Morning journal and courier., 1880-02-06
Yale Theological School.

Yale Theological School Science and ReliRIOn-s.The Antagon-
 isms of Scientific and Theological
 ThOught'-PrOf. Gray of Cambridge.
 Marquand chapel, Yale Theological School, was thronged to overHowing yesterday after noon at o'clock, when Prof. Gray, of Gam bridge, delivered the first of two Iectures-the second occurring this afternoon at the same hour-en the topic, s'The Antagonisms of Scientific and Theological Thought" The reputation of the speaker for advanced and elevated thought and high scholarship, and his recognized fine social position, made it an opportunity of unusual interest and pleasure, and that portion of the audience not immedi- ately identified with the college was com- posed largely of people of social prominence. resume of the lecture is as follows:
 lam invited to address you in relation to those claims of natural science which have been supposed to be antagonistic to religion. It has occurred to me if it might not be well if an occasional sermon were delivered from the pews, but am by no means confident that may be helpful in composing strife. h. deed, in much expect charitable judgment NSoCASs @ layman's thought from a layman's point of view.
 Frankness is everywhere commendable, and as alayman, you must allow me a certain freedom in this regard, as one who has de- voted lifetime to naturalistic studies, and has taken kindly to certain recent biological inves- tigations.I am asked to consider certain scien- tifc doctrines, which in schools of theology are everywhere spoken against. Some of these doctrines are very old, aud start ques- tions in whose solution the gravest issues are involved, while others are more modern, but for long time after their appearance were regarded as hostile to Christianity. I can remember the time when the conclusions of :geologists were deemed incompatible with Christianity. One need not be an old man to recollect that LaPlace was counted an atheist | because of his nebula theory of the solar sys- tenn.
 Origin of spscies-It is a now generally &C.,
 knowledged fact that the existing species are | thousands of years old.
 The question how to reconcile the known discrepancy between the literal account in Genesis and the best results of scientific in
  l cal and evasfve answers-explanation alike shocking to sound sense and an honest con- | science; that most that is now attempted is to show that the two are not incompatible. now propose to consider only those facts which are involved in the evolutionary theory | of the origin of species,-the foundations ol buttresses of which are entirely scientific. It used to be maintained that every living thing was distinct plant or animal, but new | difficulties have arisen, inasmuch as there le | now known to be multitude of forms mol clearly distinguished either as plant or ani
 nal. The theory of 8 tertium quid, separate ! from each, is now abandoned, and the unity of the vegetable and animal kingdom is 6 new article added to the scientific creed. It was formerly supposed that plant was composed only of three and an animal of foul elements, but it is now known that they ars
 both chemically and physiologically and struc | turally the same. The statement that proto plasm is the physical basis of life must be ac
 oepted. It is the living matter from which | all organic life originates.
 Substances once supposed to be found onl. in plants, are now known to belong to ami | mals also, as celluline, starch, chlorine l There are animals which decompose oarboni
 acid and exhale oxygen gas the same as [ Il leaf.
 The characteristic features of an animal are
 a mouth and stomach, but it is now 8 vel
 known fact that these are not peculiar to ami l malls, as they belong to various orders O | plants, such as the epizoa the tabulares ant
 others. Not only do plants feed upon each | other, but plants of higher grade feed ol
 animals of lower grade. There is 8 juict
 in certain plants which is very similar in it | office to the gastric juice in animals.
 Formerly it was customary to pass lightly
 over such facts as these by clubbing then
 "Iusus Nature ;" now the naturalist regard
 them simply as exhibiting, in higher de | Eand mn Y1rorninanf1v hot ia | and universal
 The faculty of automatic movements wa
 long held to belong exclusively to animals | but such movements can be clearly shown tG Il exist in plants also.
 It was formerly supposed that the power | by which anything puts forth energy was sub stantially it's own. This view is false.
 The man, plant or animal, adds nothing ani takes nothing from the sum total of force The work done is measured solely by the pass \ ing from stable to unstable equilibrium. All that the plant or animal does is to direct theil | activity towards certain ends.
 In the lowest forms of organic life there ii | no manifest individuality of structure. Cells are the first individualized forms. The plant or animal starting from single cell subdivides into two, four, sixteen, etc., the highest forms being the most differentiated. The process oi
 subdivision is very elaborate, and it is prema, | ture to conclude that Jumps of protoplasm are ! destitute of organic structure.
 From individuals we will now pass to theil ! successions and kinds.
 | The doctrine that the earth has been popu- lated and depopulated over and over died 6 glorious death with Agassiz, and has no scien ! tific defender to-day.
 The fact that not few species have sur. | vived unchanged justifes the conclusion that no universal catastrophe ever plotted out life | from the earth.
 There is no reasonable doubt that latter
 forms are the descendants of earlier ones. ScIentlhc opinion respecting the variation | of species has undergone radical change; il I is not what it was forty or fifty years ago. | It is hardly possible that such fine differ \ ences as occur between different species are | supernatural; neither are species mere shad. ows, but they have only relative fixity. If animals of related species interbreed the hybrid is generally sterile, but not always. The doctrine of natural selection as stated by Darwin is true in the same sense in which | 1t is true that round stones roll further than | flat ones. Mr.Darwin does not mean to claim that it will account for everything. It cannot be invoked as the cause of that on which il happens Is the cause Of whatever comes to pass. Many who accept the doctrine of evo- lution think little of natural selection as
 means of accounting for it.
 The general theory of evolution is support ed by great variety of considerations il explains multitude of facts in geology, ..phys 1 ical geography, natural history, morphology,
 anatomy, biology and psychology. I fancy that human beings may be more
 humane when they recognize their relations to l the vegetable and animal kingdom, while not
 unmindful of their spiritual ascendency, ir | recognition of which the evolutionist may join \ hands with the Apostle Paul.
 In conclusion Prof. Gray stated that in his | next lecture he should consider certain scien-
 tifc doctrines, that, if true would prove de. | structive of both Christianity and theism. The Late c. c. Waite. The New York Tribune, incidentally in z
 splendid tribute to the late c. 0. Waite, thus | speaks of some of the features of his early ca
 reer: He was born June 24, 1880, at Brat
 tleboro, Vt. With limited education, he &oC cid