-3\ S 
 
 Alv.vjsni Jlcove 
 
 THE AXrHROPOKKiY OF 
 
 AOHTIOXISM AM) THH BIBLE. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2010 witin funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/anthropologyofevOOduff 
 
THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF 
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE BIBLE, 
 
 JOHN T. DUFFIELD. D.D., 
 
 t'ROFESSOR OK MATHKMAXrCS IN THK COLLEGE OK NEW lEKSKY. 
 
 j'JijycE'Joy : 
 
 PRIVTINIi ESTAHMSHMRNT, 
 
[Frum thk Jan. N(1. ok •• Vhk Princkton Rkvif.w."*] 
 
 Is Evohitionis7n as it res fie ds Man, 
 co7tsistent zvith the Bible / 
 
 In discussing the relations of Science and Religion, it is 
 frequently said that Evolutionism is not inconsistent with 
 either Theism or Revealed Religion. That it does not neces- 
 sarily exclude the idea of a personal Creator of the universe 
 may be admitted. At the same time it should be borne in 
 mind that the hypothesis was originally proposed by old Greek- 
 atheists ; that within the past century it was revived in the 
 interest of atheism; and at the present day, as stated and de- 
 fended by many of its most prominent advocates, it is avowedly 
 atheistic. This historical attitude of Evolutionism cannot be 
 wholly accidental, and deserves the consideration of those who 
 may be disposed to regard the hypothesis as a harmless scien- 
 tific speculation. 
 
 That it may be held in consistency with Theism is, how- 
 ever, a matter of comparatively little moment. The import- 
 ant question is its relation to Revealed Religion. 
 
 That it is not inconsistent with the Scriptures, is maintained 
 by Mivart, a devout Romanist, in his work on " The Genesis 
 of Species." It is distinctly intimated by Professor Gray, a 
 devout Protestant, in the Preface to " Darwiniana." It is also 
 avowed by some eminent believers in and even defenders of 
 
 *Some sentences which were slightly allered for publication in the Review, 
 to render the Article impersonal, are here printed as originally written. A few 
 other changes in phraseology have been made, to express the idea intended more 
 clearly — such changes as would have been made in the Article as published in 
 the Review had the proof-sheets been revised by the writer. The only additions 
 that need be particularly mentioned, are the sentences on the finirth page con- 
 taining quotations, and the foot notes on pages 22 and 30. 
 
the inspiration of tiie Scriptures, who are not Evolutionists. 
 In the Introduction to the very interesting and eloquent Course 
 of Lectures on " Christianity and Science," delivered before 
 the Union Theological Seminary in New York, in 1874, by 
 Dr. Peabody of Harvard, he says, " I do not regard the theory 
 of development or evolution, now so generally received among 
 scientific men, as necessarily hostile to religious faith, for there 
 are among its most intelligent adherents some earnest and de- 
 vout Christian believers. Moreover, there are certain aspects 
 in which this theory is peculiarly attractive on religious 
 grounds. If specific creation implies creative wisdom, much 
 more is it implied in the endowment of primeval atoms or 
 monads with the power of development into all the various 
 and unnumbered forms of organized, sentient, intelligent, 
 moral, spiritual being ; and we have thus presented to us, were 
 it possible, even a more sublime significance for the opening 
 words of the Mebrew Scriptures, ' In the beginning God 
 created the heavens and the earth.' " In the Episcopal Church 
 Congress which met in Philadelphia in 1875, the President 
 of Union College is reported as .saying, " Competent scholars 
 hold that the idea of evolution, not only in the successive 
 periods of the genesis, but in the progress from lower to 
 higher forms culminating in man, is readily reconcilable, if not 
 in strictest accordance with, the original Scriptures." In 
 an admirable exposure of the fallacy of Professor Huxley's 
 pretended " demonstration " of evolution, published in the 
 New York Tribune in Jan. 1876, by one of the most eminent 
 evangelical ministers of New York City, he says, " I have 
 no prejudice against evolution if that shall ever be fairly 
 and fully established. I believe that it may be held in 
 harmony with Theism, and with a sincere acceptance of the 
 Word of God." The opinion expressed in these quotations 
 is implied in the admonition nowadays frequently given, 
 that believers in revelation should treat the truth or falsity of 
 Evolutionism as an open question, assured, that however it 
 may be ultimately determined, the Scriptures can be interpreted 
 in accordance with the result. 
 
 It will scarcely be denied, that if this opinion be erroneous, 
 it is a serious error, and none the less but all the more danger- 
 
ous when avowed by those who accept and defend the inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures. Nor are the consequences of the error 
 — if it be an error — avoided or mitigated by maintaining, as 
 most of those referred to do, that Evolutionism is as yet an un- 
 proved hypothesis. The assertion in question has really noth- 
 ing to do with the truth or falsity of Evolutionism. It has 
 respect to the teaching of the Scriptures, and asserts that 
 whether the hypothesis be true or false, it is not inconsistent 
 with the Bible. The question is therefore one of present and 
 of vital importance, affecting as it does, what men are to be- 
 lieve, and what the Christian ministry is to teach, concerning 
 the origin of man, his nature, and his destiny. 
 
 Believing that Evolutionism, however it may in other re- 
 spects be harmonized with the Scriptures, is in direct conflict 
 with Biblical Anthropology and the entire system of truth con- 
 nected therewith in the Word of God, we feci that the opinion 
 referred to, when asserted without qualification, ought not to 
 be permitted to pass unchallenged. We propose therefore for 
 consideration. Is Evoliitionis))i as it respects Man, co7isiste)it ivitJi 
 the Bible ? 
 
 It is proper here to state that we recognize it as a just and 
 important principle in interpreting Scripture, to avoid as far 
 as possible, collision — or the liability to collision — with scien- 
 tists. At the same time, in contracting the lines, to present as 
 few vulnerable points as possible, care should be taken not to 
 abandon a position that may command the citadel. Whether 
 the Anthropology of the Bible is such a position will appear 
 in the progress of the discussion. 
 
 We deem it proper also to state that we have no sympathy 
 with those who are disposed to magnify the so-called conflict 
 between Science and Religion. Between believers in the 
 Scriptures and scientists not avowedly atheistic, the only sub- 
 jects that need occasion serious controversy are the one pro- 
 posed for discussion, and the order of creation. This latter 
 subject moreover, apart from its bearing on the question of 
 inspiration, is comparatively unimportant, as it in no way 
 affects the system of spiritual truth taught in the Word of God. 
 
 Before proceeding to the discussion of the question pro- 
 posed, it is proper to define what is here meant-by Evolution- 
 
