Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 50.djvu/282

268 agreement there is between the teachings of one and the other. Such is the position of the Archdeacon of Manchester. In examining the theory of evolution he sees, in the first place, that it is no way inconsistent with theism; and, in the second, that it throws no difficulty hi the way of recognizing the personality of the Divine Being that theologians were not already aware of and familiar with in connection with their own special studies. That problem would subsist even if no theory of evolution had ever been formulated. To quote the speaker's words: "No cell of a body could interpret the personality of the whole; and similarly we could not grasp the personality of God and his love and Fatherhood when we were thinking of all Nature as the expression of his will." As regards the creation of man, the archdeacon does not consider that there is any conflict between the theory of evolution and any essential Christian doctrine. "It was no part," he said, "of the doctrine of the Church—it was a comparatively modern theory of the naturalists, rashly accepted by the theologians of two centuries ago—that man was a special and underived species. He could imagine no sublimer conception of the nature or the dignity of man than that which saw all Nature as the self-manifestation of God rising into self-consciousness in man. Christian doctrine could adopt the evolutionary view of the creation of man; it was pledged to no other."

Passing to the doctrine of the Fall of Man, the speaker acknowledged that, in the light of evolution, the generally received view required considerable readjustment. We quote again: "Man fell, according to science, when he first became conscious of the conflict of freedom and conscience. Now, this conflict of freedom and conscience was precisely what was related as ‘The Fall’ sub specie historiœ. It told of the fall of a creature from unconscious ignorance to conscious guilt, expressing itself in hiding from the presence of God. But this fall from innocence was in another sense a rise to a higher grade of being. It was in this sense that the theory of evolution taught us to interpret the story of the Fall. It gave a deeper meaning to the truth that sin was lawlessness." Closely connected with the doctrine of the Fall is the doctrine of Atonement, and that, too, the speaker stated, must undergo modification and accept a broader basis. Such is the evident meaning of the following passage: "The theory of evolution is, indeed, fatal to certain quasi-mythological doctrines of the Atonement which once prevailed, but it is in harmony with their spirit. It has become impossible to regard redemption as an afterthought, as a plan devised by a resourceful Creator, in Miltonic fashion, to meet an emergency. It has become impossible to the evolutionist to retain what was once the ordinary view of the supernatural as an interference with the natural, as an interposition from another sphere. Such dualism is repugnant to him. All progress being the result of struggle and sacrifice, the Atonement is God's identification of himself with the human race in that ceaseless struggle, manifested specially in the supreme sacrifice of the sinless Christ, but also in all human life lived in the spirit of Christ. This identification is the Atonement, the reconciliation, and in it the evolutionist, not less than the theologian, finds new hope and power, a release from sin, a real forgiveness and redemption." The speaker did not profess to be able to see his way through all the difficulties of his subject, but he made the broad statement that "thought is