Aucker, W. Brian. "Hodge and Warfield on Evolution." Presbyterion 20.2 (1994) 131-42.

Presbyterion 20/2 (1994) 131-42

HODGE AND WARFIELD ON EVOLUTION

W. Brian Aucker*

Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.*

Some theologians may be badly bruised from their scuffles with scientific pugilists. However, it is debatable whether Huxley's hyperbole has much basis in the genuine interaction between science and religion. His statement was made in the context of the nineteenth century debate over evolution. One need only read a newspaper to realize that this apparent conflict between science and religion continues. Huxley's inflammatory remarks strike our ears as being common to the rhetoric of the debate. In our twentieth century view, evolution is the casus belli of a simmering feud.2

Many evangelical scientists of the nineteenth century would take issue with any dichotomy created between faith and science. Renowned scientists such as Asa Gray, the Harvard botanist, championed Darwin's theory in the United States and attempted to harmonize evolution and Christianity.3 Others such as geologist James Dana could say.

Let science dig, and dredge, and work her laboratories. She is still searching for God's truth. If her teachers are atheistic, accept still the truth that is well

*Brian Aucker is currently an M. Div. student at Covenant Theological Seminary. He holds an undergraduate degree in biology and plans to pursue doctoral work in biblical studies.

1T. H. Huxley, Review of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Westminster Review, Darwiniana, 52, as quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1962), 263.

2Although the conflict metaphor is prevalent, recent scholars have shown it to be unprofitable when discussing the relationship between science and religion. See David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science," Church History 55 (1986): 338-354.

3David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten DefendersiThe Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 63-64.

132 PRESBYTERION: COVENANT SEMINARY REVIEW 20/2

established; but to atheism give no quarter, for it is to man the annihilation of hope and of all the higher joys of his being.4

One could argue that attempts to bring together the two warring disciplines was to be expected of scientists who were also men of faith. Theologians, it is often assumed, took only an attacking pose as regards the question of evolution and did so without fully understanding Darwin's theory. This assumption is anachronistic, for viewing history this way assumes the religious perspective has always been one of antagonism toward science in general and evolution in particular.

Some historians err, however, in assuming that those theologians of the nineteenth and early twentieth century who held some form of evolutionary theory were more sophisticated than those who did not Hence theologians such as Charles Hodge who said of Darwinism, "It is Atheism,"5 were not as scientifically enlightened as men who took a supposedly more favorable view, such as Benjamin Warfield, who at one time defined himself as a "Darwinian of the purest water."6

Development of thought is assumed as we move from the inflexible Hodge, peak at the tolerant Warfield and return to Hodge's "rigid" views with the Princetonians of the 1920s. This is an underlying presupposition of the works of Deryl Freeman Johnson7 and David N. Livingstone. In his discussion of William Brenton Greene's "progressive withdrawal from a genuine engagement with the Darwinian model" Livingstone writes: "When the extent of evolutionary penetration into the thinking of men like A. A. Hodge, Warfield, McCosh, and Macloskie is remembered, Greene's substantive return to Charles Hodge's recommendations read as though fifty years of Princeton reflection on the subject had never happened."8 Later when summarizing the view of evolution expressed by the Princetonians of the 1920s he states, "These final expressions of an increasingly bellicose anti-Darwinism in latter-day Princeton theology, however, must not be allowed to deflect attention from the tolerant response of the intellectual giants in the Old School Presbyterian tradition at Princeton."9

4James Dana, "Relation of Evolution to Theism," Lectures on Evolution, no. 1 (Dana Family Papers, Yale Univ Library); as quoted in Livingstone, 76.

5Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? ( New York: Scribner's, 1874,) 177. 6Benjamin B. Warfield, "Personal Reflections of Princeton Undergraduate

Life," The Princeton Alumni Weekly, 16 April 1916, 652. 7Deryl Freeman Johnson, The Attitudes of the Princeton Theologians Toward

Darwinism and Evolution from 1859-1929 (Ph. D. diss.. University of Iowa, 1968). 8 Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, 155. ^David N. Livingstone, 'The Idea of Design: The Vicissitudes of a Key

Concept in the Princeton Response to Darwin," Scottish Journal of Theology 37 (1984): 357.

HODGE AND WARFIELD ON EVOLUTION 133

That there were evangelicals who were able to integrate theology and aspects of evolutionary theory is a message which desperately needs to be heard today. But to make the distinction between the "bellicose anti-Darwinism" of the later Princeton theologians and the "tolerant intellectual giants" of the earlier era is an oversimplification which does no justice to the cultural milieu in which each theologian worked. Livingstone when writing on the complex views of Hugh Miller, the 17th century Scottish evangelical and amateur scientist, states that "more than anyone else in the era, [Miller] served to smash those categories by which historical complexity is so often reduced to stereotyped heroes and villains."10 The later Princeton scholars also deserve such nuanced historical consideration.