6 
 
 ism. This is the more necessary from the fact that in discus- 
 sing the relation of Evolutionism to Religion, the precise issue 
 is frequently obscured by an ambiguous use of the term evolu- 
 tion. It is asserted that the growth of every thing that lives — 
 plant, tree, insect, animal, man — is an evolution; that the 
 development of man's intellectual and moral faculties is an 
 evolution ; that there is evolution in history, operating on 
 men in the mass, elevating them from a lower to a higher state 
 of civilization, developing a more and more completely organ- 
 ized social and national life ; that there is evolution in the 
 kingdom of grace, both in the spiritual growth of the individ- 
 ual Christian and in the development of doctrine and spiritual 
 power in the Church — " first the blade, then the ear, then 
 the full corn in the ear." Now if any one sees fit to designate 
 every form of progressive development in nature, providence, 
 and grace, as an evolution, he may, of course, so far as the 
 etymology of the world is concerned, do so without any serious 
 impropriety, yet in view of existing controversies concerning 
 evolution, such language is misleading. As to the truth of 
 evolution in any of the senses above mentioned, there is, and 
 has been, no dispute. In any issues that have been raised 
 between Theologians and Evolutionists, the term is used in 
 an entirely different sense. It has been technically appropri- 
 ated to designate a certain scientific hypothesis as to the genesis 
 of the universe, namely, that out of an original mass of nebu- 
 lous, amorphous, unorganized matter, all the various forms of 
 inorganic matter and living organisms — including all the prop- 
 erties of such organisms — were evolved by pre-established phys- 
 ical laws. The term is frequently used with particular refer- 
 ence to that part of the hypothesis which relates to the origin 
 of species, namely, that out of an original germ or germs of life 
 in its lowest form — however they may have originated — higher 
 and still higher forms were evolved by " natural selection." 
 or some other physical law or laws, and that thus all the differ- 
 ent forms, varieties, and species of vegetable and animal life — 
 man included — that have existed or now exist, originated. As 
 mentioned above, some Evolutionists accept, while others re- 
 ject the doctrine of a personal Creator of the original material 
 
of the universe, the source of the original physical forces, and 
 the author of the laws of their action. Between atheistic 
 Evolutionists and believers in the Scriptures, the issue is, of 
 course, radical and irreconcilable. Between theistic Evolu- 
 tionists and believers in revelation, the main issue has respect 
 to the Origin of Man, and what is involved therein as to his 
 nature and his destiny. Darwin's first work on " The Origin 
 of Species " was not generally regarded as involving any 
 serious or irreconcilable conflict with the Scriptures. Intima- 
 tions as to the extent to which the hypothesis might be pressed 
 did excite some apprehension, but it was not until these inti- 
 mations were distinctly avowed and laboriously advocated in 
 his subsequent work on " The Descent of Man," that the great 
 mass of believers in revelation and the entire mass of un- 
 believers felt that the Scriptures were assailed, and that Evolu- 
 tionism had become a religious question, and one of vital im- 
 portance. 
 
 The proposed inquiry has reference to the issue just men- 
 tioned : Is Evohitionism as it respects Man — asserting as it does 
 that man was not created by immediate divine agency but was 
 evolved out of an ape — consistent zvith the Bible ? 
 
 It should be observed that the question here proposed is 
 not — immediately, at least— a scientific question. It does not 
 require for its intelligent discussion an investigation of, or even 
 a knowledge of, the alleged scientific facts on which the 
 hypothesis is based. It has to do simply and solely with the 
 teaching of Scripture. 
 
 Nor is the question proposed— immediately, at least — a 
 philosophical question. It cannot be decided by first premi- 
 sing certain general principles as to the respective domains of 
 Science and Religion, the authority of each within its own 
 sphere, and their mutual relations to each other, and then — 
 by an application of these principles — determining what the 
 Scriptures do teach, or at least what they must be interpreted 
 as teaching, if their infallibility is to be maintained. The 
 question is simply one of hermeneutics, of exegesis, of the 
 interpretation of the language of Scripture. It is to be deter- 
 mined just as one would determine whether the doctrine of 
 
metempsychosis is consistent with the Scriptures, or whether 
 the Copernican theory of the universe is consistent with the 
 Vedas, or whether the issue of legal-tender notes is consistent 
 with the Federal Constitution— questions evidently to be de- 
 termined in each case in no other way than by an examination 
 of the document referred to. To this inquiry attention is now 
 invited. 
 
 The origin of man, as stated in Genesis 2 : 7, is in these 
 words, " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, 
 and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man be- 
 came a living soul." 
 
 Were this the entire scriptural record on the subject — as 
 many seem to assume — there would be no serious difficulty in 
 interpreting it in harmony with the hypothesis of evolution. 
 The Divine Creator of all things was not only originally the 
 author of the universe, but has continuously been the upholder 
 and controller of the various forces in nature, acting cease- 
 lessly according to the laws which he has established. Ac- 
 cordingly, phenomena which are immediately the result of 
 these forces, operating it maybe through long periods of time, 
 are in the Scriptures frequently attributed to God, and in terms 
 that might at first sight seem to imply the direct divine agency. 
 The declaration, " And God said. Let there be light, and there 
 was light," would undoubtedly at first sight seem to imply — 
 and yet it does not necessarily imply — that the production of 
 light was by the immediate divine agency, and was instan- 
 taneous. Moreover, as with the Eternal One " a thousand 
 years are as one day," in interpreting the record of his creative 
 work, we should be careful not to impose limitations of time 
 and mode of operation that are not explicitly asserted. The 
 passage above quoted as to the origin of man contains no such 
 limitations. It simply asserts the important fact that " God 
 formed man of the dust of the earth," but contains no intima- 
 tion as to the mode of this creative act or the duration of 
 the process. There is nothing, therefore, in this language, 
 taken by itself, that is necessarily inconsistent with the hypothe- 
 sis of evolution. 
 
 But the passage referred to by no means exhausts the teach- 
 ing of the Scriptures concerning the origin of our race. This 
 
general statement of the seventh verse is followed at the eigh- 
 teenth verse by the more specific, and as respects the question 
 under consideration, the far more important declaration, " And 
 the Lord God said. It is not good for man to be alone," thus limit- 
 ing the reference in the seventh verse to the creation of the indi- 
 vidual man, Adam. " And God said, I will make a helpmeet 
 for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon 
 Adam, and he slept ; and he took one of his ribs, and closed 
 up the flesh instead thereof And the rib, which the Lord 
 God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her 
 unto the man. And Adam said. This is now bone of my 
 bone and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called Woman, be- 
 cause she was taken out of man." (Gen. 2 : 21-23.) 
 
 This account of the creation o{ zvouiaii— X.\\^\. is, of the first 
 woman, Eve — " the mother of all living" as she is subsequently 
 called (3 : 20) — has a most important bearing on the question 
 at issue. Unlike the former passage, its statements are specific 
 and unambiguous. It asserts distinctly, first, that the creation 
 of zvoman was not synchronous with, but subsequent to, the 
 creation o{ man ; and, secondly, it asserts with a particularity 
 of detail which precludes all doubt as to the meaning intended, 
 that the creation of woman was not by the ordinary mode of 
 generation, but was strictly supernatural, miraculous, wrought 
 by immediate divine agency. Now it will scarcely be denied 
 that if this language is to be taken as a literal record of an 
 historical fact, it is utterly irreconcilable with Evolutionism. 
 To assert the contrary would be simply to assert a contradic- 
 tion in terms. Evolutionists, with scarce an exception, not 
 only acknowledge the inconsistency, but insist upon it, and 
 accordingly reject — often with ridicule — the scriptural account 
 of the origin of the race. 
 
 To those who receive the Scriptures as the Word of God, 
 and yet maintain that Evolutionism is not inconsistent with 
 Revealed Religion, the language above quoted undoubtedly pre- 
 sents a most serious difficulty. In the preface to his work on 
 " Religion and Science," President Le Conte says, " It is an 
 earnest attempt to reconcile the truths of Scripture with those 
 revealed in nature." As might be anticipated from the char- 
 
10 
 
 acter of the eminent author — an authority in science, an accom- 
 plished rhetorician and logician, at the same time a believer — 
 his work is a valuable contribution to the discussion of the 
 relations of Science and Religion, and on many of the points 
 involved in controversy he has, in the defence of revealed 
 truth, rendered most important service. And yet - as remark- 
 ed by Professor Gray in his notice of the work — " one or two 
 topics that would naturally come in his way, such especially, 
 as the relation of evolution to the human race, are somewhat 
 conspicuously absent." 
 
