, but his knowledge and faith equaled that of the Deliverer of the Sermon on the Mount. It is hardly necessary to add that Science takes an absolutely different view of primitive man's religious condition, and all its facts disprove this theory. Thus, Sir John Lubbock thinks that " the first great stages in religious thought may be regarded as — 1. ^^ Atheism ; understanding by this term not the denial of the existence of a Deity, but an absence of any definite ideas on the subject. 2. " Fetichism ; the stage in which man supposes he can force the deities to comply with his desires. 3. " Nature-worship, or Totemism ; in which mate- rial objects — trees, lakes, stones, animals, etc. — are wor- shiped. 4. " Shamanism ; in which the superior deities are far more powerful than man, and of a different nature. Their places of abode also are far away, and accessible only to Shamans (priests). 5. " Idolatry, or Anthropomorphism y in which the gods take still more completely the nature of men, being, however, more powerful. They are stiU amen- able to persuasion ; they are a part of Nature, and not creators. They are represented by images or idols. 6. " In the next stage the Deity is regarded as the Author, not merely a part, of Nature. He becomes for the first time a really supernatural being. 7. " The last stage is that in which morality is asso- ciated with religion." * Mr. Spencer treats this question quite fully in the * " Origin of Civilization," chapters v-vii, inclusive. MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 129 " first volume of his " Sociology." He there discusses the primitive man's ideas of animate and inanimate nature, of sleep and dreams, of death and resurrection, of souls, ghosts, spirits and demons, of another life and super- natural agents, of inspiration, divination, sorcery, etc., of ancestor-worship, animal and plant worship, and Na- ture-worship. He thinks that primitive man got the notion of "soul" as distinct from "body" from the dream, during which he supposed his " other-self " wan- dered off from his body. Having got this idea of a double self, he naturally inferred that in swoon, death, etc., the " other-self" had merely gone away on a longer journey than when he slept. This simple idea, Mr. Spencer shows, leads to all those views of inspiration, resurrection, a future life, etcT, which prevail among savages, and to ancestor- worship, which he considers " the root of every relig- ion." No synopsis of his views can adequately express them and so the reader should consult the work itself.* "It was partly through political circumstances," says Prof. Fiske, " that a truly theistic idea was developed out of the chaotic and fragmentary ghost-theories and Nature-worships of the primeval world. This Nature- worship and ancestor-worship of early tunes was scarce- ly theism." Man originally personified all physical phenomena, and in all this personification " our prehis- toric ancestors were greatly assisted by that theory of ghosts which was perhaps the earliest speculative effort of the human mind. . . . The mass of crude inference which makes up the savage's philosophy of nature is largely based upon the hypothesis that every man has * " Principles of Sociology," i, chapters viii-xxv. 130 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. another self, a ' double,' wraith, or ghost. This hy- pothesis of the ' other-self,' which serves to account for the savage's wanderings during sleep in strange lands and among strange people, serves also to account for the presence in his dreams of parents, comrades, or enemies, known to be dead and buried. The other- self of the dreamer meets and converses with the other- selves of his dead brethren, joins with them in the hunt, or sits down with them to the wild cannibal ban- quet. Thus arises the belief in an ever-present world of ghosts, a belief which the entire experience of the un- civilized man goes to strengthen and confirm. It was in accordance with this primitive theory of things that the earliest form of religions worship was developed. In all races of men, so far as can be determined, this was the worship of ancestors." * It thus appears that Prof. Fiske agrees with Mr. Spencer. " It can not be denied " says M. Joly, " that God has always revealed Himself to man in His works, but the conception of a Divine Being, of a Supreme Cause, was of slow progressive development in primitive man, advancing almost imper- ceptibly by an instinctive and spontaneous movement. Just as the knowledge of our Ego ( Self or Soul ) and of the exterior world was not acquired spontaneously, without effort, reflection, or experience, so the idea of the existence of God, at first embryonic, so to speak, has need, in order to attain its complete development, of slow and successive efforts of the human mind which has conceived it. " The idea of God is at first individual, infinitesi- mal, sometimes strange and childish — it grows purer * Fiske's " Idea of God," pp. 63-80, inelusiye. MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 131 and larger with the growth of the