for the explanation of the facts. Whether the philosophy of Herbert Spencer (which is not to our liking) is here fairly presented, we have little occasion and no time to consider. In this regard, the close of his articlo No. 12 in the Contemporary Review shows, at least, his expectation of the entire permanence of our ideas of cause, origin, and religion, and predicts the futility of the expectation that the "religion of humanity" will be the religion of the future, or "can ever more than temporarily shut out the thought of a Power, of which humanity is but a small and fugitive product, which was in its course of ever-changing manifestation before humanity was, and will continue through other manifestations when humanity has ceased to be." If,. on the one hand, the philosophy of the unknowable of the Infinite may be held in a merely quasi-theistic or even atheistic way, were not its ablest expounders and defenders IHamilton and Dean Mansel? One would suppose that Dr. Dawson might discern at least as much of a divine foundation to Nature as Herbert Spencer and Matthew Arnold; might recognize in this power that "something not ourselves that makes" for order as well as "for righteousness," and which he fitly terms supreme creative will; and, resting in this, enduro with more complacency and faith the inevitable prevalenco of evolutionary views which he is powerless to hinder. Although he cannot arrest the stream, he might do something toward keeping it in safe channels.

We wished to say something about the way in which scientific men, worthy of the name, hold hy potheses and theories, using them for the purpose of investigation and the collocation of facts, yielding or

withholding assent in degrees or provisionally, according to the amount of verification or likelihood, or holding it long in suspense; which is quite in contrast to that of amateurs and general speculators (not that we reckon Dr. Dawson in this class), whose assent or denial seldom waits, or endures qualification. With them it must on all occasions be yea or nay only, ac cording to the letter of the Scriptural injunction, and whatsoever is less than this, or between the two, cometh of ovil.

VIL

EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY.

(The Nation, January 15, 1874.)

THE attitude of theologians toward doctrines of evolution, from the nebular hypothesis down to "Dar winism," is no less worthy of consideration, and hardly less diverse, than that of naturalists. But tho topic, if pursued far, leads to questions too wide and deep for our handling here, except incidentally, in 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 illustrativo of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty." It

·

"The Theory of Evolution of Living Things, and the Application of the Principles of Evolution to Religion, considered as illustrativo 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., Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. Vol. I. (Part II, An. thropology.") New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1872.

"Religion and Science: A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Relation of Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths rovealed in Naturo and Scripture. By Joseph Le Conte, Professor of Geology and Natural Histiory in the University of California." New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1871. 12mo, pp. 824.

was submitted for and received one of the Actonian 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 carlier 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. Theofo gians 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 one savant against another. Already, amid the currents and ed dies of modern opinion, the savants may enjoy the samo advantage at the expense of the divines-we mean, of course, on the scientific arena; for the mu tual 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 the relations of modern science to the foundations of relig ious belief, than either of these writers has done, it is as well that the weight of opinion should be distributed, even if only according to prepossessions, rather

than that the whole stress should bear upon a single point, and that perhaps the authority of an interprota tion of Scripture. A consensus of opinion upon Dr. Hodge's ground, for instance (although better guarded than that of Dr. Dawson), if it were still possible, would-to say the least-probably not at all help to reconcile science and religion. Therefore, it is not to be regretted that the diversities of view among accred ited theologians and theological naturalists aro about as wide and as equably distributed between tho extremes (and we may add that the views themselves aro quite as hypothetical) as those which prevail among the various naturalists and natural philosophers of the day.

As a theologian, Mr. Henslow doubtless is not to be compared with the veteran professor at Princeton. On the other hand, he has the advantage of being a naturalist, and the son of a naturalist, as well as a clergyman: consequently he feels the full force of an array of facts in nature, and of the natural inferences from them, which the theological professor, from his Biblical standpoint, and on his implicit assumption that the Old Testament must needs teach truo science, can hardly be expected to appreciate. Accordingly, a naturalist would be apt to say of Dr. Hodge's exposition of "theories of the universo" and kindred topics-and in no captious spirit-that whether right or wrong on particular points, he is not often right or wrong in the way of a man of science.

Probably from the lack of familiarity with prova lent ideas and their history, the theologians are apt to suppose that scientific men of the present day are tak