train to continue its course without him. Language such as he has used, coming from so prominent a man, is sufficient to show that the leaven of Evolution is not only present, but active, in the Baptist denomination in England; for it is impossible to suppose that in thus speaking Mr. Spurgeon is guilty of falsehood or of total ignorance or misapprehension of the facts.5

There is a fourth section of Protestant Christendom not inferior to either of the foregoing in numbers or influence, nor accustomed to be left behind when the rest are going forward

that which bears the name and follows. the lead of John Wesley. Among the scientific members of this body no one holds, and with justice, a higher place than the Rev. Dr. Dallinger, President of Wesley College, Sheffield, England, and for the last four years also President of the Royal Microscopical Society of London, a man whose researches have vastly in5 The story is too long for full or adequate statement here, but in order to avert the possible charge of misrepresentation, we refer the reader to the numbers of the Christian World (London) for November, December and January last, where abundant proof may be found. We will only mention one fact. At the last meeting of the council of the Union a declaration was made by the Rev. Dr. Angus, President of the Baptist College in Regent's Park, London, and a strong conservative, of the tenets held by the body. Among these was included the Fall of Man. In the discussion that ensued one speaker openly and logically objected on the ground that it would exclude Evolutionists, and another protested against palming off a deception on the religious world by saying that they were substantially agreed on the doctrine of the Fall; for which a third proposed to substitute the words "human sinfulness and guilt," of which, he added, "no one who was a member of the Baptist Union could entertain any doubt." When we add that Mr. Spurgeon's allegations, in fact, amount to this, "that there are men in the Union who do not hold the 'plenary inspiration of the Bible,' that there are some who refuse to recognize as literal the story of Eve and the Serpent." etc., etc. (Christian World, Nov. 3, 1887). the divergence between the two parties will be evident, and at present there is no little probability that a split will erelong occur in the denomination over these questions.

Later advices impel us to add that the threatened split in the Baptist denomination has been, for the time, at least, averted by the unexpected and almost unconditional surrender of the Spurgeonic party. At the meeting of the Union a motion was made that those who held the doctrine of conditional immortality, as well as those who cherished "the larger hope," could remain within its membership, though it did not sanction dogmatic Universalism. Mr. J. A. Spurgeon, brother of the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who seconded the motion, declared that he would not insist on any creed or test of membership. This surrender marks another victory for the cause of Evolution, won, too, over its most powerful opponent in the Baptist denomination.

creased our knowledge of the lowest forms of life, a branch of microscopy which he may be said to have fairly made his own. In November last Dr. Dallinger delivered the annual Fernley Lecture, and took for his subject, "The Method of Creation." In the treatment of this topic he openly and fearlessly avouched to the utmost length the theory of Evolution. It will be recollected that Professor Tyndall, in 1874, when addressing the British Association at Belfast, brought down on himself a storm of invective and obloquy by giving utterance to the sentiment that in matter, despised as it often is, lies the promise and the potency of every form and quality of life. But progress has been made since 1874, and it will be seen that Dr. Dallinger does not shrink from acknowledging that Tyndall's bold utterance may after all be true.

"It used to be the fashion for defenders of the faith grudgingly to acknowledge a few absolutely incontrovertible discoveries and then to declare that science having reached its utmost limit, the ancient fabric of belief stood unscathed. Not so Dr. Dallinger. Not only with readiness, but with admiration and delight does he acknowledge the splendid results obtained by the patient genius of Mr. Darwin. He endorses the brilliant story of the evolution of the horse. He admits natural selection as a true cause of the variation of species, while insisting, as his profound and special knowledge enables him to do, on the utter absence of any proof of spontaneous generation. But he is too candid and too clear-headed to flaunt this negation in the face of science, or to urge that because the thing is not known now therefore it has always been impossible. On the contrary, he thinks that "when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy," the evolution of living protoplasm from not-living matter must have occurred. says that "experience compels the conclusion that the primordial germ in which life began arose by the operation of natural creative laws," and that so far back as the origin of the solar system the first affection of matter by force carried with it the finished purpose of the All-wise, whatever that may be." Finally, when confronted with the mystery of creation out of nothing, he is rather inclined to call it a contradiction than a mystery, and to speculate on the possibility that the difficulty

NEW SERIES. VOL. XXV.

