THE EVOLUTION OF MAN,

A DOCTRINE NOT TO BE DREADED.

Morning, August 6th, 1876.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”—LUKE X. 27.

OUR faith being contained in this simple and sublime statement, I propose this morning to leave all the conflicts of the "orthodox" and "heterodox," of Ritualists, and others, except to look at them as amusing survivals, out of place and born to die. Let us turn to the much more charming, serious, and, as orthodox people would say, dangerous" doings of the men of science.

Let me lay down first a few things about which we shall probably all be agreed. To a wise man, there can be no quarrel between science and theology; to foolish men of science and foolish

men of theology, there is such a quarrel. Theologians have tried to coerce science within their doctrines of theology; but this attempt is unphilosophical, and utter nonsense. It is obstructive of science, and will not serve "religion," as it is called; though, since true religion can never be changed, let us say it will not serve theology.

To show that it is unphilosophical, we have to lay down first of all that no speculation shall be controlled by an order of conceptions not presupposed by it. For instance, who ever dreamed of controlling poetry by mathematics? Religion, in the true sense, cannot be controlled by science, neither can it control science; for the conceptions involved in one are not presupposed by the other. And if this is true of speculation, how thoroughly true it must be of observation. How can theology control observation? Yet that is what is attempted to be done around us. The observations of the man of science are to be limited by theology, and speculations are to lie against fact in order to save some old theory! Where speculation can only be controlled by conceptions presupposed in its own domain, observation cannot be controlled by anything.

Some of you are angry if a person says that

men once had tails. What are you angry for? "Well," you say, "it is not consistent with" With what? "Well, with what I have been taught." If, however, a man of science tells you that such and such a thing is the case; if it is accurately observed and scientifically shown, it cannot lead, legitimately, to any mischief. Therefore, instead of showing your little anger, the better way would be to set to work resolutely to see if the conclusions are legitimate; and, if so, to give up your preconceptions in favour of the truth. To those of you who have no dread of investigation, and who only want to know what the truth is, there is nothing in the conclusions from any speculation or observation that will stir up your terror or your wrath. If you find the result is legitimate, you had better spend your time in settling whether it would not be well to give up your own conclusions, and take what is proved to be the truth. For the leading of truth is the leading of God; and where He leads, man need not fear to follow.

When around religion men have allowed to grow up a series of things which they are pleased to call religion, and those outside fences are found to be incompatible with the further progress of discovery and observation, then comes the difficulty. And

the difficulty comes very much by the assumption that the Old Testament is a revelation from God, touching certain things that belong to the domain of science, and that because God was pleased to impart nobody knows when, nobody knows where, and nobody can accurately tell to whom-the history of the world, the date of man, and the order of creation, to observe as far as we can the visible things around us is to be infidel and unbelieving.

With regard to speculation, there is a doctrine put forth nowadays, which, in its consequences, will make a very great change in man. I do not say the doctrine is true; but let me put two theories before you. One theory is the old one-that man began in beauty, and fell; began in light, and dropped into darkness; began a child of God, and became a child of the Devil; was born in the estate of his Father, God, and was cast out to wander the weary, dreary wilderness until restoration should

come.

Therefore we have the splendid Adam, and the glorious Eve. Then came "the Fall." It is easy to understand how that doctrine arose. Men might easily come to the opinion that a good God could never have started man in the condition he is now in; and, conscious of their own sinfulness, they

would fashion to themselves a day when man was worthy of his Maker. Thus, man was made in a state of glory, innocence, and splendour; and, by sinning, fell from his glorious estate, and passed from degradation to degradation, until at length the "Act to amend an Act” was passed, and restoration came! That may be true: I am not going to debate it just now.

But nowadays there come strange preachers, who declare that man never had any lofty ancestor or noble beginning. Instead of having dwelt in marble halls, and having become a sort of gipsy since, he began, perhaps, in the slime, and his course has been one of ascent-always ascent. Instead of his having had any "fall," he has had one unbroken rise; and although, now and then, it seems as if he had ceased to ascend, he is still ever ascending.

Let us now suppose a man with the Old Testament shut, his catechism forgotten, no churches near, and no theologians at hand. Suppose him to hear from a layman these two theories touching man-one that he has fallen from a high estate, the other that he has crept slowly but surely from a low estate to a higher one. Is there any valuable evidence or observation open to him by which he