sur son pupitre d'étudiant par ce beau soir d'un jour de juin. Les fleurs s'ouvrent sous la fenêtre, amoureusement. L'or tendre du soleil couché s'étend sur la ligne de l'horizon avec une délicatesse adorable. Des jeunes filles causent dans le jardin voisin. L'adolescent est penché sur son livre, peut-être un de ceux dont il est parlé dans ces Essais. C'est les Fleurs du Mal de Baudelaire, c'est la Vie de Jésus de M. Renan, c'est la Salammbô de Flaubert, c'est le Thomas Graindorge de M. Taine, c'est le Rouge et le Noir de Beyle. Qu'il ferait mieux de vivre! disent les sages. Hélas! c'est qu'il vit à cette minute, et d'une vie plus intense que s'il cueillait les fleurs parfumées, que s'il regardait le mélancolique Occident, que s'il serrait les fragiles doigts d'une des jeunes filles. Il passe tout entier dans les phrases de son auteur préféré. Il converse avec lui de cœur à cœur, d'homme à homme. Il l'écoute prononcer sur la manière de goûter l'amour et de pratiquer la débauche, de chercher le bonheur et de supporter le malheur, d'envisager la mort et l'au delà ténébreux du tombeau, des paroles qui sont des révélations. Ces paroles l'introduisent dans un univers de sentiments jusqu'alors aperçu à peine. De cette première révélation à imiter ces sentiments, la distance est faible et l'adolescent ne tarde guère a la franchir. Un grand observateur a dit que beaucoup d'hommes n'auraient jamais été amoureux s'ils n'avaient entendu parler de l'amour."- PAUL BOURGET, Essais de Psychologie Contemporaine (Paris, 1895), p. vi. "It may be alleged that the popular opinion is merely a reflection of the popular literature, and that the truth of the assumption I am calling in question is generally believed by the many who read, simply because it is constantly asserted by the few who write. This no doubt is accurate, and up to a certain point is an explanation. There exists now a kind of literature, already large and of growing importance, produced by experts for the benefit of those who desire to be 'generally informed'; which, unlike most ephemeral literature, leads public opinion rather than follows it. Of course the greater part of this, whether it consists of handbooks or of review articles, has no bearing whatever on the relation which ought to exist between Religion and Science, or with the positive evidence that may exist for either. But just as popular accounts of chemistry, physiology, or history appear in answer to the natural desire of an educated but busy public for as much knowledge as possible, about as many things as possible, with as little trouble as possible; so there are easily found eminent authors anxious to purvey for that apparently increasing class of persons who aspire to be advanced thinkers, but who like to have their advanced thinking done for them."— A. J. BALFOUR, A Defence of Philosophic Doubt (Macmillan, 1879), p. 308. Note 4. Page 7.-"With sorrow and reluctance it must be confessed that the majority of Oxford and Cambridge undergraduates are without, or at least profess to be without, any religious beliefs at all. There are, of course, many exceptions. Exceptions, however, they remain; certainly the greater number are Gallios so far as the church is concerned." Article in The Nineteenth Century, October, 1895, in "The Religion of the Undergraduate." Things are not quite so bad in the United States, but in France and Germany they are worse. Note 5. Page 11.- Among these books, which take a distinctly spiritual and religious view of evolution, some of the most interesting have been written in America. The Idea of God, and The Destiny of Man, by John Fiske; Agnosticism and Religion, by President Schurman of Cornell University; The Evolution of Christianity, by Dr. Lyman Abbott; and Moral Evolution, by Prof. George Harris of Andover, may be named as works of great value to the student who wishes to understand the deeper tendencies of modern thought. One of the first of undoubtedly orthodox theologians to assert that the theory of evolution is not hostile to religion, was President James McCosh of Princeton. The general course of the argument as it is developing in the light of science to-day, may be seen in the following extracts from the writings of Dr. John Fiske. "The Darwinian theory, properly understood, replaces as much teleology as it destroys. From the first dawning of life we see all things working together toward one mighty goal, the evolu tion of the most exalted spiritual qualities which characterize Humanity. The body is cast aside and returns to the dust of which it was made. The earth, so marvellously wrought to man's uses, will also be cast aside. The day is to come, no doubt, when the heavens shall vanish as a scroll, and the elements be melted with fervent heat. So small is the value which Nature sets upon the perishable forms of matter! The question, then, is reduced to this: Are Man's highest spiritual qualities, into the production of which all this creative energy has gone, to disappear with the rest? Has all this work been done for nothing? Is it all ephemeral, all a bubble that bursts, a vision that fades? Are we to regard the Creator's work as like that of a child, who builds houses out of blocks, just for the pleasure of knocking them down? For aught that science can tell us, it may be so, but I can see no good reason for believing any such thing. On such a view the riddle of the universe becomes a riddle without a meaning. Why, then, are we any more called upon to throw away our belief in the permanence of the spiritual element in Man than we are called upon to throw away our belief in the constancy of Nature? The more thoroughly we comprehend that process of evolution by which things have come to be what they are, the more we are likely to feel that to deny the everlasting persistence of the spiritual element in Man is to rob the whole process of its meaning. It goes far toward putting us to permanent intellectual con fusion, and I do not see that any one has yet alleged, or is likely to allege, a sufficient reason for our accepting so dire an alternative."-JOHN FISKE, The Destiny of Man (Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., 1895), pp. 113-116. "As to the conception of Deity, in the shape impressed upon it by our modern knowledge, I believe I have now said enough to show that it is no empty formula or metaphysical abstraction which we would seek to substitute for the living God. The infinite and eternal Power that is manifested in every pulsation of the universe is none other than the living God. We may exhaust the resources of metaphysics in debating how far his nature may fitly be expressed in terms applicable to the physical nature of Man; such vain attempts will only serve to show how we are dealing with a theme that must ever transcend our finite powers of conception. But of some things we may feel sure. Humanity is not a mere local incident in an endless and aimless series of cosmical changes. The events of the universe are not the work of chance, neither are they the outcome of blind necessity. Practically there is a purpose in the world whereof it is our highest duty to learn the lesson, however well or ill we may fare in rendering a scientific account of it. When from the dawn of life we see all things working together toward the evolution of the highest spiritual attributes of Man, we know, however the words may stumble in which we try to say it, that God is in |