The overall purpose of this paper is to investigate the thinking of two intellectual giants of Princeton Theological Seminary as regards evolutionary theory. Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Charles Hodge was professor of Exegetical and Didactic Theology from 1840-1878 and therefore held the chair during the formative years of the "Darwinian Revolution." Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield was Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology from 1887-1921 when the debate intensified. This paper is not a discussion of the creationist /evolutionist debate. Rather I will try to show that Hodge and Warfield are not as far apart regarding the question of evolution as some historians portray them to be. I hope to prove that Warfield's views were in fact closer to those of Hodge than to those of his mentor, Princeton College President James McCosh.**

Darwin's writings appeared more than a century ago and the issue of 'origins' is by no means resolved. This must be kept in mind as we look at Hodge and Warfield who had the difficult task of responding to the theory of evolution at its inception. According to W. H. Roberts the period from 1870-1880 was "the most intense phase of the evolutionary struggle."12

We first find mention of Darwin's Origin in a footnote of Charles Hodge's article "Diversity of Species" published in 1862. Hodge was initially struck by the "stupendous absurdity" of the suggestion that all forms which now exist descended from, in Darwin's words, "one primordial form." He also pointed to the contradictory opinions of

^Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, 9. ^D. F. Johnson's conclusion is exactly the opposite: "... Warfield's views as

to the compatibility of evolution with orthodox Christian doctrine were much closer to those of his college professor, James McCosh, than to those of his predecessor [Charles Hodge]." 248.

12Windsor Hall Roberts, The Reaction of American Protestant Churches to the Darwinian Philosophy 1860-1900, Vol 126, University of Chicago (Chicago: By the author, 1938), 6. As quoted in Johnson, D. F., The Attitudes of the Princeton Theologians, 81.


other scientists, such as Agassiz and Morton, who held that the races of men "never could have descended from a single pair."13 Perhaps his initial incredulity along with these conflicting opinions among men of science, persuaded him to wait until his Systematic Theology (1872) to discuss Darwin's theory in depth. Though ten years had passed since his first remarks on the subject, he was no less amazed that the theory had survived the attack of prominent scientists.14

Certainly another event precipitating Hodge's treatment of the subject was the publication of The Descent of Man in 1871. John Duffield, a professor at Princeton University, in an 1878 article in The Princeton Review comments that until Darwin released this work people had not realized the Bible was under attack.

Darwin's first work on The Origin of Species was not generally regarded as involving any serious or irreconcilable conflict with the Scriptures. Intimations as to the extent to which the hypotheses might be pressed did incite some apprehension, but it was not until these intimations were distinctly avowed and laboriously advocated in his subsequent work on The Descent of Man, that the great mass of believers in revelation and the entire mass of unbelievers felt that the Scriptures were assailed, and that Evolutionism had become a religious question and one of vital importance.15

Not surprisingly, Hodge's full exposition followed shortly in 1874 with the publication What is Darwinism?

It is important to note that Hodge saw in Darwinism not merely a scientific explanation for the development of all that God had created. Hodge agreed with Haeckel that ultimately it leads to "Atheism and Materialism."16 He did not deny however, "that there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory."17 Indeed men suchas the eighth Duke of Argyll (George Douglas Campbell, 1823-1900) and Princeton College President James McCosh did just that. According to McCosh evolution is simply "the method by which God works."18

Hodge's point was that Darwinism, as set forth by its originator, argued against any kind of divine intervention and for a totally naturalistic explanation "especially in the production of species."19

13Charles Hodge, "Diversity of Species in the Human Race," The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 34 (July 1862): 461.

14Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1979), 2: 14-15.

15John Duffield, "Evolutionism Respecting Man, and the Bible," Princeton Review 54 (January 1878): 153.

^Hodge, What is Darwinism?, 95. 17Hodge, Sytematic Theology, 2:16. 18James McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution (New York: Charles

Scribner's Sons, 1890), 58. 19Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:17.


