doctrines with which it is associated, and of which it is itself but a part; and a book, professing to answer the question implied in this title, should make the discrimination and dispel the vagueness. If the question were given with its ominous implications, as, "What is this horrible Darwinism?" the reader would be set on the right track by the title; for the book is actually an essay on the relations of Darwinism and orthodoxy, and its aim seems to be to establish the position that Mr. Darwin's theory excludes design in Nature, and is therefore atheistic. Dr. Hodge cites various authorities who hold to this view, and he cites others against it. He admits that Mr. Darwin recognizes the agency of the Creator in originating the first germs of life, and he says, "it is conceded that a man may be an evolutionist and yet not be an atheist, and may admit of design in Nature." And yet he is unwilling to let the matter rest here, and the drift of his book seems to be to show that the whole tendency of the inquiry is irreligious and pernicious. He could make out exactly the same case with the doctrine of gravitation as with the doctrine of evolution. The theory of Newton was objected to in its time as dispensing with God, and explaining the movements of matter by a self-sufficing law of inherent attraction. That question is passed by, and men are left at liberty to interpret it in the way they choose. Why not deal with evolution in the same way? The real question is, "What is the truth of the case?" and, until that is worked out and established, it is premature to complicate it with theological difficulties. Nothing is more certain than that it must be investigated by scientific men, on its own merits.
So acute and cultivated a mind as that of Dr. Hodge could not deal with the question without giving interest to it, and his book will well repay perusal. The author evidently aims to be just, and his volume is measurably free from the denunciatory spirit which is too characteristic of controversy. But it must still be said that he is evidently too little familiar with the subject, and some of his statements will surprise the well-informed reader. For example: "When the theory of evolution was propounded, in 1844, in the 'Vestiges of Creation,' it was universally rejected; when proposed by Mr. Darwin, less than twenty years afterward, it was received with acclamation. Why is this? The facts are now what they were then; they were as well known then as they are now. The theory, so far as evolution is concerned, was then just what it is now. How, then, is it that what was scientifically false in 1844 is scientifically true in 1864?" This statement of Dr. Hodge that the doctrine of evolution, as now understood, was propounded by the author of the "Vestiges of Creation" in 1844, is about as correct as the statement of Drs. Burr and Dawson, that it is a plagiarism from the old Greek atheists, Anaxamander, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Epicurus. The theory of the "Vestiges" was nothing more than a restatement, in popular form, of that of Lamark, and there was no pretension that its author had contributed any thing to it of scientific importance. The real reason, undoubtedly, why the new statement was caught at with such avidity, was the growing conviction that the prevailing explanation of the origin of living forms, by special creation, was indefensible. The "Vestiges" was widely read, but the theory was not accepted, because it did not offer any rational or probable scientific solution of the difficulty. There was, however, a kind of indefinite feeling that the inquiry was in the true direction, and that its fundamental conception might be strengthened and verified by further investigation. This apprehension is well shown by the following extract from a letter of Principal James D. Forbes to Dr. Whewell, in 1846: "You have read, of course, the sequel to the 'Vestiges'.... the author of the 'Vestiges,' who is generally believed to be a denizen of modern Athens, has shown himself a very apt scholar, and has improved his knowledge and his arguments so much since his first edition, that his deformities no longer appear so disgusting. It was well that he began to write in the fullness of his ignorance and presumption, for, had he begun now, he would have been more dangerous." In 1859, Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace, working independently of each other, developed the principle of Natural Selection, which was the most important sin-
