Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-09-11
EVOLUTION AVID REVOLUTION. "
synopsis G: henry Ward Beechef's Lecture
in san Francisco.

The San Francisco Bulletin of SATURDAY
gives the following synopsis of Rev. Henry
Ward Bescher'a lecture in that city Fri
day evening:
The third lecture of the course by Rev
Henry Ward Beecher on Evolution anc
Revolution was delivered in metropolitan
Hall last evening to large audience. Tn,
lecture was replete with wit and sarcasm
and applause was frequent.
THE CREATEsT ERA IN EXISTENCE.
"You have often, in reading history. ,
he began, "become deeply interested il
some epoch that is 50 romantic as to make
YOU wish that you had lived in that age
Now you are living in a history making
era. This ere will be celebrated in future
ages as the most remarkable that has ever
existed on this globe. We have come tC
a grand unfolding age, which olche:
in its results every possible share of human
sffairs-an age of evolution. / haze
Joined that word with revolution, because
this is an evolution we are passing through,
which is, in fact, revolution. The old
is being abandoned for the new In every
manufactory, if there comes a new piect
of machinery that will make cotton oil
wooden goods penny yard less than the
machinery already used, 1t creates a revo
lltion-which Is, too, an evolution-in the
process of the work it does. What We
very much need to-day is some man with
the capacity to give the common people,
in simple book form, the truth of this
great truth of evolution, for the people
should understand it. Aud such man
will come. No person who is a teacher,
especially a moral teacher, and more es-
pecially minister, should be without a
perfect understanding of evolution
What is evolution? Il is the
discovery OF the divine method of
creation it gives to science a
history, because, before it was understood,
science was merely tumble OF reservoirs
of knowledge as opposed to the old doc
trine. IL may be said that evolution is
the doctrine Of the gradual creation of the
world, opposing the doctrine of instanta-
niety Of creation. Geology has shown the
world that when God wrote on the tablets
of stone il was not the first time he had
written on stone it has shown that the
period IN which the world has been unfold
ing vas not 600 years. but incalulable
ages. When ehis was first discovered by
the geologiss, the church was staggered,
and God e guardians, the ministers of the
church, who look out for His interests on
this earth, and see that no injury is done
Him, rose up red with wrath, that anyone
dared to promulgate such theories in the
face Of the Bible. Bat the Church, as you
all know, stole out from its position by
the easy method of ascribiDg many thou
sands of years TO each of the six days in
which God made the world. The world
now, however, has come to pretty gener-
ally accept the theory of gradual growth
of the vegetable and animal world-evolu-
tion. God never saw great forest spring
up from the rocks perfect at once that
was not His way. God, who is eternal,
had plenty of time, and to spare, and He
created slowly, by evolution. Milton,
from whom more men have taken their
theology than from the Bible, told how
the animal kingdom came to exist-the
lions paving and roaring to get out of
their rocky confines l have no doubt
that If John Milton had had the world to
form, he would have done it that way
But that was not Gods style.
GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE THEORY.
The theory of evolution, l feel safe in
saying, is accep pied by every scientific man
in the world. There are many facts in
Genesis which are not true-as they have
been construed for a thousapd years. The
doctrine as we have it at present is like a
beautiful window of great age and inesti-
mable value, on which the cobwebs of ages
have accumulated and caught the dirt and
darkened the window, so that we are now
living IN a sort of twilight. But when this
rubbish is brushed away by the broom of
progress and modern thought the light will
come through clearer and brighter than
ever. Is man q creature than has been de-
veloped The soundest Christian scien-
lists OF to-day say that is an improved
thing that there is a gulf between the
lowest man and highest animal that has
never been bridged. The cautious scientist
hesitateH to absolutely assert his belief in
the theory. /, personally, believe in the
theory of the evolution of man. Pro-
fessor Dana, of Yale, while with the ut
most caution he refrains from committing
himself to an unqualified belief in the
theory, still plainly shows his inclination
in that way. 1t is only hypothesis
which is a glorious guess, the seeing before
the reasoning. There Is great deal oI
objection to the theory of evolution because
of the ridioule about our descending from
the monkey. They object-and for my part
I don't believe we did come from the
monkey, although If we did, l am willing
TO admit that many men have tarrled OF
the way down. ] had Just as lief come
from 8 monkey as anything else-lt only
came far enough. II is not what l came
from It is what / am. But l am NOR
concerned about where l am going thar
where ! came from. Still, think thu
monkey theory is preferable to the bib
heal theory. | had rather come from re
spectacle monkey than from dust heap
But why admit the monkey theory at ali
Take the vegetable kingdom for an exam
pie of what am going to suggest. Inc
pine and the palm-csn anything NOR
different be imagined IN the same class o
the vegetable kingdom Yet go to tn
moss, and yeu will find there species wher'
every feature of both the pine and tn
palm coexist. Ages ago they were differ
entiated and went their ways, and eaci
produced line of its kind, and the PIN
and the palm came. So branches onc'
came TO the animal kingdom, and one wen
on producing it's kind, and the monkey
with all its hair and bone and scales, wa
produced, and not q man was produced
The other branch went on, and man, wit
his nerves, his fibre, mis- brains, his sou
came-but I cannot say ne never produces
a monkey.
The INsPIRATIoF OF THE SCRIPTURES
But il is said that evolution destroys tn
theory of inspired Scripture. 1t may de
stroy the barbaric theory of literal insPira
tion, which is not preached in any lumln
GUS pulpit to-day. Il is an absurd theor,
to suppose that when man wrote that TO
spoke 20 them He spoke literally. II CO.
had spoken verbally TO man he would hav
told them of themselves, of their owl
structure, of the relation OF parents t
children. l do no believe in the yeroa
literal inspiration of the Bible. l do no
defend myself for that; / attack thos
who do believe it. Belief in it is the higl
road to infdelity, and the man VIII
breaches it is the high priest OF in1dellty
,,,ap ho Yareachaq the the