The most interesting and most important subject that can engage our attention as reasonable men is that of man himself. What is man? Whence came he? Whither is he hastening? are questions discussed since history dawned, and never more earnestly than now, and never were were more varied answers given. Momentous interests hang upon our answers to these questions, involving not only the result of scientific research or theological dogma, but also man's personal woe or weal, the welfare of society, the political consolidation or dissolution of the strength of empires. The present course of lectures aims at the study of man in his manifold relations to the universe, his past, present, and future, in such a way as shall preclude a hasty and fatally one-sided decision, and shall open the path to such a thoughtful weighing of all available evidence, as shall culminate in a practical decision worthy of men possessed of reason and conscience. These great questions are of prime importance for the young men of Japan, and above all things at this particular juncture in the development of your country. In this time of transition from ancient forms to the newer ones of a differing civilization, the impress given by this generation of educated men to the plastic masses of the nation

4

Search the Old,

[LECT.

will affect your posterity and the welfare of your people for all the ages yet to come. I would therefore ask you to look the matter seriously, solemnly in the face, and allow no petty sideissues to divert us from the line of great principles which lie at the foundation of true civilization, culture and progress.

As an introduction to the larger questions in hand it seems proper that we should enquire as to the origin of man and how long he has been on the earth. A vast number of answers to this question has been given, nor has a satisfactory solution yet been found it is simply one of those open questions which are of great interest to us, but the answer to which, one way or the other, is not of the greatest practical importance. We are often reminded, by persons or books dealing with this question, of the angry discussions and misrepresentations of theologians as opposed to scientists and scientific research of prehistoric man. But two very important facts seem often to be overlooked, viz., (1) That scientists who were by no means theologically warped, have earnestly discussed the subject, and have as strongly opposed, and do oppose to the present day, the teachings of other scientists with regard to the antiquity of man; and (2) That many theologians, such as Mgr. Meignan, R. C. bishop, M. l'abbe Lambert, and M. l'abbe Bourgeois and others have taken an active part in pre-historic researches, and do not find the teaching of the Bible or the dogmas of the church at all in the way.

Now the fact is, there are scientists and scientists, and there are theologians and theologians; and you will generally find that it is not the profoundly scientific man but the superficial sciolist who claims that science is destructive of faith, and who shouts, "down with religions and creeds." On the other hand, it is not the profound and thoughtful theologian, but the narrowminded and half-educated alarmist only, who decries science and research into every nook and corner of nature, as an enemy of

I.]

Test the New.

5

theology and religion. One of the sayings of a theological teacher under whom I studied many years ago remains in my memory, and has been the guide of my thoughts and studies ever since, and I would recommend the same words to you, for in them is a whole heritage of wisdom. "Young men," he used to say, "Young men, the world of thought is moving on; do not accept a thing simply because it is new, and do not be afraid to accept a thing because it is new." That seems simple enough, but it indicates the path to sure and lasting progress, and a means to avoid disaster and disappointment. There are two classes of extremists, both of which we should avoid with equal care, and these are, if you will allow me to coin for you a pair of new English words, neomaniacs and neophobists. Neomanics are those who search for what is new, and accept it because it is new, rejecting the old landmarks, simply because they have been there so long. In this class are a great many young people whose ambition is more powerful than their judgment is mature, and who are to be found amongst both scientists and theologians. Neophobists represent a class who stick to the old and despise the new because it is new; they will have nothing to do with your new fangled ideas, and are constantly praising the past and pointing back to the old landmarks. There are a good many specimens of this species in olden lands, and amongst elderly people in every land, including old women, in the garb of both science and religion. Avoiding both extremes, our way must be to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" and true. I presume you will not object to that, though it is a doctrine of Christianity and the very words of the Bible. Test the new, test it fully, and if it is true it must be good, and

Test the old, test

you must accept it or commit mental suicide. it well, be sure you are right; but if the old is not true, it cannot be good: you must reject it or deprave your intellectual being. The object of these lectures is to urge you to search for

6

Grasp Truth, not Theory.

[LECT.

and grasp, not what is new, not what is old, as such, but above all things to "Buy the truth and sell it not "as Solomon tells us to do.

But you ask,-Does not the Bible commit you to a fixed chronological limit for the origin and existence of man upon the earth? Some would-be scientists who knew more about rocks than about the Bible which they were affecting to criticise, and some theologians, who knew more about old musty traditions than about the scripture they thought they were teaching, have said so. But (1) no theological truth depends upon our understanding of those ancient chronological tables; and (2) among students of that chronology there are one hundred and forty distinct and different opinions as to the date of the beginning of the historical sketch in the Bible, differing to the extent of over 8,000 years. Thus the Bible asserts nothing positive with regard to that point, and it makes absolutely no difference to the teachings of Christianity whether man has been on the earth 4,000 or 400,000 years before Christ.

Again it is claimed that the Darwinian theory of evolution set the world on the right track in the study of man, and putting him into his proper place as one of the mammals in the animal kingdom, explains the whole mystery of man's origin, position and destiny. While on the other hand physiologists and other scientists of equal note and authority declare that, on Darwin's own theory, it is as impossible that man should have developed out of any known line of apes as out of cats and tigers. It must ever be kept in mind that the doctrine of evolution is still a theory, a hypothesis: one among scores that have been set up by science, some few of which have been proved true, but most of which had to be eventually abandoned as they proved to be untenable. It is well, nay necessary, to have some hypothesis as an outline in which to set facts as they are brought to light; but it is going too far to ask the world to accept any

I.]

The Limits of Hypothesis.

7

hypothesis as truth, which we must believe as a scientific deduction, until it shows itself true, by a perfect adjustment to a sufficient number of facts, and not to be vitiated by too many exceptions. Now the theory of evolution seems to gather a vast amount of facts, and place them in such an order and harmony as to show that there is a great deal of truth in it as far as it goes. And as far as facts attest the truth, so far must we of course promptly accept it, only we must be careful not to suppose that one ingredient in a compound of many forces and facts fully explains the whole. The dispute is one of science purely, and it seems that the majority of the best and most unbiassed thinkers look upon evolution in some form and within certain limits, as the law according to which things have come into being. But a vast deal remains yet to be done before it can be substantiated as the Copernican system or the Keplerian laws. And whatever the result may be, whether the hypothesis be true or not-unless it can be shown that matter evolves itself without a Creator-it makes absolutely no difference to the principles of the Christian religion or the teachings of the Bible.

But when men in the name of science, of which they are not the best representatives, overstep their sphere of empirical research, and attempt to teach us what are the ultimate causes of things, and tell us that there is nothing in the world but matter and force and evolution, we cry-" Hold! now you are on ground that is common to us both. We accept your facts as far as you bring us proof; but when you begin to philosophise on those facts, and attempt to construct a system of thought, we too have the same right to enquire into the metaphysical bearings of the case.' "But," reply certain extremists again, "there are no metaphysics; that is a region of fancy. There is nothing in the universe but matter, and mechanical force, and evolution." We reply that such a position, ancient though it is, is too narrow, too shallow, to allow room for all the facts of the case, and con