natural intelligence and acquired instruction of him who conceives it. Then, from being individual, it becomes collective ; and final- ly, passed from one to another, it progresses gradually, until it attains to this formula — ' Power, Love, and Wisdom, united, yet divided, compose His being.' " Man, then, as he came from Nature's hands, was endowed with too weak an understanding to enable him to attain at once to a clear and precise knowledge of the Divinity." * In short, he was endowed with the capaci- ty of learning about God, which capacity was gradually developed by the various means already noted, until it could formulate the great principles of Monotheism and Christianity. Now, the main reason why theologians object so strongly to this theory of man's primitive condition, is its inconsistency with the popular doctrine of man's fall and depravity in Adam. It is claimed that man was created perfectly pure in every part and faculty of soul and body, but that, by an act of disobedience, he fell, and thereby so corrupted his nature that the mission of the Saviour was rendered absolutely necessary to his salvation from sin here and hell hereafter. The necessity of the Atonement or of the Saviour is thus supposed to rest on the fact of Adam's Fall, and it is now my purpose to refute this popular error. In doing so I shall qnote those whose words ought to carry conviction throughout the Church. In the seventh chapter of his able work on " Future Eetribution," Canon How, of England, discusses this subject in a masterly manner. He shows : * " Man before Metals," pp. 337-329. 132 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRISTIANIT7. 1. " That from the third chapter of Genesis to the last of Malachi the Fall of Man is not once mentioned or even referred to by the sacred writers." The apparent exception in Job (xxxi, 33) " disappears in the alterna- tive marginal rendering of the Eevised Version." 2. " The Fall of Man is not only never affirmed by our Lord to have been the foundation of His divine mission, but it is not once directly referred to by Him in the whole course of his teaching." John viii, 42-44, is an apparent exception, but, even if it be a reference to the Fall, it by no means involves the conclusion that without it Christ would never have come into the world — that His mission to man would have been unnecessary. 3. " No reference to the Fall is to be found either in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in those of St. Peter, St. James, St. John, St. Jude, in nine of St. Paul's Epistles, nor even in the Kevelation, except in its identification of the old Serpent ' with the Devil.' " " It will doubtless be urged," says the Canon, " by those that hold the popular theories on this subject, that all these writings presuppose it, though they do not directly refer to it. To this I answer : " First. It is incredible, if they presuppose it as the foundation on which their teaching rests, that all direct, and even indirect, reference to it should be entirely wanting. " Secondly, In investigating a subject like the pres- ent we have nothing to do with presuppositions and as- sumptions, which really mean nothing more nor less than reading into the sacred page, for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of our own theories, what is not MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 133 to be found therein. By this practice it is easy to make Scripture say anything which the commentator or the reader wishes." 4. " The references to the third chapter of Genesis in the remainder of St. Paul's Epistles are four in num- ber, viz. (1) 1 Cor., XV, 21, 22 ; (2) II Cor., xi, 3 ; (3) I Tim., ii, 12-15 ; and (4) Eom., v, 12-21." The first three passages may be set aside at once, for no one would be so foolish as to maintain that they prove the popular doctrine of Adam's Fall. I mean, while they refer to Adam's sin, they neither prove that his sin totally corrupted his nature nor that it was the basis of Christ's mission to man ; this is the point at issue. In- deed, the classic passage in Komans does not prove this. It is, confessedly, a most difficult and obscure passage, but, notwithstanding all obscurities, " its general pur- pose (as Row says) is suflSciently clear." The writer intended to " affirm that the evil which has resulted from Adam's (Man's) transgression has not only been repaired by the work of Jesus Christ, but that the mis- chief which has been occasioned by the one stands to the good effected by the other, in what may be called a ratio of greater ineqixality — i. e., that the work of Je- sus Christ wrought /^T" more good than the transgres- sion of Adam has wrought evil." Observe : This is only a matter-offact statement. Not one word is said about Adam's Fall being the sine qua non of Christ's mission — that withoiit which He would not have come to earth. We heartily be- lieve what St. Paul says. "We believe that Adam, who- ever he was, wherever and whenever he lived, sinned — i. e., freely violated Divine, Moral Law. We believe that corrupt habits are acquired and hereditarily trans- 