XII.] TUEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 279 



recognize sucli action in such laws is a religious mode of re- 

 garding phenoniena, which a consistent tlicist must neces- 

 sarily accept, and which an atheistic believer must similarly 

 reject. But this conception, if deemed superfluous by any 

 naturalist, can never be shown to he false by any investiga- 

 tions concerning natural laws, the constant action of which 

 it presupposes. 



The conflict has arisen through a misunderstanding. 

 Some have supposed that by " creation " was necessarily 

 meant either primary, that is, absolute creation, or, at least, 

 some supernatural action ; they have therefore opposed tlie 

 dogma of " creation " in the imagined interest of pliysical 

 science. 



Others have supposed that by " evolution " was neces- 

 sarily meant a denial of Divine action, a negation of the 

 providence of God. They have therefore combated the 

 theory of " evolution " in the imagined interest of religion. 

 It appears plain, then, that Christian thinkers are perfectly 

 free to accept the general evolution theory. But are there 

 any theological authorities to justify this view of the mat- 

 ter ? 



Now, considering how extremely recent are these bio- 

 logical speculations, it might hardly be expected a priori 

 that writers of earlier ages should have given expression to 

 doctrines harmonizing in any degree with such very modem 

 views," nevertheless such most certainly is the case, and it 



2' It secmg almost strange tluit modern English thought should so 

 long hold aloof from familiar communion with Christian writers of othor 

 ages and countries. It is rarely indeed that acquaintance i.s shown with 

 such authors, though a bright example to the contrary was set by Sir 

 "Wiiliani Hamilton. Sir Charles Lyell (in his "?nnci[ile3 of Geology," 

 7th edition, p. 35) speaks with approval of the early Italian geologists. 

 Of Vallisneri he says, " I return with pleasure to the geologists of Italy 

 who preceded, as has been already shown, the naturalists of other coun- 

 tries in their investigations into the ancient history of the earth, and who 

 still maintained a decided preeminence. They refuted and ridiculed the 



