The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-03-02
EVOLUTION AND JESUS.
BY REV. S. CRANE, ID.

In the doctrine of evolution there
is. without doubt, great truth. 1t is
that one thing comes out of, or is
evolved from, another as the oak from
the acorn. The organic world is
evolved from the inorganic and one
stage or condition of human society
from another so that the new always
has its roots in the old. This much
of this doctrine is doubtless true and
this much, it is very likely, applies to
all things as we now have them.
What is, has come out of what has
been, by process we call evolution.
But when we attempt to explain the
how of this process we are far from
being so sure of our ground. When
we attempt to tell how one thing is
evolved from another the problem is
far more complicated and our affirma-
tions cannot be SO positive. The fact
of evolution is one thing; the law of
evolution quite another. We may
affirm the fact but we are not so sure
of the law. The fact is certain, but
the law has not yet been demonstra-
ted with equal certainty. Natural
Selection" may account for much, but
we can safely say that it does not ac-
count for all. According to this law,
the product is always to be accounted
for by the inheritance and the en-
vironment. All the elements of the
former are to be found in the latter.
All that is in the oak, for instance,
must come from the acorn and the
soil and climate in which it grows. So
all that is in any individual character
must come from its inherited or nat
ural powers and the atmosphere or
conditions of its development.
Three things, let us say, conspired
to produce General Grant. First.
natural endowment. He possessed
the natural gifts of generalship and
these gifts were improved, trained for
the business of war. Then came the
great war in which he found the con-
ditions necessary to the development
of these gifts into great general.
The training and the conditions of
real war belong to his environment;
the gifts to his inheritance. Lacking
either of these he never would have
been great general.
In the same way some evolution
lists would account for Jesus. They
say he was the product of heredity
and environment. What he derived
from his ancestors and what he OBJ
tanned from the age in which he lived
made him what he was. But when
we look in either of these directions
for all the. elements of his greatness
we fail to find them.
Joseph and Mary were certainly
very common folks. They had no
special moral or spiritual greatness.
True they were of the ''house and
lineage" of David, but it does not ap-
pear that they inherited either the
virtues or vices of the great king.
They were just good common people
and in no way way such persons as we
would look to to give birth to the
worlds Spiritual Prince.
And if he was the product of his
age we ought to find in his character
at least some of the elements peculiar
to that age. The oak shows its
keeping. If soil and climate are fa-
vorable, the richness and greatness of
the growth will reveal it.
So if Jesus was the product of
his age those things that were pc
culiar to his age, that distinguished
it, ought to be noticeable in his charac-
ter. We ought to be able to trace in
his character the most pronounced
characteristics of the age in which he
lived.
But can we? Do we find in his
character the peculiar features of his
age7 Think for a moment. 1t was
an age of fanaticism. Was Jesus
fanatici 1t was an age of supersti-
ton. Was Jesus superstitiousl In
religion it was an age of Journalism.
Was Jesus formalisti 1t was an
age of great political excitement. Was
Jesus politician9
These questions answer themselves.
1t is evident that these great peculi-
arities of his age find no place in him.
His life contrasted rather than par