, 1876-12-23

From Mc Ncr lork Nation.

discussion about the Theory Ol CNOlutlOh
is the prominent part taken in it by cler.
gymcn Of various denominations There
is hardly one of them who, since lluX-
ley's lectures, has not preached a sermon
bearing on the matter in some way, and
several have made it the topic of special
articles or lectures. One minister in
Boston, Mr.. Cook. has delivered two or
three lectures on it. and DR.. Taylor in
New York, has assailed Huxleys posi-.
tiOn III a letter to the TrbNHe. Other
ministers have attacked the hypothesis
in the religious quartcrlies. In fact, we
do not think we eXaggerte when we say
that thrce-iourhs of all that has been
recently said or writ about it in this
country, has hecn said or written by
ministers. There is no denying that the
theory, il true, does, in appearance at
least, initiate against the account of the
Creation given in the first chapter of
Genesis. or, in other words, against the
view of the origin OF lite on the globe
which has been held by the Christian
worlChtOr seventeen centuries. 1t would,
therefore, be by no means surprising
that ministers should meet it, either by
showing that the Mosaic account OF the
Creation Was really insplred-was, in
short, the account given 10y the Creator
himself or that the modern interpreta-
tions of it were incorrect, and that it
was really, when perfectly understood,
easily reconciled with the conclusions
reached Of late years by geologists and
biologists. This Is the way in which II
great many ministers have hitherto met
the Ey0lutionists, and for this sort Of
work they are undoubtedly fitted by ed
ucatlon and experience. If it can be
done by any one, they are the men to do
it. II it be maintained that the Biblical
account is literally true, they are more
familiar than any other class of men
with the evidence and arguments accu-
muated by the Church in favor of the
inspiration Of the Scriptures; or if, on
the other hand, it be desired to reconcile
the Bible with evolution, they are more
familiar than any other class of men with
the eXegctical process by which this re-
conciliation can be effected. T1ey nre
specially trained in ecclesiastical history
and tradition, in Greek and Hebrew re
igiOuS literature, and in the methods of
Interpretation which have been for ages
in use among theologians.
q OF late, however, they have shown a
decided inc mat on to abandon the purely
ecclesiastical approach to the controversy
altogether, and this is especially remark
able IN the discussion now pending over
Huxley. They do not seek to defend
the Biblical account of the Creation, or
to reconcile it with the theory of the
Evolutionists. Far from it; they have
come down in most of the recent cases
into the scientific arena, and are meeting
the men of science with their own weap.
ons. They tell Huxley and Darwin and
Tyndall that their evidence is imperfect,
and their reasoning from it faulty. No.
ticing their activity in this new field,
and the marked contrast which this ac-
tivity presents to the modesty or indif.
ference OF the other proiesSons-the
lawyers and doctors, tor instance, who
on general grounds have fully as much
reason to be interested in evolution as
the ministers, and have hitherto been at
least as we'll fitted to discuss tive
asked ourselves whether it was possible
that, without our knowledge, any change
had of late years been made in the cur
riculum of the divinity schools or theo.
logical seminaries, with the view of fit
ting ministers to take prominent part
in the solution of the increasingly i'm
portant and startling problems raised by
physical science. In order to satisfy
ourselves, we lately turned over the cata.
logues of all the principal divinity
schools in the country to see if any
chairs of natural science had been estab-
Iished, or if candidates for the ministry
had to undergo any compulsory instruc.
tion in geology or physics, or the higher
mathematics, or biology, or paleontol-
nr1,. nr astrnnnnr nr knI 20 knno,.a