The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-20

those philosophical differences" which,
as we have seen, he so much disregards.
He admits this, when he says, (p. 161),
that the idea of First Cause is not de-
rived from without by observation" e..
e., Science) "but wholly from within
through consciousness, q. e. Philoso-
phy).
1t is well for us to look the issue fairly
IN the face; if the long quotation made
above mean anything, it means that the
human species was not directly made,
but slowly evolved: In other words, that
Adam was not Immediately and miracu-
lousy created, but was the product of a
long and complicated process of evolu-
ton, which had extended through all
ranks and orders of material existence,
from the lowest inorganic, to the highest
forms of animal life. Whether this the
DRY ia consistent with Scripture, and
whether there be in it room for the origin
of spirit on any other supposition than
that of its evolution from matter, we hope
DR.. LIE Conte will make plain to his Chris
tian, but unscientifc readers.
We quoted in the former paper the
boastful assertion of our author: "That
a theistic evolution is not only the hiqh-
est and t''uest, but is also the most reLs-
g'oats philosophy; by a theistic evolu-
ton, he means the theory of evolution
which he holds. 1t was fair to presume
that clear light would be shed on many
great questions of philosophy and reli-
glon. But when he comes to address
himself to the task, he reduces it's dimen-
sions in this surprising manner: "The
fact is, there is not single philosophical
question connected with our highest and
dearest religious and spiritual interests
that is fundamentally affected, or even
put in any new light, by the theory OF
evolution" He then proceeds to take
up, successfully several such important
questions in order to prove this asser-
ton"
Let us glance at this extraordinary
performance in which our Christian scien
fist strives courageously to wrest evoiu-
ton from the hands of the agnostics, and
by means of it to hew pathway through
their opposing ranks, for science to form
junction with philosophy and religion.
The aim is noble one; science, which
the materialists have tainted with treason
against God aid man, is now to become
the handmade of humanity, and priest
ess at the altar of Deity.
He thus indicates the influence of the
theory of evolution on the idea of FIRST
cause: The notion of causation is pri.
mary law of consciousness, and therefore
ineradicable and certain; reflection car
ries us upward to the idea of one personal
will-the First Cause of all things. Sci
ence, which did not originate, may some
times obscure, but cannot destroy this
idea. Evolution, which was supposed by
many to have destroyed it forever, has
only temporarily obscured it in the
minds of the unreAecting, by the sup
posed identity of evolution with mate
rialism; but from this temporary eclipse,
he predicts, it will emerge with even
greater splendor. 1t has not yet so
emerged, and by the authors of the the
Dry of evolution, DR.. lie Conte's fellow
scientists, whom he will hardly call the
unrefecting, the idea of personal and
infinite First Cause is ridiculed and de-
nounced. But he confidently expects
that only in the doctrine of universal
evolution will we rise to Just consep
ton of the First Cause. For" he rea-
sons, "all the effects known to us in ma
ture are finite therefore, cause, a per-
sonal aoiU, which only determines these
effects separately, by successive acts, must
also be finite like ourselves. But a will
which by one eternal act determines the
evolution and sustentation of an infinite
cosmos must itself be infinite" Does our
author really intend to say that call the
effects known to us in nature are finite"
and that it is by adding these finite eff
fects together that we reach the idea of
the infinite? Will number of fnites
make the infinite? Does not the word of
God declare, and that word is of author:
lty with him &c we'll oo with re Ill IT.: