it does not at all
wish to, and cannot, express itself concerning the _end_ and _goal_ of the
world and the laws and circumstances which may reign in a _future aeon_, and
that it gives free scope to every perception of the ultimate which might
come from another source. {376}

On the other hand, Christian eschatology is alone able to do most essential
service to the evolution theory, in case it should be verified, by giving
an answer to questions to which the evolution theory tends more decidedly
than any other scientific theory--namely, to the questions as to _the end
of the world and mankind_, with such distinctions as no philosophy which
treats of the doctrines of nature, is able to give, although natural
science itself demands the answer to these questions the more peremptorily,
the higher the points of view are to which it leads us.

The world shows to every investigating eye a development, whether we have
to take this development as descent or as successive new creation; and
therefore we shall take, in the following discussion, the idea of
development in this broad sense which comprises all conceivable attempts at
explanation. All nature--its most comprehensive cosmic realms as well as
the realms of its smallest organisms--together with the corporeal,
psychical, and spiritual nature of man, shows a _harmony_, a _conformity to
the end in view_, and a _striving toward an end_ of its development, the
denial of which will certainly not add to the laurels which transmit the
scientific fame of our present generation to posterity. Now, what is this
end? The answer which we receive from those who reject Christian
eschatology, may be given by two scientific antipodes: by Strauss and
Eduard von Hartmann. Strauss takes sides with those who reject all striving
toward an end in nature; and his answer to the question (which still
asserts itself in his system of the world), is: eternal circular motion of
the universe, death of all individuals and of all complexes of individuals,
even of {377} mankind. Eduard von Hartmann, on the other hand, is filled by
the knowledge of the teleological, but he rejects the hope of Christians
and the end which offers itself to him in the place of the rejected end of
Christian hope, is destruction--destruction of all individuals and
destruction of the world. In view of such ends, is not the Christian's hope
_the_ answer which not only satisfies the deepest ethical and religious
need, but also all