134 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITT. mitted. And we believe that Jesus, by what he taught, did, and suffered, has more than repaired the evil which resulted from the -First Man's transgression. We be- lieve that the third chapter of Genesis, like Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress," contains profound moral and spiritual truths, but we do not believe that the popular view of man's primitive condition is either scripturally, scientifica]ly, or philosophically correct. The proposi- tion that a being created perfectly pure and in direct communion with God, the Holy One, should disobey Him, is utterly irrational. All his inclinations would be towa/rd the good, and it would be morally impossi- ble for him to do evil. I have read many attempted solutions of this problem, but none was satisfactory. The evolutionary theory, whatever its difficulties may be, does not involve any such philosophical absurdities ; it is, at least, more credible. " Evolutionists say that, if wrong-doing is easier than right-doing, it is because wrong-doing implies a falling hack on the more deeply implanted primitive (animal) instincts, and right-doing the exercise of more recently acquired and morally higher instincts." * This is at least more intelligible than the theory which holds that the first man was perfectly pure, and yet did such evil as to corrupt his own nature and that of all his descendants. " Keversion," as the writer just quoted remarks, " is generally, if not always, an easy process ; the difficult thing is to add something to the ancestral inheritance." If man was originally only a little above the anthropoid apes, we can understand why many persons are still brutal ; their development is im- * " Popular Science Monthly," December, 1887, p. 269. MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND CONDITION. 135 perfect ; their moral and spiritual faculties are dull aud weak. " But, if so," the " orthodox " theologian would reply, " then eduoation, not atonement — a professor of moral and physical science, not a redeemer — is what is needed." When I treat of " Evolution and the Atone- ment " I shall discuss this point more fully ; meanwhile I may say : First, the word " atonement " is used in so many senses that it is necessary to define it very care- fully before one can speak of its necessity, etc. But, secondly, even if we hold the popular view on this sub- ject, viz., that Christ's death was \he penalty of man's sin — that he was the victim chosen instead of the sin- ner to bear his punishment — we may yet adopt the evolutionist's theory of man's primitive condition. Let lis grant that man was originally a savage scarcely raised above the level of the anthropoid ape, who very slowly acquired power to conquer and subdue his animal pas- sions. The moment he acquired such power he hecame a responsible being, and although his will, was not ab- solutely free then, as, indeed, "it is not now,* yet he might have resisted the evil, and, as he did not do so, he ought to suffer the consequences — the punishment. Hence, if a Saviour is needed to bear such punishment at all, he is so needed on the evolutionary view. In a letter to the author on this subject the Bishop of Oar- lisle, England (Dr. Goodwin), says : " I am not sure that any particular scientific theory of the origin of man makes the doctrine of our relation to God through the Incarnation (for that I conceive is ultimately what is meant by the doctrine of the atonement) more diffi- cult than it would be if we put such scientific theory * See " Present Day Tracts " — Tract xxx, by Canon Eow, 136 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND CHRISTIANITY. altogether out of the question. The great fact which we have to deal with is the rebellion of the will of man against the will of God ; this, I take it, express it as you will, is the basis of sin ; this is what separates the condition of man in relation to God from that of any other creature. The book of Genesis represents the beginning of this rebellion in a very simple, striking, and picturesque way. But suppose the book of Gene- sis had been lost, and we had begun (so to speak) with the New Testament ; suppose (which is quite conceiv- able) that the Incarnation had taken place without all the preface which we find in the Old Testament, and Christ had declared that he came to ' make an end of sin,' such as the experience of the world showed to exist, would not this revelation have fitted in equally well with any scientific knowledge as to the origin and descent of man ? For my part, I wonder how man ever came into existance at all ; Darwin (even granting all he tells us in the ' Descent of Man ' to be true) seems to me only to magnify the marvel of his existence. If Julius Csesar and Alfred the Great and Washington were legitimate descendants of minute Ascidians, no words can express the miracle of the transformation ; ' but there man is ' ; the Scripture says that he is there because God willed him to be. Mr. Darwin says he was evolved from something which existed previously ; grant that this second view is true, it does not change the fact that, when man came to be what he is, he dif- fered from other creatures in having an independent will and that sometimes he has misused his independence. Therefore, if the highest life of man consists in union with God, man's highest destiny calls for at-one-ment with God ; it calls for reconciliation, for the realization MAN'S PRIMITIVE HOME AND OONDITIOK 137 of what Holy Scripture calls ' an adoption ' as sons." This ought to satisfy the most ardent traditionalist that Evolution, by exploding the popular doctrine of man's fall, does not destroy the need of the Saviour. Instead of looking for the basis of the Atonement in the third chapter of Genesis, we should look for it in the great book of experience, and by basing its necessity on Hiiefaot of sin rather than on a document, we make it coextensive with mankind. I have thus stated as clearly and as candidly as I could what after a careful and unbiased consideration of the facts of the case seems to me to be the true view of man's origin, antiquity, and primitive condition. I need hardly add that I have not aimed either at origi- nality or completeness, but have merely tried to suggest lines of thought which every student of these great problems may follow out for himself. This is the foundation ; in the next part I shall rear the super- structure, or rather the framework, of a system of the- ology which alone seems to be tenable in the light of modem research. PART II. INTKODUOTION. THE DOCUMENTS. In considering the origin of Christianity, the first question to be answered is, When and by whom were the books of the New Testament written ? The day has long since passed when thinking per- sons will rest satisfied with the assurance, come whence it may, that the Bible says thus and so, and, being an in- spired book, its ipse dixit is conclusive. Whatever else the Bible may he proved to be, it is a book, and like all other books it must submit to a criti- cal examination. Its contents may have proceeded from minds which were divinely illuminated ; but we must know first of all who were its authors, when they lived, and what reason we have for believing that they were specially gifted on religious subjects. Such ques- tions are not suggested by a diabolical spirit, but by the most intensely religious and earnest spirit. Beligion is too important a subject to rest in a state of uncertainty or on untested authority. Bishop Butler says a Tnan is responsible for the use of his understanding. Our reason and conscience are given us of God to use, and if we fail to use them, or if we misuse them, we shall THE DOCUMENTS. 139 certainly be held responsible for the same. Such a re- sponsibility is an awful fact, but it is a fact, and we may as well realize it. We dare not ignore it, and, if we recognize it, we must question every professed revelation on every sub- ject, aud must satisfy our reason and conscience that it is true. "We have no other faculty than reason to judge of revelation itself" (Butler). It is not necessary to my purpose to consider the origin of all the books of the New Testament, and so I shall confine ray attention to ten of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, the book of Revelation, the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the He- brews, from which we may gather all the facts which it is absolutely necessary we should know in order to un- derstand the rise of Christianity. In considering the authorship and authenticity of a book there are two sources of evidence available, name- ly : first, the references to or use of said book by con- temporary and immediately subsequent writers ; and, second, the contents of the book itself, which should fit in with what we know from authentic history of the times in which it was professedly originated. It is plain, therefore, that the student of Christian origins must know something about the early Christian writers who were the associates and immediate successors of the Apostles and traditional authors of the books of the New Testament. Fortunately, the English reader is enabled, through the services of " The Christian Literature Publishing Company," of New York, to familiarize himself, with comparatively little effort, with the writings of the " Christian Fathers," as the early writers of the Church 140 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GERISTIANITT. are called. The first volume of "The Ante-lSTicene Fathers," published by the aforementioned company, will give him the facts at first hand which he should know in order to understand the time and circumstances that saw the birth of Christianity. If he have not the books in question and do not care to buy them, he should borrow them from some clergyman who has them, for it is absolutely necessary that he go to the root of this matter for himself. So many learned and apparently equally honest writers have reached diamet- rically opposite conclusions on some of the questions at issue that there is only one course open to the stu- dent — he must use their works mainly as