[209] spirit. Its aloofness and uniqueness are even more threatened, however, by the doctrine of evolution, which subsumes not only the Christian religion but the entire nature of man under universal rubrics. At first this doctrine shocked not only the theological but also the scientific thinkers of America. Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray opposed it almost as vigorously as did Charles Hodge, who declared ‘that a more absolutely incredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men.’ The burden of his logical and able What is Darwinism? （1874) is expressed in these sentences:
The conclusion of the whole matter is that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But—He is virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence.That this attitude toward evolution was speedily changed among theologians was due partly to President James McCosh (1811-94) of Princeton. He had but recently come from Great Britain to America. Many of his long list of books, expounding the Scottish Common Sense philosophy, had been written. There was no question of his complete orthodoxy, of his intense religious zeal, or of his international standing as thinker and educator. He, however, gave liberal recognition to ‘powers modifying evolution.’ These agents are light, life, sensation, instinct and intelligence, morality. ‘As evolution by physical causes cannot [produce them], we infer that God does it by an immediate fiat, even as He created matter. . . . It makes God continue the work of creation, and if God's creation be a good work, why should He not continue it?’1 In wide circles this acceptance of evolution of species went hand in hand with the denial of the unlimited sway of evolution. Chasms which ‘no evolution can leap’ were insisted upon, ‘between the inorganic and the organic, between the irrational and the rational, between the non-moral and the moral.’ It was widely felt that ‘Natural Selection’ is inadequate to account for the entire process of evolution, and Darwin's variability of species was emphasized. Thus for example