 Professor Gray, in several articles in " Darwiniana" main- 
 tains that Evolutionism is not necessarily inconsistent with 
 Natural Religion — and we should say successfully, if Natural 
 Religion included nothing more than belief in an intelligent, 
 personal Creator of the universe. How he would harmonize 
 the Scriptures with the hypothesis, he does not intimate — 
 unless we except the incidental remark, that Dr. Hodge makes 
 " the implicit assumption that the Bible must needs teach true 
 science." 
 
 To remove the difficult}' of harmonizing the scriptural 
 account of the origin of man with Evolutionism, two theories 
 have been suggested. One is, that the Scriptures were not 
 given to reveal truths of physical science, but spiritual and 
 divine truths, to a knowledge of which men could not have 
 attained by the light of reason or nature ; that in regard to the 
 former class of truths, the sacred writers accepted the belief 
 and used the language current in the age in which they lived ; 
 that consequently on such subjects they are not to be regarded 
 as infallible. It is alleged that, as a matter of fact, their opin- 
 ions on matters of science were often erroneous — as, for exam- 
 ple, Job's allusion to the want of maternal affection in, the 
 ostrich, Solomon's reference to the foresight of ants in making 
 provision for the winter, and Joshua's belief that the sun 
 revolved about the earth. On this theory, the biblical account 
 of the origin of man is simply the opinion which prevailed at 
 the time the Book was written, and is not to be regarded as 
 infallible. 
 
 It is not necessary to show, as might be done, that these 
 alleged errors of the sacred writers furnish no basis for the 
 
11 
 
 theory referred to. For our present purpose it is sufficient to 
 reply , Jirsl-, this theory does not deny, but was framed for the 
 -very purpose of accounting for (therein acknowledging) that 
 which cannot be denied — that Evolutionism and the scriptural 
 account of the origin of man are irreconcilable. This is the 
 precise point, at issue in the present discussion. Secondly, 
 if the alleged errors of the sacred writers were admitted, 
 it is a palpable fallac)' to deduce a principle of interpreta- 
 tion from certain incidental alhtsions in the Scriptures to 
 scientific truths, and then apply this principle to the interpre- 
 tation of an extended, detailed, and explicit statement, recorded 
 evidently for no other purpose than to communicate truth on 
 the subject treated of — truth moreover, of which, from its very 
 nature, man could not have any knowledge except by revela- 
 tion. Thirdly, while it is true that the Bible was not given to 
 teach men physical science, it is just as true, that as incidental 
 to its main object — in regard to the subject in question we may 
 even say as necessary to its main object — it does contain the 
 distinct statement of certain scientific facts. Now, so far as 
 the Bible professes to teach such facts, it cannot be maintained 
 that its teaching is untrustworthy without admitting a princi- 
 ple which vitiates the authority of the Scriptures on all other 
 subjects. On this point Principal Dawson, in his " Nature 
 and Religion" — a work which admirably exposes how incon- 
 clusive is the alleged scientific evidence in favor of Evolution- 
 maintains, " I wish to enforce the important principle that with 
 respect to the history of creation and the subsequent reference 
 to it, we cannot rest in the general statement that the Bible is 
 not intended to teach science any more than we can excuse 
 inaccuracy as to historical facts by the notion that the Bible 
 was not intended to teach history." Foutthly, it is impossible 
 so to define the boundaries of the respective domains of Sci- 
 ence and Revealed Religion that they shall not at certain points 
 overlap each other. From the very nature of the case, there 
 is unavoidably a common ground covered by truths which in 
 one aspect are scientific and in another aspect are religious — 
 it may be, religious truths of the highest importance. Now, 
 if the teaching of the Scriptures on such subjects be distinct 
 
12 
 
 and unequivocal, are we at liberty to treat it as obscure or 
 erroneous, because forsooth, it is in conflict with some current 
 scientific speculation ? Moreover, the distinction between scien- 
 tific truths and spiritual truths, however just in reference to 
 other subjects, is wholly inapplicable to the particular subject 
 in question. The important bearing of the doctrine of Evolu- 
 tion on the spiritual truths revealed in the word of God will 
 be made manifest in the progress of this discussion. Fifthly, 
 the theory in question is in direct conflict with the teaching 
 of the Apostle, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
 
 The other theory referred to is that the Biblical account of 
 the creation and fall of man is not to be regarded as history, 
 but a myth or an allegory — to be interpreted, not literally, but 
 figuratively. This theory has the advantage of the preceding in 
 that it recognizes the plenary inspiration of the Mosaic record. 
 And as the Scriptures do undoubtedl)- contain parables and 
 allegories, it is not necessarily inadmissible. The question is 
 simply an exegetical one. In view of the connection in whicii 
 the language occurs, is the reader at liberty to treat it as a 
 myth or an allegory ? In answer to this question we remark — 
 the language referred to is inseparably joined to the record which 
 follows, reaching down to persons and events that are beyond 
 all question historical. The genealogical links which connect 
 the Israelites in Egypt with Adam and Eve in Eden are ex- 
 plicitly given. The children of Adam are mentioned in lan- 
 guage identical with that used in reference to the children of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now unless it be assumed that 
 allegorical parents can beget historical children, the theory 
 v/ould seem to be untenable. 
 
 But further, in reference to both the the theories referred 
 to — throughout the Scriptures, there are repeated references to 
 the Mosaic account of the origin of the race, and not only is 
 there no intimation that the record in question is either myth- 
 ical or untrustworthy, but it is uniformly regarded as veritable 
 history, and its literal interpretation assumed and asserted. 
 
 In the First Book of Chronicles the descent of the histori- 
 cal nations of that day is traced back to Noah and through 
 him to Adam — the writer evidently regarding the narrative in 
 Genesis as the literal record of an historical fact. 
 
13 
 
 The genealogy of the Saviour, given in the third chapter 
 of Luke, is, that he was, " as was supposed, the son of Joseph, 
 who was the son of Heli,"' and so backward through David, 
 and Abraham, and Noah to " Seth, who was the son of Adam, 
 who was," according to the Evangelist, not the son of an ape. 
 but " the Son of God.'' 
 
 In his reply to the question of the Pharisees, " Is it lawful 
 for a man to put away his wife for every cause ?" Jesus him- 
 self assumes the literal truth of the record in Genesis. " He 
 answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which 
 made them at the beginning made them male and female, and 
 said. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and 
 shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ?" 
 Matt. 19 : 3-5. 
 
 In the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul as- 
 sumes the historical character and the infallible truth of the 
 record in Genesis concerning the origin and fell of man, and 
 makes it the basis of one of the most important doctrines of 
 Scripture — in fact, a fundamental doctrine in the evangelical 
 system of religion. " By one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that 
 all have sinned." " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even 
 over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
 transgression, who is the figure of him who was to come." 
 " If through the offence of one many be dead, much more the 
 grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, 
 Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." If the record in 
 Genesis is not veritable history, then Paul has misapprehended 
 its meaning, and his argument is a fallacy. 
 
 Again, in his notable argument in defence of the doctrine 
 of the resurrection, in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, Paul assumes the literality and the truth of 
 the Mosaic record. " By man came death, by man came also 
 the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even 
 so in Christ shall all be made alive." " And so it is written, 
 The first man Adam was make a living soul ; the last Adam 
 was made a quickening spirit." " The first man is of the earth, 
 earthy ; the second man is the Lord from heaven." 
 
