United States, who would pronounce me | under the supervising direction of God's a slanderer and a secret enemy to the providence. Prof. Asa Gray is an avowed Christian religion, should they hear me and acknowledged Christian, a firm beutter the charge of "evolution" against liever, as he says, in the Nicene creed, and these popular and esteemed divines! I is regarded by Rev. Joseph Cook as one will therefore proceed to prove it from of the representative theistic evolutionists their own lips and pens, as uttered in lec- of New England. I now take his testitures and published under their own mony. supervision. Dr. McCosh says:

66

"Two great scientific truths have been established in this century. One is the doctrine of the conservation of energy. ****The other great doctrine is that of development, acknowledged as having an extent not dreamed of till the researches of Darwin were published." We may discern a plan and purpose, means and end, in the way in which plants and animals are evolved, and in the forms they take, which are evidently not by chance."-Reply to Tyndall, pp. 15, 15.

This view, as here expressed, is what is known as "theistic evolution," simply Darwinism with its purposeless and designless features left out. In other words, Dr. McCosh holds that all species have been evolved, one from another, by natural selection, environment, struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest, precisely as does Mr. Darwin, only he claims that these are not blind laws or chance operations, but that God supervises by His providence, the various changes and natural selections by which a fish is transmuted into a reptile, a reptile into a bird or mammal, a marsupial into a jackal, a jackal into a monkey, and some form of ape into a man; and hence, that development is not a game of chance. Possibly this last transmutation of an ape into a man, may be going a step too far, and may prove altogether too consistent for Dr. McCosh, though Mr. Darwin and every logical believer in evolution, are forced by consistency to include man as among the lineal descendants of the tortoise and fish, if the monkey can have been thus transmuted. I will return, however, to this after a little.

Now, this "theistic" view of evolution is the same as Darwinism, to all intents and purposes, only Darwin takes no account of God in this entire system of development after the miraculous creation of the first simple form, as the start of evolution; while the hundreds of theistic evolutionists, represented by Prof. Asa Gray in his work called Natural Science and Religion, claim that every variation of one species which tends toward its transmutation into another, is produced and nurtured

"So the difference between pure Darwinism and more theistically expressed evolution is not so great as it seemed. Both agree in the opinion that species are evolved from species." "You ask me if I maintain that the doctrine of evolution is compatible with this [Christianity]? I am bound to do so." "The inquiry, what attitude should. we Christian theists present to this form of scientific belief, should not be a difficult one to answer. In my opinion, we should not denounce it as atheistical, or es practical atheism, or as absurd.' "I am unable to perceive that the idea of the evolution of one species from another, and cl from an initial form of life, adds any new perplexity to theism."--Natural Science and Religion, Pp. 64, 80, 83, 103.

This kind of evolution Joseph Cook calls "a theory of evolution," while Huxley's and Haeckel's godless plan of development, he calls "the theory of evolution." Let us now take the testimony of this eminent lecturer and writer.

"I have not criticised, I have even defended, the theistic doctrine of evolution. I have endeavored only to show that the atheistic and agnostio forms of that doctrine are violently unscientific." The position of this lectureship is that there is a use and abuse of the theory of evolution. I hold a theory of evolution, but not the theory. What do I mean by the theory of evolution? Precisely what Huxley means when he says, in so many words, that if the theory of evolution is true, the living must have arisen from the nuliving."-Lectures on Biology, pp. 111, 184.

This is plain and to the point. Joseph Cook thus accepts the evolution of the different animal species, on the condition that God controls the laws of development; but he rejects it only when it involves spontaneous generation, or the idea of evolving the "living from the not-living," as taught by Profs. Huxley and Haeckel.

In keeping with this outspoken acceptance of evolution, Joseph Cook says:

"The question of chief interest to religious science is, whether the new philosophy [evolution] is to be established in its atheistic, its agnostic, or its theistic form."-Lectures on Biology, p. 10.

