EDITOR'S TABLE. 



557 



either in private or in the class-room, 

 the opinion referred to in the slip you 

 send me. "We are keenly alive here to 

 the danger from what is manifestly the 

 infidel trend of the views generally held 

 by evolutionists. It is a great relief to 

 me to know that among all my col- 

 leagues there is such a cordial accept- 

 ance of the old faith, which it has been 

 the tendency or the avowed aim of 

 these materialistic teachers to destroy." 

 Dr. Brown, of Hamilton, responded : 

 " The doctrine of the ' evolution of man 

 from irrational animals ' has never, to 

 my knowledge, been taught in Hamil- 

 ton College. I trust it never will he 

 till it is proved to be true, as in my 

 judgment it has not been, and I do not 

 think it ever will be." President Pot- 

 ter, of Union, declared, " The printed 

 statement you forward is not a correct 

 statement of the teaching in this col- 

 lege." President Robinson, of Brown 

 University, replied, " We do not teach 

 the doctrine stated in the inclosed slip." 

 Dr. Anderson, of Rochester University, 

 protested that " we have never taught 

 in our institution that man is ' evolved 

 from irrational animals,' for the simple 

 reason that we believe the notion to be 

 an unverified hypothesis," And Presi- 

 dent Seelye, of Amherst, indignantly 

 responded : " This college does not yet 

 teach groundless guesses for ascertained 

 truths of science. So long as the notion 

 that man is evolved from the monkey 

 or from any irrational animal has not a 

 single fact to rest upon, and is in flat 

 contradiction to all the facts of history, 

 I think we may leave it with the scio- 

 lists." 



Now, this unanimity of unqualified 

 denial has its significant implications. 

 For, if evolution is not taught in those 

 colleges, we may fairly infer that it is' 

 because the old alternative doctrine has 

 not been given up ; that is, as President 

 Cattell observes, there is among his col- 

 leagues " such a cordial acceptance of 

 the old faith." Hence we learn that, on 

 a large question of natural history, nine 



of the leading American colleges teach 

 the old theological beliefs rather than 

 the conclusions of modern science. 



The " Observer " of course exult- 

 ingly avails itself of the official decla- 

 rations it has elicited, and points tlie 

 moral of the case by restating the bio- 

 logical teaching of "the Holy Scrip- 

 tures," still inculcated in the colleges. 

 It triumphantly asks of the " Indepen- 

 dent " : " Where are the schools, ' our 

 best schools,' in which its vile doctrine 

 is taught? Degrading as the doctrine 

 is, opposed to the common sense of 

 mankind, contradicted by science and 

 history and the Holy Scriptures, what 

 reckless audacity there is in asserting 

 that it is taught in our best schools ! " 

 Again it says: "The Apostle Paul af- 

 firms that 'by man came death,' and 

 that ' in Adam all died,' and that ' death 

 reigned from Adam to Moses,' and that 

 ' by one man's offense death reigned 

 by one.' But the 'Independent' says 

 that ' every scholarly young man ' must 

 doubt whether the fall in Adam is a fact. 

 The historian Luke traces the lineage 

 of the Son of Mary from son to father, 

 step by step, till he gets back to Seth, 

 ' who was of Adam, who was of God.' 

 Tills is the Biblical history of devel- 

 opment, by which the human race is 

 traced to the time when Moses says God 

 made man and called him Adam. . , . 

 No young person whose mind receives 

 the views of the ' Independent ' can at 

 the same time be a believer in the ora- 

 cles of divine truth. To hold the one 

 is to despise the other. If the irrational 

 animal gospel is true, Christ's gospel is 

 a humbug." 



Such is the theological biology to 

 which the presidents of nine American 

 colleges are thus authoritatively con- 

 strued as committing themselves and 

 their institutions. 



Several interesting questions here 

 arise, and the first is an unpleasant in- 

 quiry as to how far these presidential 

 declarations are fair and true. Do they 

 represent the facts or do they mislead ? 



