To this it may be said that the dilemma is more apparent than real, and is due to a like confusion of thought with that which seized upon many when the evolutionary theory was first promulgated. No argument was then more common than that the Divine creation of the animals, including man, was authoritatively revealed once for all in the first chapter of Genesis, and that the bare formulation of the idea that man’s bodily form had developed by a long process of evolution and selection from those of the lower animals was therefore a blasphemy that could only be uttered by atheistic men of science[6]. There is no occasion to go here into the tissue of sophistries and misconceptions with which Mr Gladstone, when confronted with this argument in controversy with M. Albert Réville, one of the founders of the science of religions, and with M. Réville’s champion Prof. Huxley, tried to prove that the assertion of the doctrine of evolution was to be found in the Book of Genesis. It is sufficient to say that Darwin never affirmed that natural selection or the survival of the fittest was the cause of the variation of animal forms, but simply that it was the mode in which that variation, however caused, operated[7]. In like manner, it may be said that the science of religions by no means attempts to discuss the causes which lead to the institution of any particular religion, but deals merely with the laws underlying its development when once instituted. The Christian religion, like those of Moses, Zoroaster, and Mohammed, however Divine its origin, was, like them, propagated by men who founded the Church, handed on the traditions, and gave form to the ceremonies. Is there, therefore, any reason why the same law of development should not apply to this as well as to its rivals?