DR. ROSEBY’S LECTURES.

Evening Star, Issue 4171, 10 July 1876, Page 2

DR. ROSEBY’S LECTURES.

At the Congregational Church last evening Dr. Eoseby lectured on ‘ Chritianity not irreconcilable with Evolution."

Th . o „ re^-J,ec^rer chose as his text I. Corinthians. *46, That is not first which is spiritual, but that, whieh is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.' He proposed to ask his hearers to join him m a grave and careful consideration of the subject of Evolution, with the view of ascertaining whether there was any possibility of reconciling the theory with Christianity. He frankly avowed at the outset that he entered upon the inquiry with ah earnest dosir© to fiucl tho two in harmony: for if there was any possibility of effecting a reconciliation, there were a hundred reasons why a reconciliation was desirable. No one having the least acquaintance with science conld help being, struck _ with the effect of its study upon the minds of its students. It was not too strong an expression to say that the doctrine of Evolution seemed to lay hold of them, to work itself into the veyy substance of their thought, and to become a mental habit. He did not say that tho doctrine of Evolution was formally proven. The formal proof was undoubtedly incomplete. But the scientific mind seemed constrained to regard it ns true—as a working hypothesis—as‘a solution of the great problem of nature. Let them turn to the names of those who oc upied the foremost rank in science, and they would find rhat the theoiyhad met with the almost universal reception of men of scientific eminence. All scientific literature was pervaded by it. You could not take up a standard work on Astronomy Geology, Biology, Pbysios-aud, indeed, hardly a standard mode- n work on Psychology or Sociology —winch was not based, partially or wholly, on the theory of Evolution. And he saw no chance of getting those who understood the subject, and had accepted the theory, to abandon it. They would tell you that it gave so exhaustive, so apt, aud so satisfactory, an account of the great problem of nature, that they would have to do violence to their own minds, and outrage their sense of truth, if they refused to accept it. What could they say in reply to such men P Moreover, their children were learning it. The modern world was giving more and more prominence in the schools to instruction in science, and science was so imbued with Evolutionism that there was no such thing as having it taught without it. The children came home aud told their parents that the interior of the earth was molten fire; that the earth once formed part of that fiery cloud, the greater part of which is now to be seen condensed into the liquid moss of the sun. They were thus learning at school that nebular hypothesis which was the first lesson m Evolution. They were being taught the doctrine of physical analogues—to connect together the antennas of ci ns: oceans, the fins of the fish, tho paddles of tho whale, the wings of the bird, the anterior limbs of the quadruped, the hands of a man—and were thus learning the alphabet of Evolution iu tho common school, to carry on the lesson when they entered the grammar school, and to per. feet it at the University. Aud there was no escaping this. They would not get men of first rate proficiency in science who would consent to teach science aud remain silent concerning that theory which seemed to them to bind all the facts of science and unity What, then, was the wise attitude of Christian men towards this theory ? They would now understand why he l ad said that if there was any possible way of reconciling Evolution and Christianity-rScience au‘l Faith—they should most anxiously endeavor to discover it He, for one, dared not ask men to belie their deepest convictions, and shut their eyes and oars against the teachings of nature, Tell such men that unless they did this they could net be Christians 1 Nay, he would rather tell them that if they did not love truth more than they feared the anathema of bigotry they would know nothing of the spirit of Him who died on Calvary J It Wfts oonside* rations such as these which wore now leading bundreds of eminent divines aad Christian teachers to assume the same attitude towards science as that he was auxieus to assume himslf. That attitude was this;-God never contradicts Himself, If Ha affirmed one thing in nature he would not affirm r>contrary in Seyefttiqu. god's twe not hopelessly Pt variance. It might tax ournatieSce and bumble our proud prejudices, preserve their harmony, but 1 if truth and feared frSf' tit 4 what ™ must set oupgelyes to do. Whenever on interpretation of Scripture stood opposed to of nature or reason or oonsQienqe, we HoS rtf q f U i! t6SUre rtlfktihfttatiou. Let them consider what manner of being the hum m creature was. He was the last link of a * ar " e might be looked upon as a product of Evolution; but that was only Baling that Qod had chosen that particular method of making him W ho wjjg,- He was a man, no matter what motued God had used to create him audh, He was a being united by bonds of present personal tehto tionship to Qqdj hh, was a partaker of the Divine nature i he was, aut generis, a child Qgd, jJJr

was there Anything in the theory of Evolution to prevent one so regarding him. In oonduaien the rev. lecturer reviewed thoeo points wherein it was alleged that Evotion was at variance from Christ tiantty. He praised Professor Salmond'e clear, temperate, ana charitable putting of these points of difference. He pointed out that the theory did not offer any greater difficulty to the interpretations of Genesis than Christian astronomers and geologists had already surmounted. Hu had doubtless exposed himself to the censures of the uncharitable; but to such he would only soy. In the language of the greatest of the fathers of the Church, “ Let those rave against us who know not with what labor truth is discovered and with what difficulty the eye of the inner man is kept clear, who know not with what sighing and prayer God comes to be known even a little." If he had been able to show that God’s two books were not hopelessly at variance ; that science need not be divorced from faith; mat a recognition of man’s bumble origin need not hinder us from regarding him now as a son of God, and an heir of immortality; it’ he had been able to show that the theory of Evolution need not dimfalab m the least our loyalty and onr love to Him whose Name is above every name,” he would wilbngly bear the reproach of testifying that Christianity was not irreconcilable with Evolution.