New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-01-13

| nothesis that by some of it's adsocdtes evolution
has been designated the law Of continuity; N.Y. S
vlh respect 10 the various forms of amman III"
preceding man. the immortality Of the soul ~ nns,
so far as we are aware inaintanen , nm arit
has become immortal by the eraduu api rds =,
Of animals preceding man in the ascending scale
II. then. he now immortal the WI, m|' i'm
say mpassable gulf between mortaIity 'id III.
| mortality Of spirit must have been crossed per
saltum and yet this scientifically. gould he if! Ia!
| to the hypothesis and. theoogical!y would III
volve direct divine agency 1t is not strange, mere
fore. that Professor Tyndal WIN hs n IaoLcd
9rvun u n he time when our spirits shall have
melted like streaks of morning cl)ud mo the III
Third~As to the nature of sin According to the
Scriptures sin is the transgression OF Hod law no
free moral agent According TO the deVeIopnen,.
theory whatever might be called sinful IN man
nature conduct. whether in his orighai Scsn,
estate or at any subsequent stage OF MS asSent.
was and is but a necessary incident to cono rr
of progressive and incomplete DEVELOPMENT noroi,h
condition. and whatever In conhection, oae 70 he
that might be called sin Is not actp p estimate
result of he law of mans being just as reeituds s
would be when by the same law OF ms peins ne ' "a
"Thristian Doctrine of Sin" Principal Tulloch,
whom no one will accuse OF illiberai preJsuiSSe e
msosnnt dav saws: THE favorite conceptions OF
modern science Involve. If they do not start irV'
% ar sniritual view" 1T leaves. for ex-
ample. room for the idea OF SIN ,ot contain any
hing that is al variance with its own higher laws:
If the Individual and social man aikr a'e erd,essy
snc ,o,, I'd Miner md more complex forms.
then whatever man Is, ne rs nSo ", of natural law
and yet accountable for the fact that am III ''
i Fn,r,hNn hypothess differing from the Script.
ures so radically questions so fundamenta AZ az, .r
of the soul and The nature o, ans deliver
anco from sin and its consequences, anu uom mai
to his future destiny In AN ahh[" lie ~ cur reiig-
ios faith it has been said: We're we cons
70 race our desc nt from apes frogs or iNiuso
,.
our humble origin from which we might antic'pa,JJ
further development in posterity OF angels ana
archanglss as far superior curse Ives as we are
from the brues the animaculae from Which we
sprang" Il should be observed that me ueN rof-
mnnf' which we are here invited 10 anticipate con-
placentiy is Of course developed according 10 ne
sreris and archangels out of individual men. our
s.lves included hut race OF angels out OF the hu-
man race and this through a long succession i Dl
Intervening races in gradually ascending scar
The only connection between Immediately ionalIy
ing races in the series being the exceptlohaily
individuals Of SaG en- d TacG Of Gec gre S
mass of men such development mas nothihs 10 ""'
EVOLUTION AND SALVATION.
According to the Scriptures. Jesus Christ came
into the world" not by evolution or natural law.
but by supernatural generation. ITO save sinners
and There Is nc ne other name given under heaven
among men whereby We must be saved. 'od
gave His only begotten Son that wnosoever De-
iieveth on Him might not perish but nave eterha'
!fc" The Scriptures further teach that the sal
vation providrl for sinners by a supernatural
savo, = nccomplished By the s,iperna agency
81 ih, uolv Shirt Evoluiionism excludes all these
distinctive characteristics OF in" Tospel pan OF
!, is evident from the above thai it is super
fetal view Of the questions at issue 10 suppose as
The Tribune rtiInates. and as Is commonly as
sumcd that it is simply whether c'rtain stores
in Genesis" are 10 he literally believed. In the
issue between evolutionary and Biblical antnropoi
ogy there religious questions inVolVen 'n' "''
In What might no called the practical appca-
R@Vie% we St'tcd as conclusion from the dis
cussion: That in weighing the evidence ior ana
aeniust cvoufori~m as respects man, the cyl
dencc that the Bible Is from God and not "a cum
ningy devised fable must be Ia ken into account.