14 
 
 Again, in the eleventh chapter of this same Epistle, Paul ac- 
 cepts as literally true that portion of the Mosaic record most 
 troublesome to those who would harmonize Evolutionism and 
 Revelation — the account of the supernatural creation olzvoman, 
 and the priority of the creation of man. " The man," says he, 
 " is not of the woman, but the woman of the man ; neither 
 was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the 
 man." So also in ist. Tim. 2: 12-15. " I suffer not a woman 
 to teach nor to usurp authority over the man. For Adam was 
 first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the 
 woman being deceived was in the transgression." Now, again, 
 it should be observed, if the Mosaic account of the creation 
 and fall of Adam and Eve is not veritable history, then not 
 only has the Apostle misapprehended its meaning, but his argu- 
 ment, based upon the literal truth of the record, is fallacious. 
 
 Once more, when Jude refers to Enoch as an historical 
 character, "the seventh from Adam," he evidently regards the 
 narrative in Genesis as a record of historical facts. 
 
 From the above quotations it is e\'ident that the question 
 as to the consistency of Evolutionism and the Bible involves 
 not the Mosaic record alone, as many seem to assume — the 
 Scriptures just referred to are equally entitled to considera- 
 tion. And further, it should be observed, these Scriptures 
 have a twofold bearing on the question at issue — first, as an 
 in.spired interpretation of the Mosaic record ; and secondly, 
 as independent Scriptural teaching concerning the origin of 
 man — teaching moreover, in regard to which no believer in 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures will maintain that either the 
 mythical theory, or the theory that the sacred writers are not 
 to be regarded as infallible when treating of matters of science, 
 is applicable. 
 
 The conclusion seems inevitable that whether the doctrine 
 of the Scriptures concerning the origin of man be true or false, 
 there can be no reasonable doubt as to what that doctrine is, 
 and that it is not consistent with the hypothesis of evolution. 
 If the teaching of the Bible on this subject can be regarded 
 as an open question, then none can assert with confidence what 
 it teaches on any subject. The doctrine of the Trinity, the 
 
15 
 
 Divinity of Christ, the Personality of the Spirit, the true theory 
 of the Church, of the Christian ministry, of the Christian Sab- 
 bath, the subjects and mode of Baptism, and other important 
 doctrines that might be mentioned, are not taught in the Scrip- 
 tures more distinctly and conclusively than is the doctrine that 
 the human race is descended from a single pair — not evolved 
 by " natural selection," or any other physical law or laws, out 
 of apes, but created supernaturally by immediate divine agency. 
 The teaching of the Scriptures concerning the other doctrines 
 above mentioned has for ages been, and continues to be, con- 
 troverted. The Scriptural teaching as to the origin of man 
 has not until recently been called in question, and doubtless 
 would not now be, were it not for the supposed exigency in 
 consequence of recent scientific speculations. However urgent 
 the exigency, unless the speculations of scientists, or even the 
 logic of facts, can alter the language of a written document, 
 it would seem to be impossible to harmonize Evolutionism, as 
 it respects the origin of man, with Revelation. 
 
 The discussion has thus far been restricted to an examina- 
 tion of the direct teaching of the Scriptures as to the origin of 
 man. A more serious conflict, if possible, between Evolu- 
 tionism and the Bible remains to be considered. 
 
 Whatever question may be raised as to the authority of 
 Scripture on scientific subjects in general, or the interpretation 
 of the language of Scripture on the particular subject above 
 mentioned, all who accept the Bible as a revelation from God 
 agree that it teaches important truths concerning spiritual and 
 divine things, and that on such subjects its authority is supreme 
 and final. Now Evolutionism is not only inconsistent, as we 
 have seen, with the direct Biblical teaching concerning the 
 origin of man — it is utterly irreconcilable with all that is taught 
 in the Word of God concerning jnan's spiritual nature, the 
 nature of sin, the zvay of viaus sah'ation, and Jus destiny — in a 
 word, the entire system of spiritual truths for the revelation 
 of which the Scriptures were given to men. 
 
 First, the hypothesis is in conflict with the teaching of the 
 Scriptures concerning man's spiritual nature, both as to what 
 it was originally, and what it subsequently became — in the 
 
16 
 
 language of the Catechism, " the estate in which man was 
 created," and " the estate into which he was brought by the 
 fall." 
 
 It might be fairly urged that the idea of a spiritual nature 
 in man, in any proper sense of the expression — certainly in 
 the ordinary sense of the expression — is excluded by the hypoth- 
 esis as defined and defended by many of its prominent advocates. 
 With them, Evolutionism is Materialism. It maintains as a 
 prime principle the correlation not of physical forces merely, 
 but of all forces, physical, vital, intellectual, emotional, moral 
 and- (if there maybe anything so called) spiritual. It regards 
 beliefs and disbeliefs, likes and dislikes, the emotions of love 
 and of patriotism, the perception of beauty and the sense of 
 duty, as in their ultimate analysis, phenomena of matter, 
 secreted by the brain as the liver secretes bile. It makes Ps}'- 
 chology to be but a department of Physiology. The volition 
 of the murderer in pulling the trigger, and the explosion of 
 the powder and velocity of the bullet, are alike due to the 
 operation of fixed, invariable, physical laws. Whether dis- 
 posed to accept Professor Tyndall as a leader in scientific 
 speculation or not, all must admit that no higher authority 
 can be quoted as to what Evolutionism is. In his " Fragments 
 of Science " he asks: " What are the core and essence of this 
 hypothesis ?" And he answers, " Strip it naked, and you 
 stand face to face with the notion that not alone the more 
 ignoble forms of animalcular and animal life, not alone the 
 nobler forms of the horse and lion, not alone the exquisite and 
 wonderful mechanism of the human body, but that the human 
 mind itself, emotion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena, 
 were once latent in a fiery cloud." " I do not think that any 
 holder of the evolution hypothesis will say that I overstate it 
 or overstrain it in any way. I simply bring before you, un- 
 varnished, the notions by which it must stand or fall." After 
 maturer thought, he subsequently utters the same sentiment 
 ex cathedra, as President of the British Association, in the 
 memorable sentence in which his elaborate discussion of the 
 relations of Science and Religion — or, as he would probably 
 prefer to state it, their conflicts — culminates. " Abandoning" 
 
17 
 
 says he, " all disguise, the confession I feel bound to make 
 before you is, that I prolong the vision backward across the 
 boundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in that 
 Matter which we, in our ignorance, and notwithstanding our 
 professed reverence for its Creator have hitherto covered with 
 opprobrium, the promise and potency of every form and 
 qualit}' of life." True, he subsequently uses language that 
 seems intended to disclaim the inference to be legitimately 
 drawn from this formal, deliberate, and carefulh'-worded avowal 
 of his belief It is, however, with this avowal and not with his 
 consistency, that we have to do. Now the distinctive charac- 
 teristic of matter is, that its phenomena are determined by 
 physical forces acting in accordance with uniform, inflexible, 
 physical laws. The distinctive characteristic of spirit is, that 
 it is self-determining, and its actions voluntary. If there is in 
 matter "the potency of every form and quality of life " — 
 spiritual life included — then there is no such thing as volition, 
 and what is called man's spiritual nature is but a name for a 
 certain class of physical phenomena. 
 
 In his Belfast Address in 1874, on the question "Are 
 Animals Automatons ?" Professor Huxley, after attempting 
 to establish the affirmative, adds, " Undoubtedly, I do hold 
 that the view I have taken of the relations between the phys- 
 ical and mental faculties of brutes applies in its fulness and 
 entirety to man." It need scarcely be said that this theory — 
 that the activity of man's spiritual nature is determined by 
 physical law and not by volition — is inconsistent with human 
 freedom, and therein with human responsibility. 
 
