CORRESP ONDENCE, 



693 



COERESPONDENCE. 



Messrs. Editors. 



IN a good but caustic review of Mr. Mal- 

 lock's book — " Is Life worth Living? " 

 — you make use of a sentence whicla would 

 seem to reilect on all alike who are engaged 

 in the study of theological problems : " We 

 have hei'e the last brilliant exploit of the 

 theological mind in its warfare with modern 

 science." Permit me, as a student of theol- 

 ogy and a lover of modern science, to read 

 you a short lecture. Many of the young 

 ministers to-day arc firm believers in evo- 

 lution, and preach it. This theory is by 

 no means a hindrance in our study of the- 

 ology, but the best instrument which has so 

 far been placed in our hands. If on our 

 desk the Bible lies, so also do Spencer's 

 " First Principles " and his " Sociology." 

 If we respect and study Jesus, so do we 

 Spencer and Tyndall and Clerk Maxwell. 

 These have a gospel for us — they have a 

 hope. The young theological mind is very 

 far from engaged in a warfare with science ; 

 it is anxious, and hoping, for firmer ground 

 than we now have. If science can help us, 

 and it can and does, in making this life more 

 valuable, the future brighter, and ourselves 

 better, we welcome it. Wc are not troubled 

 about reconciling theology and science ; we 

 take what we can in both, after honestly and 

 carefully investigating for ourselves, and 

 then allow them to reconcile themselves. 

 What we have to do with is the truth pure 

 and simple. Some of us will not pledge 

 ourselves to any " body of divinity," either 

 ancient or modern ; we will not swear by 

 Bibles, old or new, nor believe all the spirits, 

 either in the Gospels or the biologies. The 

 writer of the preface to the American edi- 

 tion of Spencer's " First Principles " tells 

 us that his hope is in the young men. Many 

 of them are with him. We now only aslc 

 you to remember this, and let us investigate 

 in our own fields, mindful of the fact that 

 we are each doing our best to find the truth. 

 We are side by side oftener than we imag- 

 ine, even if some college presidents will not 

 see it. None are so blind as those who will 

 not see. 



It would not be out of place if in the 

 " Monthly " you would give an article, now 

 and then, bearing directly on the theologi- 

 cal questions — the higher theological ques- 

 tions, not the petty disputes of the sects. 

 You have our hand. 



A Young Theologian. 

 KBBaTB, N H., January 21, l&SO. 



THE AGE OF ICE 

 Messrs. Editors. 



An article under the above title, pub- 

 lished in the October number of the 

 " Monthly," appears to have brought upon 

 its author the charge of plagiarism. But 

 his own note with the accompanying edi- 

 torial, published in the Febi'uary number, 

 not only completely exonerates him, but 

 actually converts the charge into an encomi- 

 um. For the writer of the article in ques- 

 tion can scarcely fail to appreciate the com- 

 pliment of being charged with borrowing, 

 from so reputable an author, ideas which 

 prove to have been made public before the 

 able work of Mr. Croll had seen the light. 



But, if the accusing party had carefully 

 and understandingly read the article of Mr. 

 Norton as well as those which he charges 

 Mr. Norton with plagiarizing, he would never 

 have made the charge. For he would have 

 discovered in the former article statements 

 quite excusable, when the date of their writ- 

 ing is known, but which would never have 

 been made had Mr. Norton read either the 

 work of Mr. Croll or the articles of Mr. 

 Merriman. The object of the present writ- 

 ing, however, is neither to vindicate nor to 

 criticise. 



But, since the " Monthly " is almost solely 

 relied upon by so many readers as an ex- 

 ponent of the latest scientific discoveries 

 and opinions, the publication of Mr. Nor- 

 ton's article, so long after it was written, 

 seems liable to mislead this class of readers. 

 The conductors of the " Monthly " may not, 

 therefore, deem it inappropriate to give 

 place in their columns to a very brief state- 

 ment of the points in which the article is 

 likely to convey an erroneous impression : 



1. In the published abstract the author 

 says: "The southern hemisphere has at 

 present a winter of 187 days and a summer 

 of ITS days. We may justly infer that 

 during this winter more snow and ice ac- 

 cumulate than the shorter summer is able 

 to melt." 



In the lecture this statement may have 

 been accompanied by such an explanation 

 as to prevent a misconception ; but, as pub- 

 lished, it must leave on the popular mind 

 the impression that, because the summer is 

 shorter, therefore the heat received from 

 the sun is less — an impression which many 

 have received ; whereas it was long since 

 shown that the earth receives from the sun 

 exactly the same amount of heat from the 