22

He

might vanish like starlight in the dawn, if we knew what that is which contitutes matter." 6

These utterances and others that might be quoted will make the year which has just ended memorable in the history of the great conflict between Theology and Science. It would be hasty to infer that the conflict is ended. Thoughtful men in nearly all sections of the Protestant Church see the folly of continuing the contest, and have changed sides. Nor are there lacking signs that the great and powerful Church of Rome is moving in the same direction. But the rank and file may not at once follow the example of their leaders. Isolated combats will occur in various parts of the field for a long time to come. Bnt the victory is won and acknowledged. The doctrine of specific creation is dead. The Creator is no longer a mighty Mechanic building up the universe as a potter makes a vessel, only in a short time to destroy it again. The grander idea of a slowly evolving cosmos has taken its place, and we now look back over a history whose æons are vaster than our usual conception of eternity. The Creator is no longer an obtrusive actor. He works in secret in clouds and thick darkness. Yet Science by no means countenances the idea of His absence; but while totally or largely changing our conception of His nature, may perhaps, as Dr. Dallinger has said, make "the Divine Mind more immanent than we could dare to imagine." E. W. Claypole.

6 Christian World, Nov. 17, 1887.

ARTICLE XXI.

The "Increment" Dogma of Henry George a Delusion.

THE land theory of Henry George implies a solecism. His theory is that free access to the soil (the virgin soil only) by the masses is the only sure cure for poverty. To the people of the United States this panacea of free land for the poverty of the poorer classes is the shallowest vagary possible. Bear in mind it is the virgin soil only that Mr. George claims as the birth-right of the race. Now what is cheaper in this country than this same virgin soil? Owners of broad acres in every section of the land would gladly give thousands of them away with the conditions annexed that the receivers settle upon them and cultivate them.

To talk of land monopoly, or of the difficulty of getting access to the soil in such a country as this, presumes upon an ignorance that does not exist, and suggests to the hearer an impeachment of his common sense. Is it necessary to say that there can be no monopoly of land when it can be purchased without limit at rates so low that millions of acres are bought annually by the poorer classes? and when besides the remaining acres are capable of sustaining a population ten times as large as that now living in the United States?

But waiving the theory that every man has as much right to a portion of the earth's surface as every other man, what significance has this theory to the millions who want no land to cultivate? and what substitute does Mr. George provide for them? What is the cure for the poverty of the millions who could not be hired to get a living from the soil? That there are such millions the most ample evidence shows. The rush of all classes to the cities has been constantly increasing, and proceeds from a variety of causes; all centering in the one common purpose of those who go thither to better their condition and secure more of the prizes of life.

In the early part of the century but one in sixteen lived in the cities of the United States. At present one in four is the

ratio found there. Why do these go to the cities? Because they choose to. To suppose otherwise is to set up a groundless hypothesis in place of a common sense conclusion. Suppose Mr. George's "Sphinx of Fate" were appealed to? What would his answer be should this guardian of the everlasting silences become vocal? Probably this: "Mr. George, you misapprehended my functions as the Sphinx of Fate. My business is to accept the logic of events; this is my forte. As Sphinx I am content that these people remain in the city if they choose to. It may not be the wisest choice, but that seems to be the decree of fate, If I know my mission, it is to recognize such decrees, and not to alter them. A wise man looks at things as they are. Here I am in accord with Matthew Arnold."

But the most amusing and suggestive chapter touching the land theory is that containing the advice given by a hard-headed man of business to a youth just setting out in life. This example is intended to illustrate Mr. George's famous doctrine concerning the increment that comes to landed property, espe cially in cities whose rapid growth has greatly enhanced land values. This "increment" theory is the citadel of his position. Let the reader listen to this hard-headed man's advice that is to put the young man on the road to fortune without any effort, mental or physical, on his part. The hard headed man is supposed to say: "Here is a village; get yourself a piece of land and hold possession. In ten years it will be a great city. The electric light will have taken the place of the tallow candle, the railroad the place of the stage-coach; in short, all the elements of a complex and highly organized society will be developed.” He further says to the young man, "You need do nothing more; you may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, or adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will be rich."

It is perhaps needless to deny that some hard headed business man might be found-if his head were hard enough--who would give such senseless advice as this. A level headed man