 In reply to the objection to Materialism, that it destroys 
 human freedom and responsibility, we are sometimes met 
 with the arginnentimi ad Jioiiiineni — that the same objection 
 may with equal propriety be urged against the orthodox 
 doctrine of predestination. To this. Professor Huxley refers 
 in connection with the passage above quoted, and says in 
 reference to the " logical consequences" of his theory, " If for 
 preaching such doctrine I am to be cited to the bar of public 
 opinion, I shall not stand there alone. On the one hand I 
 shall have St. Augustine, John Calvin, and Jonathan Ed- 
 wards." 
 
18 
 
 Now, the certainty of the occurrence of a future event is 
 one thing ; the nature of the agency by which it occurs is an 
 entirely different thing. By noting this distinction, the fal- 
 lacy of the reply referred to will be manifest. Materialism 
 and the doctrine of predestination may be .said to agree, as to 
 the certainty of the occurrence of the action.s of men as pre- 
 determined. But they differ, toto ccrlo, as to the ?iatnre of the 
 agency by which they occur. According to Materialism, the 
 certainty is due to the fact that the action is the result of the 
 operation of physical forces acting in accordance with physi- 
 cal laws, which are fixed and invariable. The idea of the 
 volition of a free agent is excluded. 
 
 According to the doctrine of predestination, events occur 
 as predeterminded, " yet so as thereby neither is God the au- 
 thor of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, 
 nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather established." Conf of Faith, Chap. III., 
 Sec. I. The fact of human freedom is asserted just as dis- 
 tinctly as the fact of divine fore-ordination. As regards the 
 agenc}', therefore, by which human actions occur as pre-de- 
 termined. Materialism and the doctrine of predestination are 
 in direct conflict. Now the objectionable " logical conse- 
 quences " referred to, have respect to the f^oint on ivhicli Ma- 
 terialism differs from the doctrine of predestination, and not to 
 any point on which they may be said to agree. 
 
 Edwards does indeed speak of the actions of men occur- 
 ring by " necessity." but he is careful to state that he means 
 "a moral or metaphysical necessity," and not " a natural or 
 physical necessity." " As to the objection," says he, " against 
 the doctrine which I have endeavored to prove, that it )iiakes 
 men no more than machines, I would say, that notwithstanding 
 this doctrine, man is entirely, perfct/y, and nnspeakably dif- 
 ferent from a mere machine, in that he has reason and under- 
 standing, with a faculty of will, and so is capable of volition 
 and choice." So far from holding with Huxley that man is 
 " an automaton," he explicitly repudiates the doctrine, and 
 teaches the very opposite. 
 
 But, doubtless that class of Evolutioni.sts — or apologists 
 for evolution — who would be interested in the present dis- 
 
19 
 
 cussion would disclaim the bald materialism avowed by many 
 prominent advocates of the hypothesis. We proceed, there- 
 fore to remark that in the least objectionable form in which it 
 can be stated, it would seem to be irreconcilable with what 
 the Scriptures teach as to man's original and present spiritual 
 condition. According to the hypothesis, out of an assumed 
 original germ — or germs — of life in its lowest form, higher 
 and still higher forms, terminating for the present at least 
 in man, were evolved. In " The Descent of Man," the at- 
 tempt is ingeniously made to trace the genesis of all the fac- 
 ulties of man's spiritual nature out of the irrational impulses 
 and instincts of the lower orders of the animal creation. 
 
 According to this theory, that being to which — or to whom 
 — the term unui might for the first time be appropriately ap- 
 plied was undoubtedly, man at his very lowest estate, intel- 
 lectually, morally, spiritually— at the very bottom, so to speak, 
 of the scale of humanity. Moreover, according to this theory, 
 whatever might be called sinful in man's nature or conduct, 
 whether when in his original lowest estate, or at any subse- 
 quent stage of his ascent, was but a necessary incident to a 
 condition of progressive, and hence incomplete, development. 
 This condition, and whatever in connection therewith that 
 might be called sin, is not, if the hypothesis be true, any 
 thing abnormal, but normal — the legitimate result of the law 
 of his being — ^just as niuch so as rectitude would be when, 
 by the same law of his being, he had attained to a higher 
 state of development. On this point. Principal Tulloch — 
 whom no one will accuse of illiberal prejudice against either 
 the advanced science or thinking of the present day — in his 
 " Christian Doctrine of Sin," says, " The favorite conceptions 
 of modern Science involve, if they do not start from, a def- 
 inite view of human nature at variance with the old biblical 
 or spiritual view." " It leaves, for example, no room for the 
 idea of sin. For that which is solely a growth of nature 
 cannot contain anything that is at variance with its own 
 higher laws. If the individual and social man alike are merely 
 the outcome of natural forces working endlessly forward to 
 ward higher and more complex forms, then, whatever man is, 
 
20 
 
 he is not and cannot be a sinner. The mixed product of in- 
 ternal and external forces — of what is called organism and 
 environment — he may, at certain stages of his progress, be 
 very defective, but he has not fallen below any ideal he might 
 have reached. He is at any point only what the sum of 
 natural factors which enter iuto his being have made him. 
 The two conceptions of sin and of development, in this nat- 
 uralistic sense, cannot coexist. I cannot be the outcome of 
 natural law, and yet accountable for the fact that I am no bet- 
 ter than I am." Such then, is the theory of man's original 
 and present spiritual condition involved in the development 
 hypothesis. A simple statement of the Scriptural theory will 
 exhibit how the two are not only not consistent, but at every 
 point directly antagonistic. 
 
 With respect to other living creatures, the Biblical record 
 is, " And God said. Let the waters bring forth abundantly the 
 moving creature that hath life." (Gen. i : 20.) " Let the 
 earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." (Gen. 
 1:24.) This command to " the waters " to bring forth " the 
 moving creature," and to " the earth" to bring forth " the 
 living creature," may be intended — we do not say that it cer- 
 tainly was intended — to intimate that the generation of the 
 lower orders of animals was in accordance with pre-established 
 physical laws. The language in regard to the creation of 
 man differs entirely from that just referred to, and this differ- 
 ence was doubtless not without design and significance. The 
 record here is, " And the Lord God " — not " the earth," or 
 " the waters," or any other pre-existing thing or creature, 
 but " the Lord God — Jehovah Elohim — formed man of the 
 dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life ; and man became a living soul." (Gen. 2 : 7.) Further, 
 according to the Scriptures, not only was the manner of man's 
 creation thus peculiar, but a fact of even greater importance 
 in its bearing on the point immediately under consideration is 
 asserted. It is taught that in pursuance of a special divine 
 purpose, man was made in tlic image' of God. " And God 
 said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." 
 Then follows the record, " So God made man in his own 
 
21 
 
 image, in the image of God created he him." (Gen. i : 26, 27.) 
 Now is it credible that by this language the sacred writer 
 intended to assert that man as originally created — made in 
 the image of God — his spiritual nature directly inbreathed by 
 Jehovah — was but one remove above the brute ? Is it credible 
 that the writer of this record intended to teach, that within 
 the limits of the variation of an animal from the typical form 
 and faculties of the parent, the son of one of the highest 
 orders of apes was superior to its — or his-^immediate pro- 
 genitor, and that in virtue of this variation, it — or he — became 
 a human soul, made in God's image? And yet this must be 
 accepted as the teaching of the inspired record, to harmonize 
 the Scriptures with the hypothesis of evolution. 
 