I take issue with this eminent authority, and deny his conclusion most emphatically. On the contrary, I assert that "the question of chief interest to religious science is, whether the new philosophy is to be

established" at all, or in any "form." be, against these evolution giants who What the Christian world wants to know, have defied the armies of the living God. and what investigators of religious science x But even after thus surrendering to need to inquire into, is, not which "form" evolution, with its theistic proviso, there is of evolution is to be accepted, but whether a manifest indication of shakiness, a want there is any necessity for accepting any of of confidence, and a feeling of insecuri.y its forms, or anything in the shape of in the minds of the eminent theologians evolution, either atheistic, agnostic, or the- named, or they would not blanch as they istic. This highly esteemed lecturer seems so evidently do, when they come to face. to have taken it for granted that evolution the legitimate consequences of their "new is a foregone conclusion, in some form, philosophy," and yield the last point in the and his "chief interest" now is to deter- controversy with Darwinism,-the evolumine which of the forms will come nearest tion of man's animal organism from that leaving a modicum of the religion of of some extinct form of ape. Why do they the Bible,-enough to swear by in a court hesitate here with trepidation and doubt? of law, if not enough to pray by. I assert Prof. Gray, though not outspoken, virtuthat Joseph Cook, Dr. McCosh, and the ally gives up all, and consistently claims hundreds of eminent clergymen who that Darwin's view of the extent of evoluagree with them, and have followed their tion is either all right or all wrong, and lead, if they have not shown the "white that man is necessarily included in the feather," have at least shown undue haste lineal descent from that simple form of in thus pulling down their colors, without life first created, whether it be a polyp or even having fired a gun or been asked to an ascidian. But Joseph Cook and Dr. surrender. If they were not able, as they McCosh, confused and trembling, hesitate evidently were not, to explain the scientific to accept this final and legitimate act of facts of Darwin, Haeckel, & Co., upon the evolution drama; and that, too, without which they claim to have established the one scintilla of reason for so doing, after theory of evolution, why should they have conceding evolution up to the orangbeen in such a hurry to throw down their outang, save the fact, as Joseph Cook! arms at the first boom of evolution artil- elaborately argues, that the average brain lery and sight of smoke, and conclude that of man is more than twice that of the highte fats were inexplicable by anybody est ape in cubical contents. Hence, here else? They seem to have concluded, judg- there must have been a special miraculous ing by their action, that what they did not leap. But why do they not listen to the know upon this subject, was not worth teachings of their scientific master, Darwin, knowing, or at least must be past finding who explains all this most beautifully by out; and that problems they were not able the defects in the geologic and paleontoto solve, could never be solved by man. logic records? Why do they not reason Hence, this surrender without a struggle. about this evident leap in cranial and Such weakening, in presence of these cerebral structure, from the highest known most virulent assailants of religion, whether ape to man, as they are obliged to reason under the disguise of this so-called theistic in explaining the leap from the reptile to form of the "new philosophy," or Prof. the bird, from the fish to the reptile, from Haeckel's outspoken atheism, is unbecom- the tortoise to the mammal, which are ing the grand mission of the most promi- leaps vastly greater in anatomical strucnent exponents of religious science in this ture and resemblance than the one to country. Well may our leaders in this which they demur? If they can, with such crusade against error, be admonished to alacrity, accept the development of the aladd to their faith courage, and to courage most human form of the chimpanzee from knowledge. These two things would have the fish, and fill up the innumerable gaps carried them safely through the battle. It in structure by imagining lost pages in the may not be too late, yet; for there is an paleontologic record, why not be consistopportunity even now to shout the rallying ent and say with Huxley that the connectcry of victory or death, inspire courage in ing fossil man-ape, which bridges the their demoralized and retreating forces by chasm between the small brain of the presdrawing from its dust-covered scabbard ent anthropoid monkey and the imme se the sword of the Spirit, and renewing the brain of man, has not yet been found, but battle, even through fire and blood, if need probably will be, just as the archeopteryx

has but recently been discovered which but erroneously rendered "created" when closes up the hiatus between the reptile it should have been evolved? I am not a and the bird? And since they have now the Hebrew scholar, but I have taken the preconvenient "theistic" panacea for all the caution to write to Dr. Epstein, of Tifin, other lame joints in the "new philosophy," Ohio, one of the best Hebraists in this by which to harmonize it with "religious country, and for a year Professor of Hcscience," why argue so earnestly for this one brew in Heidelberg Theological Seminary, exception to the rule, and that man must asking him if "created" in verses 21 and 27, have been made as the scriptures teach, is the same, and if it has the same meanby a direct miracle, just as if it would detracting in the two instances? The following from the glory of God to have inade man is his reply: as He condescended to make the orangouting, by gradual development? If it was God's method of making a monkey, why not of making a man? What is the use of having "theis:n" mixed up in it at all, if it will not help us out of the whole difficulty and account for the formation of man's body on the same principle employed in constructing the body of the gorilla or chimpanzee?

