Savior, and comprehends the freeness and vastness of the love of redemption, he learns that most potent of all motives,' The love of Christ constraineth us.' We may righteously join in the indignant reply:

'Talk they of morals? O thou bleeding Lamb,

The great morality is love to thee!'

It thus appears that the charges of immoral results against the Bible doctrine of gratuitous justification are the antipodes of truth. That doctrine is the best, yea, the only adequate enforcement of true holiness. It is the glory of the Gospel, that faith, and faith alone, is the victory which overcometh the world.'

ART. VI.-1. Origin of Species by Natural Selection. By Darwin. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859.

2. The Descent of Man. By Darwin. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1872.

3. The Genesis of Species. By Mivart. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1871.

4. Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews. By Huxley. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1871.

5. On Natural Selection. By Wallace. London: McMillan & Co. 1871.

6. Antiquity of Man. By Lyell. George Childs. 1863. 7. Homo versus Darwin. Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger. 1872.

8. Man in the Past, Present, and Future. By Büchner. Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co.

1872.

9. Evolution of Life. By Chapman. Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co.

1873.

Since the publication of Darwin's celebrated work on the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, which made its appearance in this country some fourteen years ago, quite a

number of volumes bearing on the subject have been issued from the press. The titles of a few of these have been placed at the head of this article. Darwin's work has gone through several editions, and almost every scientist of note has thought it necessary to give the public, in some form or other, the benefit of his views of Darwin's theory.

So long as it remained a purely scientific question, the general public had no especial interest in the discussion, but the conclusions claimed by the latest advocates of this theory as legitimate, are of such fearful import as justly to arouse the profoundest emotions in the minds of all intelligent Christians, and to point to the necessity of meeting promptly this boldest attack of modern infidelity upon the foundations of our religious faith.

In the progress of modern scientific thought there have been some strange developments. The commendable modesty of the older scientists in the discussion of natural phenomena, and especially in drawing conclusions from few and imperfect data, has given place to a dogmatism as bold and arrogant as ever fell from the lips of the most bigoted and narrow-minded theologian of the dark ages. In fact, the dogmatic spirit has become so rampant in some departments of modern physical science, that the earnest, conscientious seeker after truth is shocked at the bold assertions made, but agreeably disappointed at the insufficient grounds upon which the most startling conclusions are based. The most sacred feelings of our nature are outraged by the utterances of some of these self-constituted high priests of nature, whose language is as blasphemous as it is flippant and false. In proof whereof, listen to the words of Huxley, one of the most distinguished of modern scientific writers: The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus, and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the knowledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate. In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical science, the cosmogony of

the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox.' Again: 'Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes about that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain. Orthodoxy, though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and the end of sound science, and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half-paralyzed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.' Again, he says, 'Plague, pestilence, and famine are admitted, by all but fools, to be the natural result of causes, for the most part fully within human control, and not the unavoidable tortures inflicted by wrathful Omnipotence upon his helpless handiwork.'

Says Büchner: Every science, and especially every philosophy, that seeks reality instead of appearance, truth instead of pretence, must necessarily be atheistic, otherwise it blocks up against itself the path to its end, the truth. As soon, then, as in a philosophic book the word "God" occurs, except in criticism or reference, one may confidently lay it aside; in it will be found nothing capable of promoting the real progress of knowledge. In properly scientific works the word will be seldom met with, for in scientific matters the word "God" is only another expression for our ignorance; in like manner, as on more special occasions, the words "vital force," "instinct," "soul," etc.

What stronger, more sacrilegious language could be used? But it will not do to stop our ears to the scoffings of modern infidelity, or to refuse to investigate the alleged facts upon which the threatened overthrow of Christianity is based. A thousand times, in days gone by, has Satan marshalled his hosts against the citadel of revealed truth, and with terrible onslaught attempted to carry her ramparts by storm; but, when the smoke of battle had cleared away, her impregnable towers

are seen to rear their battlements aloft unscathed. So will it be in the contest now in progress.

At the first announcement of Darwinism, it was claimed to be not inconsistent with Christianity, and so we ourselves believed. Even Mr. Darwin speaks of a 'Creator and Ruler of the universe,' but his writings contain no expression of belief in the Creator, and the quotations given above show that his most learned followers, not satisfied with ignoring God and the Bible, have utterly discarded all allegiance to any such Supreme Being as Revelation declares to be the Sovereign of the universe.

What, then, is Darwinism? or what does Darwin teach? In few words, that naturalists have been wrong hitherto in supposing that there is any essential difference in the various species and genera of animals. In other words, that the oyster, fish, bird, cat, dog, monkey, man, all are the offspring, the descendants, of some one or few primordial forms of animal existence. That solely by the operation of certain laws, the higher animals have been developed gradually, through countless ages, from lower forms, without the intervention of a personal Creator; that surrounding circumstances so modify and control the existence of animals as to allow only the fittest to survive, and, in the struggle for existence which necessarily takes place, those peculiarities of structure which best adapt a given animal to a particular condition will be gradually developed, until new species are formed. This derivation of the higher animals from the lower is true also of man, and the same law of development and survival of the fittest, is applicable to plants as well as to animals. Man's descent, or rather ascent, has been, according to Darwin, from the lowest marine animals-through fishes, frogs, reptiles, birds, opossums, monkeys to his present high estate. This theory rejects as unscientific and foolish, the idea of man's creation some six thousand years ago, and its advocates undertake to establish, from indubitable facts and sound logic, the existence of man upon the earth for many thousands, if not for many millions, of years. Our purpose in this article is to examine this theory of derivation so far as it relates to the existence of man. That

it was possible for Omnipotence to so impress in the beginning,' upon one or a few forms of matter, the capability of indefinite development, so as to evolve therefrom all the varied forms of animal life, we are free to admit, but that it did so please him thus to exert his power has by no means been clearly proved. Even if established in reference to all animals save man, it would not, in our humble judgment, conflict with the declarations of Holy Writ. Moses, the divine historian, tells us that God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth;' and again, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind-cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind,' thus seeming to imply that they were produced by natural agencies; but when he comes to man, the language is, 'And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.' 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.' We are also told that 'God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.' Surely this cannot mean that he was developed,' body and soul, from the beasts that perish.' The hasty rejection of the Bible by many scientific men, because of an apparent contradiction between its teachings and that of science, is astounding. Would they give it the same patient, thorough examination that they do all questions of science, the result, we believe, would be different. There are two propositions which we think the Christian may freely admit. They are: 1st. That God does not require us in his word to believe anything contrary to our reason. There are many things, both in nature and in Revelation, which we cannot comprehend, but nothing in either which contradicts reason. 2d. That a written revelation from God cannot be in conflict with the great facts and truths of nature; and should such a conflict be made to appear, the fault must be in our interpretation. All true revelations from God are necessarily in harmony. We are prepared to go with the scientist to the full extent of conclusions, which can legitimately be drawn from facts, but we must be sure that his alleged facts are true,