 But further, the Scriptures teach that the original progeni- 
 tors of the human race, made in the image of God and left to 
 the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate in which 
 they were created, by the voluntary transgression of the divine 
 law ; that this transgression of God's law was sin ; that this 
 sin involved culpability, and by the just judgment of God 
 brought " death into the world and all our woe ;" that, in con- 
 sequence of the fall of man from the estate in which he was 
 originally created, the moral history of the race — apart from 
 siipcrnatitral inf/iiciict — has been constantly and only a retro- 
 gression, and not a prog'-ession, a descent and not an ascent. 
 That this is the teaching of the Scriptures, no extended quota- 
 tion is needed to prove. Let a single reference suffice. In 
 the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul gives what 
 may be called the Scriptural theory respecting the degradation 
 of so large a portion of the human race. He declares of the 
 heathen, that " when they knew God, they glorified him not as 
 God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imagina- 
 tions, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing them- 
 selves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the 
 uncorruptible God into an image like to corruptible man, and 
 to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Where- 
 fore God gave them up to uncleanness and vile affections." 
 "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, there- 
 fore God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Moreover, 
 
22 
 
 Paul did not regard the idolatry and debasing vices of the 
 heathen as excusable because the necessary outgrowth of an 
 imperfectly developed condition, but expressly declares, that 
 " in the judgment of God, they who do such things are worthy 
 of death." Now, mark, our immediate inquiry is not whether 
 the Bible doctrine concerning man's original and present spir- 
 itual condition, concerning sin, and the moral history of the 
 race is true, but, is this doctrine consistent with the develop- 
 ment hypothesis on these subjects ? 
 
 Again, Evolutionism is not only inconsistent with the Scrip- 
 tures as to man's origin, the nature of sin, and man's original 
 and present spiritual condition ; its teaching as to the future 
 of the human race is alike irreconcilable with the teaching of 
 the Scriptures as to tJie way of mans salvation, its nature, and 
 man's destiny. 
 
 To show that the hypothesis, as it respects the future, " is 
 not necessarily hostile to our religious faith," it has been said,* 
 " Were we constrained to trace our descent from apes, or 
 frogs, or infusoria, we could look with no little complacency 
 on our humble origin, from which we might anticipate further 
 development in a posterity of angels and archangels, as far 
 superior to ourselves as we are to the brutes or the animalculae 
 from which we sprang. When we compare the alleged begin- 
 nings of our race with its present condition, there is no limit 
 to what it may become, and the brightest visions of prophecy 
 may be transcended by the history that shall yet be written." 
 
 The first thought suggested by this language is, that the 
 progressive development which, according to the hypothesis, 
 men are permitted to anticipate, is one ivitJi tvJiich jnoral char- 
 acter and conduct have nothing to do. Its occurrence is determ- 
 ined by the very constitution of man's being, by a law of his 
 nature. Any connection between the performance of present 
 duty and future destiny is excluded, and has no more place in 
 the development of angels out of men, than it had in the devel- 
 opment of men out of apes. Is this Scriptural ? 
 
 *See tlie Introduction to the Course of Lectures hy Dr. Peal>ody, previously 
 referred to. 
 
23 
 
 But further, by the evolution of the human race out of apes, 
 frogs, and infusoria, is not meant that all individuals of the 
 lower races were, or are to be, developed into men, but simply 
 this, that through exceptional individuals of each lower race — 
 especially favored by " natural selection," — higher and still 
 higher orders of animals, in a gradually ascending series, ter- 
 minating for the present in man, have been evolved. Accord- 
 ing then to the hypothesis, the further development which 
 men are permitted to " anticipate," is not that of individual 
 angels and archangels out of individual men, but a race of 
 angels out of the human race, and this through a long succes- 
 sion of intervening races in a gradually ascending scale, and 
 after countless ages — the only connection between immediately 
 succeeding races in the series being the exceptionally favored 
 individuals of each race, the elect by " natural selection." 
 Now it is respectfully submitted, in such an anticipation, have 
 we any special reason for " complacency ?" The same and no 
 more than had the great mass of apes, and frogs, and infusoria 
 of past ages reason for " complacency," because forsooth, 
 through certain individuals of their respective races, as links 
 in a long series, the human race was, after millions of years, to 
 be evolved. Or whatever " complacency" such an anticipation 
 may afford, does it in any measure satisfy the wants of man's 
 spiritual nature ? Can it be made the substitute for a religious 
 hope ? What our immortal spirits crave is the prospect of a 
 future higher, happier, holier state, not for certain individuals 
 merely of the human race — were even that secured by the 
 hypothesis — much less for another and entirely distinct race 
 of beings, but an immortality of blessedness for ourselves. Lit- 
 tle reason have we for complacency in the prospect of the 
 development of higher orders of beings out of the human race, 
 if men individually, at death, are to become like "the beasts 
 that perish" — or as Professor Tyndall more poetically, but with 
 no more satisfaction to the cravings of our spiritual nature, 
 expresses it — " shall have melted like streaks of morning cloud 
 into the infinite azure of the past." 
 
 As if appreciating that the development above mentioned 
 would not be regarded as justifying the statement it was made 
 
24 
 
 to establish — that Evolutionism " is not necessarily hostile to 
 our religious faith" — the writer adds, " When we are told that 
 the individual human being actually passes through the vari- 
 ous forms of his lower ancestry, why may he not in his own 
 person pass successively through all the higher forms of which 
 finite being is susceptible ?" The physiological fact to which 
 we understand this language to refer is, that the human being, 
 in its embryonic development, assumes successively certain 
 forms resembling the forms of certain of the lower orders of 
 animals at the same stages of development. On this ground, 
 it is not indeed asserted, but after the manner of the author 
 of " The Origin of Species," when he would intimate what 
 he does not feel at liberty to assert, it is asked, " Why may 
 he not" — that is, why may not each individual of the human 
 race — " pass successively through all the higher forms of 
 which finite being is susceptible ?" Our first remark in 
 reply is, that the statement as to what " we are told," is 
 inaccurate, and the inference intimated is based on the inaccu- 
 racy. " The individual human being" does not " actually pass" 
 through the forms of the lower orders of animals. The simple 
 fact referred to is this and nothing more — that in the element- 
 ary stages of foetal development the human embryo closely 
 resembles the embrj^o of the lower orders of animals at the 
 same stage of development. Darwin himself, in " The Descent 
 of Man," states the physiological fact with scientific precision. 
 He says, " The (human) embryo at a very early period can 
 hardly be distinguished 'ixoxw. that of other members of the verte- 
 brate kingdom." (The Italics are our own.) Again, " The 
 embryo of man closely resembles that of other mammals." He 
 gives drawings of the human and of the canine embryo, in 
 which the points of resemblance, and at the same time of un- 
 likeness, are distinctly exhibited. The precise fact, therefore, 
 is a very different thing from that which is asserted, when it is 
 said that " the human being actually passes ' through the forms 
 of the lower orders of animals. Close resemblance is not iden- 
 tity. Were the resemblance so exact and entire that under the 
 microscope of highest power the two embryos were absolutely 
 indistinguishable, it would prove nothing as to the point in 
 
question. For that which differentiates a Hving organism in 
 embryo — makes it to be what it is in kind and nature as dis- 
 tinguished from other Hving organisms in embryo— is not the 
 external form or even the apparent physical features of the 
 ovule, but the quality of the life which animates it— that mys- 
 terious principle in the ovule (which no microscopic power 
 can discern) that determines the form and character of the 
 subsequent development. Now this plastic principle — this 
 nisus forniativiis — is as to kind or nature jusfas peculiar, dis- 
 tinct, and definite a thing, in the germ ab initio, as in the devel- 
 oped living being. Whatever be the seeming resemblance in 
 the early stages of embryonic development, the ovules of ani- 
 mals of different orders or species — man included — invariably 
 develop into beings after their kind, and this unquestionably 
 in virtue of their distinct and peculiar nature a/) initio. In the 
 physiological fact accurately stated, there is nothing to justify 
 the confidence with which Evolutionists refer to it as well nigh 
 conclusive in favor of their hypothesis. As an argument to 
 prove that individuals of the human race may hope for devel- 
 opment into beings of a higher order, it is certainly wholly 
 irrelevant. 
 