guides to the discovery of the facts of early Christian literature and history, and from those facts draw his own conclusions. But I would here protest, once for all, against the in- ferences which certain " orthodos " writers of our day draw from the differences of opinion which prevail among the (so-called) " advanced critics." Indeed, the common answer given to the arguments of these critics is that they are mutually destructive. But there is hardly a half truth in this assertion. The critics do, indeed, differ among themselves, as " orthodox " theo- logians differ, on certain points. But they are agreed on the general point at issue. Thus they may differ as to the particular date or mode of origin of a certain book, but they are all quite agreed that the Gospels, for instance, were of so gradual and slow formation as to allow the insertion of unhistorical matter. This is the great point at issue, and it should ever be kept clear- ly in mind. I am sure that he who will study the writings of the "advanced critics" with an unbiased mind, and examine for himself the early Christian TEE DOCUMENTS. 141 authors to whom they refer, will feel after such study that, however great njay be their differences on minor points, yet they are not sufficient to destroy the com- mon conclusion of the critics, namely, that the New Testament literature was of so gradual a formation, it originated so long after the events referred to are said to have occurred, and in such a manner, that unhistori- cal matter may very readily have been inserted. The principal Christian fathers whose writings the reader ought to consult are : 1. Clement of Home, the third bishop of that Church, who lived and wrote between a. d. 30 and 100. His EpisUe to the Corinthians was so highly esteemed in the early Church as to be publicly read ia the con- gregations along with the Epistles of St. Paul, etc. 2. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who hved and wrote between 65 and 155 a. d. His JEpistle to the Philijypi- ans, and an £ncyolical EpisUe issued by the church of Smyrna on the occasion of Polycarp's martyrdom, have reached us, and throw some light on the subject in hand. 3. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in Syria, has left us seven short epistles, which are generally considered genuine and authentic, and were issued about the year 100 or 105 A. D.* 4. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a city in the prov- ince of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, lived and wrote between the years TO and 155 A. n. " He was a hearer of the Apostle John, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with many who had known the Lord and His Apostles. From these he gathered the floating traditions in regard * The author of " Supernatural Religion," Part II, chap, ii, among others, denies the Ignatia^ authorship of these epistles, but on insuf- ficient grounds. 142 EVOLUTION OF MAN AND GHRISTIANITY. to the sayings of our Lord, and wove them into a pro- duction divided into live books," the greater portion of which has been lost, but a few invaluable fragments have reached us. 5. Justin, commonly called "the Martyr," was a Gentile philosopher, but was born in Samaria, near Jacob's Well. He was well educated ; had traveled ex- tensively ; and, finally, after trying the philosophy of Socrates and Plato, "he climbed toward Clirist," and became the first Christian apologist, or defender of the faith. He flourished between the years 110 and 165 A. D. His first '■^Apology " was addressed to the Eoman Emperor, Antoninus Pius, who reigned for twenty- three years from the year 138 a. d. The second "J^o?- o^y" was addressed to the Eoman Senate. The only other work of Justin which we need notice is his '■''Dia- logue with Trypho^'' a Jew, which "is the first elabo- rate exposition of the reasons for regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the first sys- tematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews in regard to Christianity." These three works are " un- questionably genuine." 6. Irenaeus, Bishop of the Church of Lyons, in Gaul (France), lived and wrote between 120 and 202 a. d. His celebrated work, '■'■Against Heresies^'' in five books, " is one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an ac- count and refutation of those multiform Gnostic here- sies which prevailed in the latter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an exposition and defense of the Catholic faith." * * " Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, Introductory Notices. TEE DOCUMENTS. 143 Other writers may be referred to in the following pages, but it will then be time enough to give their dates and location, and the six writers mentioned are the most important witnesses, since they lived contempora- neously with or immediately after the Apostles. The reference to " Gnostic heresies " suggests a most impor- tant question, viz., the nature of Gnosticism and its in- fluence on early Christian thought, to which we must devote a few pages. " Gnosticism " is derived from the Greek word gnosis ('yva>