OCR Text |
Show VII. EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY.1 (THE NATION, January 15, 1874.) TrrE attitude of theologians toward doctrines of evolution from the nebular hypothesis down to "Darwinism," 'is no less· worthy of consideration, and hardly less diverse, than that of nat~ralists. ~ut the topic, if pursued far, leads to ques~w~s t~o w1d~ and deep for our handling here, except InCidentally, m the brief notice which it falls in our way to take of the Rev. George Henslow's recent volume on" The Theory of Evolution of Living Things." This treatise is on the side of evolution, "considered as illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty." It 1 "The Theory of Evolution of Living Things, and the ~pplicat~on of the Principles of Evolution to Religion, considered as 1llustrahve of the 'Wisdom and Beneficence of the .Almighty.' By the Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., F. G. S., etc." New York: Macmil. lan & Co. 1873.. 12mo, pp. 220. . "Systematic Theology. By Charles Hodge, D. D., ~rofessor m the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. Vol. u. (Part II, An-thropology.") New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1872. . "Religion and Science : A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Relatwn of Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths revealed in Nature a~d Scripture. By Joseph LeConte, Professor of Geology and Natural Hlstiory in the University of California." New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874. 12mo, pp. 324. EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY. 253 · was submitted for and received one of the .A.ctonian prizes recently awarded by the Royal Institution of Great Britain. We gather that the staple of a part of it is worked up anew from some earlier discourses of the author upon" Genesis and Geology," "Science and Scripture not antagonistic," etc. In coupling with it a chapter of the second volume of Dr. Hodge's "Systematic Theology (Part II., Anthropology)," we call attention to a recent essay, by an able and veteran writer, on the other side of the question. As the two fairly enough represent the extremes of Christian thought upon the subject, it is convenient to review them in connection. Theologians have a short and easy, if not wholly satisfactory, way of refuting scientific doctrines which they object to, by pitting the authority or opinion of o:p.e savant against another. Already, amid the currents and eddies of modern opinion, the savants may enjoy the same advantage at the expense of the divines-we mean, of course, on the scientific arena; for the mutual refutation of conflicting theologians on their own ground is no novelty. It is not by way of offset, however, that these divergent or contradictory views are here referred to, but only as an illustration of the fact that the divines are by no means all arrayed upon one side of the question in hand. And indeed, in the present transition period, until some one goes much deeper into the heart of the subject, as respects therelations of modern science to the foundations of religious belief, than either of these writers has done, it is as well that the weight of opinion should be distrib- 1lted, even if only according to prepossessions, rather |