 To exhibit this still more conclusively, if possible, let the 
 inquiry above quoted be put in this form : "We are told that 
 the individual ape actually passses through the various forms of 
 his lower ancestry ; why may he not in his own person pass 
 successively through all the higher forms of which finite being 
 is susceptible ?" We see no reason why the argument is hot 
 just as good for monkey as for man. 
 
 Still further, by way of reply to the above inquiry, it may 
 be asked. Were the existing orders of finite beings higher than 
 man — " angels and archangels " — evolved out of the human 
 race by " natural selection," or in any other way ? If not, is 
 there any reason to believe that such beings will ever be thus 
 evolved ? 
 
 We have seen that the development with respect to man 
 which Evolutionism promises, is that of a higher race of beings 
 out of the human race. We remark further, that the immor- 
 tality of the individual man is not only not included in, but 
 
26 
 
 would seem to be irreconcilable with, the hypothesis. Accord- 
 ing to the hypothesis, out of an original germ of animal life in 
 its lowest form, higher and still higher forms terminating in 
 man have been evolved by slight gradations — such as are pos- 
 sible within the limits of the variation of the offspring of an 
 animal from the parent type. This idea of ^;W7/c?/ development 
 is so marked a feature of the hypothesis, that by some of its 
 recent advocates Evolution has been designated " the Law of 
 Continuity." Now with respect to the various forms of animal 
 life preceding man, we presume the immortality of the indi- 
 vidual will not be maintained. And we presume none will 
 maintain that the human spirit has become immortal by the 
 gradual approach to immortality in the spirits of the differ- 
 ent orders of animals preceding man in the ascending 
 scale. If then, man be now immortal, the only other alterna- 
 tive, as it would seem, is, that the wide — not to say, impas.sa- 
 ble — gulf between mortality and immortality of spirit must 
 have been crossed per salttim ; and yet this, regarded scientifi- 
 cally, would be fatal to the hypothesis, and theologically, 
 would justify, if it did not indeed demand, the direct divine 
 agency. 
 
 In the development intimated in the inquiries above quoted, 
 there is presented all that man is permitted to anticipate ac- 
 cording to the hypothesis of evolution. Now we again remind 
 the reader, our immediate inquiry is not, whether this is the 
 truth, but is this only hope set before us in the Gospel of 
 Science, the " hope set before us in the Gospel " of Revela- 
 tion ? Or is not such teaching not only inconsistent with, but 
 directly antagonistic to, the whole system of spiritual truth 
 taught in the Word of God, concerning the nature and the way 
 of man's salvation ? 
 
 According to the Scriptures, there is for every individual 
 of the human race an immortality of blessedness or woe, and 
 this determined, not by the operation of physical law, but "we 
 must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be judged 
 according to the deeds done in the body." According to the 
 Scriptures, for fallen man salvation is possible in no other way 
 than by supernatural agency — by direct divine intervention. 
 
Men, by nature, "are dead in trespasses and sins " — a state from 
 which there is in man no more inherent power of development 
 into a higher and holier state of being than there is power in 
 a corpse to develop into a living soul. The central idea of 
 the religion of the Bible - not taught obscurely in some doubt- 
 ful passages, but asserted or implied on every page — is man's 
 salvation through the incarnation, obedience, death, and resur- 
 rection of a supernatural Redeemer. " God was manifest in 
 the flesh." " It must needs be that Christ should suffer." 
 " Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." 
 For such a development as Evolutionism promises, whence 
 the necessity for, or where the possibility of, the intervention 
 of a supernatural Redeemer ? 
 
 Moreover, if the Scriptural record concerning the person 
 and work of Christ be admitted, then notable physical phe- 
 nomena have occurred in human history by the direct divine 
 agency. The generation of the human nature of Christ was 
 by direct divine agency. " The Holy Ghost," said the angel 
 to the virgin Mother of our Lord, " shall come upon thee, and 
 the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that 
 holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
 of God." And here we may ask. If there was direct divine 
 intervention in the generation of the human nature of " the 
 last Adam," shall we hesitate to accept the Scriptural account 
 of the creation of" the first Adam," by direct divine interven- 
 tion ? 
 
 And so in regard to the rcsuncction of Christ — Was the 
 reanimation of the lifeless form that for three days lay in 
 Joseph's tomb without corruption an evolution by a law of 
 nature ? Or was it not by God's immediate agency — 
 in the language of Scripture, " according to his mighty power, 
 which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the 
 dead?" So it may be asked in regard to the other miracles 
 recorded in the Scriptures. Were they but phenomena of the 
 laws of nature, or were they not wrought by immediate divine 
 agency ? However some may speculate as to the possibility 
 of explaining certain miracles on the hypothesis of the exist- 
 ence of a higher class of laws of nature, of which we have no 
 
28 
 
 knowledge, there are other miracles of which the explanation 
 by such an hypothesis would seem to be inconceivable — and 
 in any case, the hypothesis is directly inconsistent with the 
 Biblical idea of a viimcle, that is, the immediate manifestation 
 of Divine power. Phenomena occurring by the laws of nature, 
 whether those laws be to us, known or unknown, may be 
 novel and marvellous, but they are not miraculous. Again 
 we may ask, If the occurrence of other miracles recorded in 
 Scripture be admitted, shall we hesitate to receive the declara- 
 tion of Scripture that the origin of the human race was by 
 immediate Divine agency? 
 
 But further, the salvation of the Gospel involves not only 
 the incarnation, death, and resurrrection of a supernatural 
 Saviour, but the continual intervention of another supernatural 
 agent — the Holy Spirit. To be saved, man " must be born 
 again," born not from within, but from above — not by a 
 law of his nature, but by the Holy Ghost. Evolutionism re- 
 jects alike the necessity for, or the possibility of, any such 
 supernatural intervention. 
 
 And once more, the Bible teaches that the salvation of the 
 Gospel is a irdnnpiion — a restoration of man to a former state 
 of happiness and holiness — the state in which he was 
 originally created. The Saviour of men is not merely a bene- 
 factor but a Redeemer. The representation in the Scriptures 
 of the consummation of the plan of redemption — whether it 
 is to be understood literally or figuratively — is the earth 
 redeemed from the effects of the curse restored to man 
 redeemed from the effects of the fall. To any such concep- 
 tion, it need scarcely be said, the development hypothesis is 
 directly antagonistic. 
 
 In answer, then, to the question proposed for discussion, 
 we feel justified in replying, that Evolutionism is irreconcilable 
 with the direct teaching of the Scriptures as to the origin of 
 man — not only in the opening chapters of Genesis, but re- 
 peatedly, distinctly, and uniformly throughout the Bible ; 
 that important Biblical doctrines are based on the Mosaic ac- 
 count of the creation and fall of man, regarded as the literal 
 record of historical facts, and if this interpretation be incor- 
 
29 
 
 rect, the argument is fallacious ; that Evolutionism is irrec- 
 oncilable with the teaching of the Scriptures as to man's 
 nature, his original and present spiritual condition, the 
 nature of sin, the nature and the way of man's salvation, 
 and his future destiny — in short, with the whole system of 
 truth, for the revelation of which the Scriptures were given to 
 men. The late Professor Tayler Lewis did not exaggerate, 
 when, in reference to "the doctrine of a prinuis Jioino,-Si first 
 man, made man by the fiat of God," he said, " Between Dar- 
 winism and Biblical truth there is a polar opposition. Adam- 
 ity and Christianity (if the use of such words may be par- 
 doned for the sake of the parallelism they so briefly present) 
 go together. Here is to be an end of concession to science or 
 any thing else. It is the \dQa.stantis vel cadentis Christianitatis. 
 The rejection of it makes havoc of the whole Bible, opening 
 a chasm which no exegetical or theological device can 
 close." 
 