By turning to the account of cre: tion in Genesis, we will see the utter absurdity of believers in revelation thus playing fast and loose with "theistic" evolu jon, all to avoid the unpleasant charge of being consistent and teaching that the creation of man simply means his development from the ape, as the creation of the ape means its development from the dog, a conclusion to which Darwin and Hasley are forced to come, from their interpretation of the facts of science, and of which they profess not to be ashamed. Let us now examine this authentic record of creation:

In the first chapter of Genesis, verse 21, it is said that "God created great whales;" and right on at verse 27, it is said that "God created man." Now, I ask these "theistic" advocates of the "new philosophy" if it is reasonable to suppose tat God created a whale by supervising its evolution from a "hoofed animal (see Haeckel's History of Creation, vol. ii, p. 251), after first evolving the hoofed animal from a fish through saving up millions of slight modifications; and that He the created man without the aid of evolution at all, by means of a direct miracle? Is it likely that "created," here, has two distinct meanings, for no philological reason on earth save to accommodate theistic evolutionists? Will the learned President of Princeton College tell us plainly whether the word here rendered "created," in verse 21, is the same word in the original Hebrew, as in verse 27? Or is it a different word, with an entirely different signification,

"TIFFIN, O., April 22, 1880.

"A. WILFORD HALL.

Dear Sir:-In answer to your letter, inquiring whether the word 'created' in the 21st and 27th verses of the first chapter of Genesis, is the same in the original Hebrew in both instances, I reply The meaning of the word, in these two inyes. The Hebrew word is pronounced Bārā. stances is and must be necessarily and unconditionally the same. Respectfully yours,

EPH. M. EPSTEIN, M. D."

Theistic evolutionists, thus driven to the wall of consistency, are forced to admit, however hard they may struggle against it, that if whales were "created" by development from other animals, man must have been "created" by the same process. Although the Rev. Joseph Cook evidently dreads the logical consequences of this conclusion, the unavoidable outgrowth of the "new philosophy," whether theistic or atheistic in form, yet he makes many statements in his lectures which uninten tionally but plainly point to Darwin's unabridged views, that man, as well as the lineal descendant of the fish. Take this ape, the puppy, and the tortoise, is the

one :

"It is a physiological fact that every human being once breathed by a membrane, then by gills, then by lungs."-Lectures on Biology, page 236.

This is a clearly expressed indorsement of Darwin's and Haeckel's embryological argument, that the embryonic infant, as well as puppy, chicken, tortoise, etc., at an early period of development, possesses the gills of the fish, which fact they triumphantly adduce as evidence that man, as well as the dog and other lower animals, descended by transmutation from branchial ancestor,- a thing by the way totally fallacious and without even the foundation of one correctly understood scientific fact upon which to rest, as abundantly shown in the seventh chapter. But no matter for this. Joseph Cook does not even suspect that this "gill" argument of

some

the evolutionist is a deliberate frauding at all? It is a matter to be deplored upon physiological science and the intelli- that such nonsense as this gill-breathing gence of mankind; and as a consequence process should be taught as "physiologithe great Boston lecturer innocently falls cal" science in the very literary and scieninto the trap set for him by Haeckel and tific centre of this country, just because Darwin, and announces it as an important Draper, or some other authority, chances, "physiological fact," thus admitting that inadvertently, to speak of such a stupid embryonic infants have actual gills, which, impossibility as a human embryo breathif it be a fact, can only be explained, says ing through "gills," or through anything Darwin, on the hypothesis that man de- else, in fact, prior to its birth. scended from the fish. And if man descended from the fish, his blood relationship to the monkey can hardly be doubted.

a religious belief in the existence of God! This culmination of obsequious absurdity in truckling to the claims of modern science, will be found in the following quotation from the pen of Dr. McCosh :

*

*

*

Suppose it proven that there is such a thing as spontaneous generation; would religion thereby be overthrown, either in its evidences, its doctrines, or its precepts? * There is really no ground for the fears of the timid on the one hand, nor, on the other hand for the arrogant expectation drive God from his work. of the atheist, that he will thereby be able to *It [sponta

