57 8 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



we could perhaps scarcely name an American whom the common voice 

 would pronounce better fitted to grapple with every phase of the doc- 

 trine of evolution in a logical and scholarly manner. We must con- 

 fess, however, to a certain amount of disappointment with both the 

 matter and the manner of the learned ex-president's " Lecture on Evo- 

 lution," delivered before the Nineteenth Century Club, on the 25th of 

 May last, and now reprinted for general circulation in pamphlet form. 

 Our objections to the matter will appear as we proceed : our objection 

 to the manner is that the learned ex-president has really not been so 

 careful as he should have been as one would suppose he would, 

 almost by instinct, be to clothe his thoughts in correct literary, or, 

 let us say at once, grammatical form. One does not like to discuss 

 questions of grammar in connection with a discussion of evolution ; 

 but, really, there is ground for complaint when a writer of the high 

 competence of Dr. Porter embarrasses and irritates the reader of his 

 lecture by simple inattention to the rules of composition. 



The reader is not left long in doubt as to Dr. Porter's point of 

 view. He says, in effect, at the outset, that the question of evolution 

 might be left for scientists and philosophers to settle between them 

 were it not for the fact that, as frequently presented, it involves con- 

 sequences to Christian theism and natural ethics : this fact renders 

 the intervention of the theologian necessary. Here we see the issue 

 'plainly formulated between dogma on the one hand and the free con- 

 clusions of the human intellect on the other. The theologian must 

 intervene why ? What does he know of the matter in hand that 

 " scientists and philosophers " may not equally know ? Why should 

 -the interests of truth be dearer to him than to them ? It will scarcely 

 be pretended that the special knowledge of doctrinal systems in their 

 succession and relation, or of the textual criticism of the Scriptures, 

 which a professed theological student might be supposed to possess, 

 would be of any great service in a discussion of the Darwinian theory 

 or of the larger aspects of biological evolution. Yet, unless the theo- 

 logian intervenes by virtue either of such special knowledge or of 

 some special authority of a sacerdotal kind with which he claims to 

 be invested, we fail to see how he can be said to intervene as a theolo- 

 gian at all. If he simply joins in the discussion on general grounds, 

 contributing his quota of information or of logical discrimination, as 

 any one else might do, why, then, he merely sits down with the "sci- 

 entists and philosophers " ; and happy is he if he can hold his own in 

 such good company. Now, the truth is, that the learned doctor's inter- 

 vention has been precisely of this kind. We fail to discover that he 

 has uttered a single word in his character as a theologian, or done the 

 least thing to show that evolution can not be safely and thoroughly 

 discussed on grounds of science and philosophy. The only significant 

 thing about his intervention is the animus. He thought he could 

 deal with the matter as a theologian and he wished to do so. His 