 If this conclusion be well founded, it follows : 
 First. That in weighing the evidence for and against Evolu- 
 tionism as it respects man, the evidence that the Bible is from 
 God, and not " a cunningly devised fable," must be taken into 
 account. To prove that man is descended from an ape, it is 
 not enough that certain facts of science may seem to favor 
 such a conclusion. When the evidence in its favor becomes 
 more conclusive than the evidence that the Scriptures were 
 "given by the inspiration of God," then, and not till then, 
 will the candid seeker after truth accept the hypothesis. 
 
 Although the consideration of the scientific evidence on 
 the subject is aside from the present inquiry, it may be proper 
 here to remark, that many whose opinions are entitled to 
 respect, including prominent Evolutionists — most notably 
 Wallace, who shares with Darwin the honor of having re-in- 
 troduced the hypothesis to favor — maintain on scientific 
 grounds, that the origin of man is siii generis, and not to be 
 accounted for by the hypothesis. At the late Annual Meeting 
 of German naturalists at Munich in September last, Virchow — 
 an authority not inferior to Haeckel — maintained, that "anthrop- 
 
30 
 
 ological investigations directly contradict the doctrine of 
 evolution."* 
 
 Secondly. From the argument above presented we think it 
 must be evident how short-sighted, unreasonable, and utterly 
 impracticable is the admonition frequently given by timid 
 apologists for the Scriptures, that in view of past contro- 
 versies between scientists and theologians. Christians ought 
 not to commit themselves or the Scriptures to either side in 
 this controversy, but should treat the subject as an open ques- 
 tion — assured that whatever be the ultimate verdict of science, 
 it will be found that the Bible can be interpreted therewith. 
 This language affords some justification for Professor Hux- 
 ley's sneer at " the marvellous fiexibilit}- " of the original 
 Scriptures. Every reader of the Bible must acknowledge 
 that its teaching concerning man's origin, nature, and destiny 
 is, as to extent, explicitness, and importance, wholly differ- 
 ent from its teaching concerning the structure of the solar 
 system, or the length of a creative day. To assume that 
 principles of interpretation based on the teaching of Scrip- 
 ture and the history of doctrine on these latter subjects, are 
 applicable to the former, is — to say the least — illogical. As 
 well might one maintain that because we may treat as an 
 open question, whether negroes are descendants of Canaan, 
 we may therefore treat as an open question, whether the Jews 
 are descendants of Abraham. If the Scriptures be a revela- 
 tion from God, are we at liberty to treat as an open question, 
 whether man was created in "the image of God" and by 
 imnlediate divine agency ? Can we treat the doctrine of the 
 fall of man as an open question? Can we treat the doctrine 
 of a supernatural salvation by a supernatural Saviour as an 
 open question ? Can we treat the doctrine, that the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, and the other miricles recorded in Scripture, 
 were supernatural, as an open question ? Can we treat the 
 doctrine of the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit in 
 
 *For a concise statement of the objections on scientific grounds to Evolutionism 
 as it respects Man, see Dr. McCosh's " Christianity and Positiveism," Lecture II ; 
 also the Appendix, Art. I, on •' Gaps in the Theory of Development," and Art. 
 II, on " Darwin's Descent of Man." 
 
31 
 
 regenerating and sanctifying believers as an open question ? 
 Can we treat the doctrine of immortality — the eternal blessed- 
 ness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the 
 wicked — as an open question ? On such subjects as these, 
 can a genuine faith be even provisional ? If such doctrines as 
 these are to be treated as open questions, or to be accepted 
 provisionally until science has settled their truth or falsity, 
 then is the Bible the most useless of books, the occupation of 
 the Gospel minister is gone, and " Lay Sermons " from dis- 
 tinguished scientists are "the only infallible rule to direct us 
 what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God 
 requires of man." 
 
 But some may be ready to ask. Suppose that science 
 should hereafter prove that man was descended from an ape, 
 what then becomes of the Bible and Evangelical Religion ? 
 This question may be answered by asking another. Suppo.se 
 that, hereafter, it should be discovered that two and two make 
 five, what then becomes of our Mathematics ? Suppose that, in 
 the progress of science, it should hereafter be found that 
 matter does not attract but repels matter, what then becomes 
 of our Physics ? Suppose that, in the progress of Physiology, 
 it should hereafter be proved that thought, and affection, and 
 emotion, are nothing but .secretions of the brain — determined 
 by the proportions present of oxygen and hydrogen, and 
 nitrogen, and carbon, and especially phosphorus (as it already 
 is -said, " no phosphorus, no thought ") what then becomes of 
 our Metaphysics and our Ethics ? The answer to these ques- 
 tions — as to the question which suggested them — is, that 
 science can never prove that which is not true, and there is 
 little interest and no profit in speculating as to the pos- 
 sible conclusions that may be drawn from an impossible 
 premise. 
 
 If this reply be unsatisfactory to the inquirer, we propose 
 .still another question. Suppose that .science should ultimately 
 prove that the Biblical account of the origin of man is true 
 — what then becomes of those who in the mean time, accept 
 the false hypothesis and reject the Bible ? — or of those who, 
 awaiting the final verdict of science, treat the in.spiration of 
 
32 
 
 the Bible as an open question? The Scriptures answer this 
 question when they declare that " if the Gospel be hid " — 
 whether through ignorance or the conceit of knowledge, 
 whether through false philosophy or the speculations of" sci- 
 ence falsely so-called " — they to whom it is hid "are lost." 
 There is one doctrine which science and revelation agree in 
 teaching — the responsibility of man for his belief The vio- 
 lation of moral as well as of physical law — whether done 
 wilfully or ignorantly — will be followed by its legitimate con- 
 sequences. If the Scriptures be but " a cunningly devised 
 fable," and faith in them a delusion, then at death believers in 
 the Bible together with those who reject it, will — it may be 
 — " melt away like a morning cloud into the infinite azure of 
 the past." If the development hypothesis as to the origin of 
 man shall in a little while take its place — as we doubt not it 
 will — with other exploded scientific speculations, then they who 
 accept it with its proper logical consequences will, in the life 
 to come, have their portion with those who, in this life, "know 
 not God and obey not the gospel of his Son." 
 
 We cannot close this discussion more appropriately th.m in 
 the words of Principal Dawson — whose right to speak with 
 authority on this subject will not be questioned — " What we 
 know of primitive man from geological investigation presents no 
 contradiction to the history of his origin in the Bible, but rather 
 gives such corroboration as warrants the expectation, that as 
 our knowledge of pre-historic man increases, it will more and 
 more fully bring out the force of those few and bold touches 
 with which it has pleased God to enable his ancient prophets 
 to sketch the early history of our species. Truth and divin- 
 ity are stamped on every line of the early chapters of Genesis, 
 alike in their archaic simplicity, and in that accuracy as to 
 facts which enables them not only to stand unharmed amid 
 the discoveries of modern science, but to display new beauties 
 as we are able more and more fully to compare them with the 
 records stored up from of old in the recesses of the earth. 
 Those who base their hopes for the future on the glorious 
 revelations of the Bible need not be ashamed of its story of 
 the past."