26S DARWINIAN A. 



XoWj the triitli or the probability of Darwin's hy- 

 pothesis is not here the question, but only its congru- 

 ity or incongruity with theism. We need take only 

 one exception to this abstract of it, but that is an 

 important one for the present investigation. It is to 

 the sentence which we have italicized in the earlier 

 part of Dr. Hodge's own statement of what Darwin- 

 ism is. With it begins our inquiry as to how he 

 proves the doctrine to be atheistic. 



First, if we rightly apprehend it, a suggestion of 

 atheism is infused into the premises in a negative 

 form : Mr. Darwin shows no disposition to resolve 

 the efficiency of physical causes into the efficiency of 

 the First Cause. oS^ext (on page 48) comes the posi- 

 tive charge that "Mr. Darwin, although himself a the- 

 ist," maintains that " the contrivances manifested in 

 the organs of plants and animals .... are not due to 

 the continued cooperation and control of the divdne 

 mind, nor to the original purpose of God in the con- 

 stitution of the universe." As to the negative state- 

 ment, it might suffice to recall Dr. Hodge's truthful 

 remark that Darwin " is simply a naturalist," and that 

 " his work on the origin of species does not pui*port to 

 "be philosophical." In physical and physiological trea- 

 tises, the most religious men rarely think it necessary 

 to postulate the First Cause, nor are they misjudged 

 by the omission. But sm'ely Mr. Darwdn does show 

 the disposition which our author denies him, not only 

 by implication in many instances, but most explicitly 

 where one would naturally look for it, namely — at the 

 close of the volume in question : " To my mind, it 

 accords better with what we know of the laws im- 



