Leo Tolstoy is another colossal figure that looms up in the nineteenth century as a prophet of righteousness-a doer of the will of God. Hugo tells us that: "Great is he who consecrates himself. Even when overcome he remains serene." And it is true that the holy example of a great man, far more than his words, takes hold upon the deeper feelings of our nature. In his renunciation of wealth, position, the favor of a great court, and popularity as an illustrious author, in order to work with and for the poor, and to live as well as teach the Christ life, Count Tolstoy has become an inspiration to tens of thousands of lives, even among those who do not regard his method at all times as wise. He is one of the grandest figures of modern times and stands in stature a very Saul among the nineteenth century religious and ethical prophets.

These men have been the typical leaders in the advanceguard of the last century, yet they are but a few of the illustrious men of genius who from the mountain-tops have signaled humanity to come up higher; while like a "trailing cloud of glory" behind them come the prophet poets and bards of progress, each contributing to the message that broadens, humanizes, and ennobles the religious, ethical, and artistic concepts of the world.

Boston, Mass.

B. O. FLOWER.

THE

EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY.

HE doctrine of Evolution has produced a far-reaching and profound effect upon every department of investigation and thought. As a result we have a new biology, a new physiology, a new astronomy, a new sociology-in short, it has either revolutionized or greatly modified all science and all philosophy. Theology has not escaped from the conquering arms of this new Alexander. Though at first it made stubborn resistance, it was forced back from point to point, from one redoubt to another, until at last it has raised the white flag and surrendered. There has been many a hard-fought battle: the length of the "days" of creation-whether twentyfour hours or immeasurable ages; the method of the creation of the universe-whether instantaneous or gradual; the age of the human race-whether only six thousand years or very much older; the origin of man-whether by special creation or by derivation from the lower animals. These are the great battlefields where evolution and theology have met and fought. In every instance evolution has won the day. The last redoubt has been taken; the warfare is over; evolution and theology have made perpetual peace and joined their forces in the great work of uplifting the world and pushing forward the evolution of humanity.

We are to consider in this paper the modifications made in theology by the doctrine of evolution. First, we will consider the origin of man, concerning which there are three theories. One is that man was made directly by the Divine fiat; the second is that man was not made at all, but was simply derived; the third is that man was made by a process of development. Le Conte illustrates this by the origin of the individual. Says he: "There are three theories concerning the origin of the individual. The first is that of the pious child who thinks that he was made very much as he himself makes his

dirt pies; the second is that of the street gamin, or Topsy, who says, 'I was not made at all-I growed'; the third is that of most intelligent Christians: i.e., that we are made by a process of evolution." So with the three theories as to the origin of the human race. The orthodox clergyman believes that man was made at once by the Divine fiat without any natural process; the materialist believes that there is no Creator, that man is the product of blind force inherent in matter, that man "was not made at all-he growed"; the Christian evolutionist believes that man was made by the eternal God by a process of evolution beginning at the very dawn of life upon earth. Man, instead of being created instantly out of the dust of earth, was developed from the lowest forms of life through immeasurable ages. This is not denying that God created man. The earth, as all educated persons admit, was brought to its present form through a long process of development from original nebulæ; yet we say God made the earth. The giant oak that towers heavenward and bids defiance to the storms grew from a little acorn; yet we say God made the oak. The individual man developed from a spherule of protoplasm to a little babe and from a babe to mature manhood; yet we say God made the individual man. So, though generic man reached his high estate only after ages of evolution through the lower animals, yet it is equally true that God made generic man.

This conception of creation is to my mind more rational and more sublime than that which was taught me in childhood. Think of God taking a handful. of dust and molding it into the form of a man, then blowing his breath into it, and, lo! it comes to life and begins to move! That does very well as a story for children: it was adapted to the childhood of the race. It was of inestimable value to the people for

whom it was written.

Just think how many ancient errors are corrected in this short account of creation! It corrected Atheism by showing that there is a God; it corrected Polytheism by showing that Jehovah-Elohim is the only true God; it corrected Pantheism

by showing that God existed before the universe, and created the universe, and was distinct from the universe; it corrected Pessimism by declaring that God looked upon all His work and said that it was good. "Its true and deep object," says Farrar, "was to set right an erring world in the supremely important knowledge that there was one God and Father of all, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who saw all things which He had made and pronounced them to be very good." Its object was to teach, not science, but theology and religion. Taken as science it is incorrect; taken as poetry or myth it is profoundly true. No educated man accepts it as a literal statement of facts. Even those ministers who are so strongly opposed to the doctrine of evolution take great liberties with the Mosaic account of creation. Does God breathe, and did He literally blow His breath into Adam's nostrils? Did He really make Eve out of one of Adam's ribs? Were the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge literal trees with literal fruit? Was the serpent a sure-enough snake, talking to Eve with audible words? And did God really come down to take a walk in the Garden "in the cool of the day"? All this they interpret as figurative. They accept as literal what suits their theory and explain as figurative what they plainly see cannot be literal. I will be more consistent I will consider the whole story as allegorical or legendary, and not at all a scientific account of creation. And I will accept that other account, which we read in God's Book of Nature, viz., that of creation by evolution. It appeals to me as more reasonable, more scientific, more sublime and godlike.

Evolution also gives us a different explanation of the origin of human depravity-not different from the Bible, but different from traditional theology. The fact of depravity is not here in question. Though I do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity-it is contrary both to Scripture and to evolution-yet I cannot close my eyes to the fact that men are more or less depraved. Man is apparently a weak, erring, sinful creature, constantly going astray, constantly falling be

low his ideals, constantly giving way to the demands of his lower nature. The why of this weakness, the source of this seeming depravity, is the question before us. Theology has explained it thus: God made the first man and woman perfect; they disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit and thus fell from their first estate; they transmitted to their posterity their fallen nature and thus the whole race was polluted and depraved. It is commonly supposed that this doctrine of the fall of the race in Adam is Scriptural, but it would be difficult to find any sufficient basis for it in the Bible. Long before I became an evolutionist I had reached this conclusion. The story in Genesis, even if taken literally, gives no hint of results so far reaching. No Old Testament lawgiver or priest or prophet makes any allusion whatever to such a catastrophe. Christ in all his discourses about sin and salvation never once alludes to the "fall" of the race in Adam. John in his sublime Apocalyptic drama of the conflict between good and evil never remotely hints at such a fall as being the origin of evil. Of all the Biblical writers, Paul alone alludes to it. Without affirming or denying, he speaks of this Pharisaic doctrine as if it were familiar to his readers. He uses it as a premise in an ad hominem argument, just as he used the practise of baptism for the dead, and just as Jesus used the belief of the Jews that some of them could cast out devils. As Mr. Beecher said, "It was Christ's moral sufficiency to heal all evil-no matter how it was supposed to have entered the world, even if through Adam-that was in Paul's heart." It is neither a Christian nor a Biblical doctrine: it is a bastard dogma borrowed from the Pharisees. And yet nearly every system of theology has been founded on this assumption that the human race fell in Adam.

It is an assumption without foundation. The race has never fallen. Individuals have fallen-are constantly falling. It may be that whole tribes and even nations have degenerated. But the race as a whole has ever been ascending. One of the surest conclusions of geology and archæology and history is that man was once a savage and has been climbing upward