New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-09-25
OPINIONS OF OTHER CLERGYMEN.

OPINIONS OF OTHER CLERGYMEN.
COMMENTS on PROF. HUxLEY's VIEWS By Mr.. HEP
WORTH, AND DRs. vERNnYE, LUDLOW, AMI
HASTINGS.
In his sermon yesterday morning the Rev.
George II. HepwOrth, at the Church Of the Disciples
made brief reference 20 the doctrines OF Prof Hux
ley as expressed in his lectures during the past week
He OF the opinion that the chief weakness OF Prof
Huxleys argument lay in his unwilngneSst TO meet It's
consequences that he promised mt the beginning
demonstrate what he granted at the close could not
DO demonstrated that 1t unfair to dodge the moral
results OF his theory by the fimsy excuse
that such and such question was matter Of phos-
ophy Mr.. HepwOrth said he could understand why Prof.
Huxley had not openly and boldly attacked the Bible
IL plainly because he knew that the consequences OF
his theory were destructive alike Of the New and Old
Testament. Tho result Of having heard the three leo
turee Mr. Hepworth added, had been to fix his old be-
le more firmly As contributions to science he regarded
them as Invaluable, and thought they would tend TO
awaken interest I'm this much neglected line Of study
A reporter called at the residence OF the Rev DR..
Thomas E. VermYe yesterday afternoon TO inquire II
any reference had been made from the pulpit OF the Col
leciate Church. at Ffth-ave and FOryoghths, 10 the
theory of evolution supported by Prof. Huxley IN ma
lectures during the past week Dr. Yermye said lie
had not occupied the pulpit Of the church IN the morning
and did not know what had been said. lii regard 10
Prof Huxley he had not heard the lectures but had read
the reports Of them In the papers. he thought they
were sort generalization and that Prof Huxley had
put forth theory before he had the facts to prove IT,
The Rev. DR.. James Ludlow, who occupied the pulpit
OF the Collegiate Church in the morning, said he had
not made any reference to the Lectures Of Prof Huxley
in his sermon although it subject 20 which he
had given considerable attention He took exception TO
the statements with which Prof. Huxley prefaced his
lectures nasInuch he said that there were only three
hypOtheses which had been entertained III regard 70
tGe creation. DR.. Ludlow Sid this entirely Ignored
large class OF Christian tunlcr and the doct1ue hela
by the Christian Church, which was comllItoOh OF
what Prof Huxley pleased to call the AtOuia ~
Othesis and doctrine of evolution. lie also tboug
Prof Huxley uw9ranted IN saying that the tneoty
OF evolution rested upon secure foundation as tHe
CopeTncan system, since the latter accounted Tor al
things which Il aued to explain, while The forneflmper
fectiy accounted for q few. Dr. IualOW thOheht 10
might refer 20 the matter IN ms sermon next SuuusJ
though he was not prepared to say positively.
Dr. Thomas H. Hastings pastor OF the West PresDytS
rian Church In FortySecOndt. between Ffth ana Slxt
gves said: made no mention OF Prof Huxley or INC
theory Of evolution in my sermon thia morning met
number OF The pastors OF the Presbyterian churehes 10
this city last evening, and the matter was dlscussed
casually don't think any mention Will be made OF "
by any OF US me and We are not yet settleo
down 10 our Winter work sufficiently 10 give 1t proper
attention. aln inclined to JON issue with Mr.. Huxley
on the statements he made III the outset lie ciahed
that there only three theories IN regard 10 the ctea
ti0n which had ever been held, while the CHRISTIAN
Church believes in modified form OF evolution.
DIR Hastings said he should at some future tune speak OF
the matter in way intended 70 meet the needs VI nus
paIishiOnetA.