+

*

Not only do these distinguished theological exponents of the theory of development seek to harmonize the new philosophy But the most remarkable phase of with Christianity under the specious title this "physiological fact," so positively an- of "theistic evolution," but they actually nounced by Joseph Cook, is, that these go further, and make the astounding an"gills," in the embryonic infant, are func-nouncement that there is nothing antagotional, that is, they are actually employed nistic between spontaneous generation and in breathing, as in a living fish! This defense of the "new philosophy" out-Haeckels even Haeckel himself, since the renowned professor of natural science in the University of Jena never dreamed of such thing as that these embryonic "gillarches" were employed in any functional way, regarding them merely, to use his own expression, as the "ontogenetic record of man's phylogenetic or tribal descent from some fish-like ancestor." Now it is a fact, upon which, I believe, all well-in-neous generation] is a production out of preexisting materials by means of powers in the materials formed physiologists are agreed, that an -powers very much unknown, working only in infant does not "breathe" at all, till its ex- certain circumstances, and requiring, in order to posure to the external air, and that, during their operation, favorable conditions assorted by Divine wisdom."-Christianity and Positivism, gestation, it depends entirely for nutrition pp. 35, 36. upon the substance of the ovule and the In order to see the self-annihilating umbilical circulation of the mother. Yet character of this statement, it is only necthis important physiological announce- essary to reflect that the production of an ment makes it breathe by two different pro- organic being out of inorganic matter, as cesses prior to the functional use of its here described, by the operation of "favorlungs. If it really be a "physiological able conditions assorted by Divine wisdom,” fact," that the human embryo depends for is simply miraculous creation, nothing more its vitality upon breathing through these and nothing less, as all theists underso-called "gills," it suggests a serious dif- stand that term, and not spontaneous ficulty, which no one is more competent generation in any sense of the word, since than the Boston lecturer to explain. As it flatly contradicts the well-known and these "gills" entirely disappear, according only meaning of that phrase. No one supto all authorities, including Prof. Haeckel, poses that God does not act in accordance at the eighth week of gestation, how does the with laws already existing, or specially enembryo manage to put in the interim of acted for the occasion, even in the miracutwenty-six weeks till its birth without breath-lous creation of an animal; that is to say,

He takes already existing materials, brings | torate. To employ such a manifest contra diction in terms, as spontaneous generation produced under the assorting supervision of Divine wisdom, is like talking about a system of atheism with its leading article inculcating the existence of a personal God; or like an elaborate description of a self-acting perpetual motion driven by a steam-engine! It is the employment of well-known words, with well-understood definitions, in about as loose and reckless a manner as that of Prof. Haeckel, in evolving a fish into a hoofed-animal, and then evolving the same hoofed-animal back again into a porpoise or whale! (See History of Creation, Vol. 2., p. 251.)

them together by the operation of laws, whether we are able to comprehend them or not, and causes all the necessary chemical and other changes of the inorganic matter to convert it into albumen, protoplasm, etc., and then, by other laws, infuses into it an infinitesimal atom of His own vitality and intelligence, according to the need of the creature and its place in Nature, all of which is embraced in the language of Dr. McCosh-"favorable conditions assorted by Divine wisdom." This is exactly the way in which Adam was created out of the dust of the earth. "God is a God of order, which is another name for law, and, in miraculously forming Adam, He proceeded according to law, even to the act of breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and thus constituting him a living soul. We cannot doubt that He did all this by just what Dr. McCosh calls spontaneous generation, "favorable conditions assorted by Divine wisdom." Should this learned theologian chance, on some Sunday, to preach from his pulpit that Adam came into existence by "spontaneous generation," he would, doubtless, be tried by his presbytery for publicly teaching a most dangerous heresy. But imagine, if you can, the looks of the solemn presbyters constituting the court, as the Doctor steps forward to answer the grave specification in the charge by explaining, with a broad smile upon his countenance, that "spontaneous generation" is the same thing precisely as miraculous creation, since it is simply the operation of "favorable conditions assorted by Divine wisdom," thus reconciling the extremest phase of modern materialistic philosophy with the religion of the Bible! Who would not be the president of a college, if the office carries with it such a sublime and unlimited license in the use of language?

But seriously, a college president has no more right to annihilate the universally accepted definitions of words than has the most obscure or humbleplebeianof his pas

66

While I protest against this slipshod mode of teaching science and using words without the slightest regard to their etymology, I cannot help congratulating Professor Haeckel upon his involuntary escape from atheism, as a brand plucked from the burning. He made a desperate effort, through the two large volumes of his History of Creation, to get rid of a God by proving the "spontaneous generation" of the first animal, as the primeval parent of all other organisms," and as the origin of life upon this planet, knowing well that if such "coming into existence out of inorganic matter" could be established, there would be no use for a God, and no difficulty in proving the evolution of all other forms of organic being by the settled course of Nature, and without the intervention of any personal intelligence whatever. But here comes the most learned divine in the United States who by a single sweep of his pen, demonstrates that this godless professor in the University of Jena, is a theist, with the promise and potency of some day becoming a Christian, since spontaneous generation, "suppose it proven," is only another name for miraculous creation or the operation of "favorable conditions assorted by Divine wisdom!"

But "theistic" evolutionists do not harmonize among themselves any better than do agnostic and atheistic evclutionists.