When the evlcnc" that man is descended IRON an
ape becomes more conclusive than the evidence
of Cod then. and not IN ih"n VIII me cahuiu
seeker after truth accept the hypothesiS o.,,x,,
After calling attention to tn" fac' that tc o'lglt
! Of man bv evolution WAS not only an rnproved
hypothesis but rejected by eminent SCIENTISTS
Of having introduced the hypothesis to favor main
taining on scientific grounds that the origin of man
is sui gencris. and not to be accounted Tor ny me
hypothesis" and by Vrchow. authority not in
ferior Iiaeckel." who maintained thai .antnr9po-
logical Investigations directly contradict the doc
trine OF evolution; and after asking. III the
Scriptures be revelation from God are we az Iio-
crty 10 treat an open question whether man
made in the image OF God or the ran OF MAN.
1r Of hrist or the Supernatural agency Of
the Holy Spirit or the immortality OF thH SOU
revelation agree in tcaching-the responsibility OF
man for his belief The violation of moral as well
a. Of physical law. whether done Wllluny OF
ienorany will he followed by its estimais con,
SEQUENCES II the scriptures he Dut q cunhneV
devised fable and faith IN them deIusloI men
AT death believers in the Bible together with those
who reee, IT, VIZ may ar ne met me owa ,g nss
II the development hypothesis as TO me ORIGIN r OF
Tribunn, shall in LITTLE while its place
doub' no; it will. with other exploded scient me
proper logical consequences referring. EVIDENTLY
10 what had been previously stated as involved IN
portion with those who know NOT God and obey not
the Gospel OF His Son" In this concluding lam
ciiage as throughout the discussion were care
fui not To assume the authority of the Scriptures
on the question at issue as final: and simply stated
truth of the evolutionary the Biblical anthropOl
ogy Whatever execution may DE- taken 10 Inc mn, IN,
for review we presume no one will call in ques-
ton that the conclusion stated is the logical deduc
tion from the hypothetical premise.
DR. MCOSHS VIEWS
From no. discriminating between evolution in
general and cvolutionism respecting both DR..
White and The Tribune doubt suppose. and conse
quently represent. that the views Of the article
criticised antagonistic to those held by Or.
President NcCosh was NOT an unqualified evolution
list In stating his views the subject he was al
general a scientific hypothesis and evolution in
respect to man. In his Lectures on Chris aniiy
says: II do not know tina, religion has any special
charge given her of the lower animals, except 10
religion is to man. ana she has to see that
same level a. that of the brute. There has been
special revelation made 10 the origin and des-
tiny of man and this we must uphold and defend
(P 43J There ara gaps between the brute and man
that cannot be filled up (P. 81 IF We have evil
dcnCe otherwise of man coming into existence hv
special act Of God there Is not sufficient scientific
strength I'm the Darwinian theory to overthrow it,
Now. many believe thar the Scriptures. while they
say little rothing as 10 the origin Of animal spe
clos. settle the question OF mans origin These
Scriptures SUI ported by body of evidence.
ternal and internal, which those VINO have weighed
It bcli"vo 70 be far stronger than the proof that
ear be 9diu,"d in favor OF the hypothesis of man
being produced by natural selection" O'. SI3D In
his pamphlet on The Development Hypothesis: Is
II Sufficient" published i'm 1876. after maintaining
that il docs not account for the origin OF matter
life. or sensation. or self-consciousnesS he says
Finally in the last Of the unnumbcred
haV" man. with his intelligence. his conscience nd
free WILL all attcSted by consciousness VIII evoI-
uonists pretend that on any rational or inductive
principle they can tell how these powers came
into being ard into action? When the Book of