EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY. 261 



from natural science and those from revelation. To 

 pursue each independently, according to its own 

 method, and then to compare the results, is thought 

 to be the better mode of proceeding. The weighing 

 of probabilities we had regarded as a proper exercise 

 of the mind preparatory to forming an opinion. Prob- 

 abilities, hypotheses, and even surmises, whatever 

 they may be worth, are just what, as it seems to us, 

 theologians ought not to be foremost in decrying, 

 particularly those who deal with the reconciliation of 

 science with Scripture, Genesis with geology, and the 

 like. As soon as they go beyond the literal statements 

 even of the English text, and enter into the details of 

 the subject, they find ample occasion and display a 

 special aptitude for producing and using them, not 

 always with very satisfactory results. It is not, per- 

 haps, for us to suggest that the theological army in the 

 past has been too much encumbered with impedimenta 

 for effective aggression in the conflict against atheis- 

 tic tendencies in modern science ; and that in resist- 

 ing attack it has endeavored to hold too much ground, 

 so wasting strength in the obstinate defense of posi- 

 tions which have become unimportant as well as un- 

 tenable. Some of the arguments, as well as the guns, 

 which well served a former generation, need to be 

 replaced by others of longer range and greater pene- 

 tration. 



If the theologians are slow to discern the signs 

 and exigencies of the times, the religious philosophi- 

 cal naturalists must be looked to. Since the above re- 

 marks were written, Prof. Le Conte's " Religion and 

 Science," just issued, has come to our hands. It is a 

 12 



