in the name of a number of men for whom I have a high respect, and called “New Theology and Applied Religion.”  And it is literally true that I have read through whole columns of the things without knowing what the people were talking about.  Either they must be talking about some black and bestial religion in which they were brought up, and of which I never even heard, or else they must be talking about some blazing and blinding vision of God which they have found, which I have never found, and which by its very splendour confuses their logic and confounds their speech.  But the best instance I can quote of the thing is in connection with this matter of the business of physical science on the earth, of which I have just spoken.  The following words are written over the signature of a man whose intelligence I respect, and I cannot make head or tail of them—­

“When modern science declared that the cosmic process knew nothing of a historical event corresponding to a Fall, but told, on the contrary, the story of an incessant rise in the scale of being, it was quite plain that the Pauline scheme—­I mean the argumentative processes of Paul’s scheme of salvation—­had lost its very foundation; for was not that foundation the total depravity of the human race inherited from their first parents?....  But now there was no Fall; there was no total depravity, or imminent danger of endless doom; and, the basis gone, the superstructure followed.”

It is written with earnestness and in excellent English; it must mean something.  But what can it mean?  How could physical science prove that man is not depraved?  You do not cut a man open to find his sins.  You do not boil him until he gives forth the unmistakable green fumes of depravity.  How could physical science find any traces of a moral fall?  What traces did the writer expect to find?  Did he expect to find a fossil Eve with a fossil apple inside her?  Did he suppose that the ages would have spared for him a complete skeleton of Adam attached to a slightly faded fig-leaf?  The whole paragraph which I have quoted is simply a series of inconsequent sentences, all quite untrue in themselves and all quite irrelevant to each other.  Science never said that there could have been no Fall.  There might have been ten Falls, one on top of the other, and the thing would have been quite consistent with everything that we know from physical science.  Humanity might have grown morally worse for millions of centuries, and the thing would in no way have contradicted the principle of Evolution.  Men of science (not being raving lunatics) never said that there had been “an incessant rise in the scale of being;” for an incessant rise would mean a rise without any relapse or failure; and physical evolution is full of relapse and failure.  There were certainly some physical Falls; there may have been any number of moral Falls.  So that, as I have said, I am honestly bewildered as to the meaning of such passages as this, in which