Beside the fact that "it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men,"20 the problem of the production of species was a big part of Hodge's argument. He pointed out the failure of the theory to distinguish between genuine species and variations within species as well as its inadequacy regarding the stability of species. All evidence for the fixity of species is evidence against Darwinism and any other form of evolution. Hodge quotes Darwin himself as saying, "No clear line of demarcation has yet been drawn between species and subspecies, and varieties."21 In view of the fact that scientists of the time were unable to come to any conclusion regarding the question. What is a species?, Hodge wondered how they could discuss the mutability of that which they could not even define?22 In an article entitled 'The Unity of Mankind," Hodge discusses the work of one Dr. Pritchard. This scientist states: (1) men of various races are different species; (2) I do not know what a species is; and (3) I do not know a species from a variety. After commenting that these incredulous statements are all made on the same page of Pritchard's text, Hodge compares him to "a specimen of a class of birds which rub their bills against the vast cathedral of Christianity, and think they are overturning its foundations."23

In continuing his argument from species immutabüity Hodge cites a variety of weaknesses in the evolutionary theory as he understood it: the fact that every species first appears in perfected form in the geologic record; the sterility of hybrids; the appearance of new species in the fossil record without transitional forms; and finally life, consciousness and reason which are inexplicable through Darwin's formulation.24

Darwinism as Hodge understood it had three aspects. The first was the theory of evolution. Hodge points out British naturalist Richard Owen's claim that "he has taught the doctrine of derivation (evolution) for thirty years, but it attracted little attention."25 First suggested by Lamarck in 1811, evolution actually became a source of debate due to the 1844 publication of Robert Chambers' book, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, even though it was a "less ambitiously naturalistic" explanation than Darwin's.26 Strictly

20Ibid., 14. 21Hodge, What is Darwinism?, 152. 22Ibid., 151. ^Charles Hodge, 'The Unity of Mankind," Biblical Repertory and Princeton

Review 31 (January 1859): 115. Hodge does not give Dr. Pritchard's first name. 24Hodge, What is Darwinism?, 154-164. 25Ibid., 151. 26J. David Hoeveler, Jr., James McCosh and the Scottish Intellectual Tradition:

from Glascow to Princeton (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), 180.


speaking therefore, one could be an evolutionist and not a Darwinian. 2 7

A second element in Darwin's model was the concept of natural selection. Hodge cites Darwin himself to show that this also had been a scientific seed in the wind for some time. It was only in the soil of Darwin's reformulation that it took root.28

Finally, denial of design was the peculiar and most onerous aspect of Darwin's formulation and the chief objection Hodge leveled against it. "It is however neither evolution nor natural selection, which give Darwinism its peculiar character and importance. It is that Darwin rejects all teleology, or the doctrine of final causes." And later, "...as it is this feature of his system which brings it into conflict not only with Christianity, but with the fundamental principles of natural religion, it should be clearly established."29 Calling forth the testimony of Darwin, and both advocates and detractors of the theory, Hodge seeks to "clearly establish" that it denies design. It was this very exclusion of design which led Hodge to conclude that Darwinism is atheism.

In concluding his remarks on the limitations of Darwinism, Hodge reminds his readers that it is a hypothesis which cannot be proved in spite of the fact that it explains phenomena of nature ingeniously. "From the nature of the case, what concerns the origin of things cannot be known except by a supernatural revelation. All else must be speculation and conjecture/'™ His understanding of Darwinian theory as "speculative" is shared by Warfield over against the teaching of his mentor James McCosh.

Historians of Princeton's response to evolutionary theory make much of Princeton College President James McCosh's influence upon Warfield's collegiate experience. In the Princeton Alumni Weekly of April 1916 Warfield states: "He was distinctly the most inspiring force which came into my life during my college days."31 McCosh's influence upon Warfield during his formative college years is therefore undisputed. However, in order to explain Warfield's apparent support of evolution historians stress this influence, noting both the energy with which McCosh rightly sought to integrate science and religion and Warfield's description of himself as a "Darwinian of the purest water." They err, however, in extending this statement across the whole of Warfield's life, neglecting the rest of the quote. By the end of his life Warfield's view of evolution stood closer to that of Hodge than McCosh.

2^Hodge, What is Darwinism, 50-51. 28Ibid., 51 29Ibid., 52 30Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:22 3 1 Benjamin B. Warfield, " Personal Reflections of Princeton Undergraduate

Life," The Princeton Alumni Weekly, 6 April 1916, 652.


To support this it is necessary to examine the context of several of Warfield's quotations. The first is from the aforementioned Alumni Weekly article.

No, he [McCosh] did not make me a Darwinian, as it was his pride to believe he ordinarily made his pupils. But that was doubtless because I was already a Darwinian of the purest water before I came into his hands, and knew my Origin of Species and Animals and Plants under Domestication, almost from A to Izard. In later years I fell away from this, his orthodoxy. He was a little nettled about it and used to inform me with some vigor—I am speaking of a time thirty years agone!—that all biologists under thirty years of age were Darwinians. I was never quite sure that he understood what I was driving at when I replied that I was the last man in the world to wonder at that, since I was about that old myself before I outgrew it."32

This is not to deny Warfield's stalwart attempts to provide his own students with the necessary guidelines for relating evolutionary theory and orthodox Christian theology. In his Anthropology lectures from December 1888, Warfield makes the case that Christianity and evolution are not necessarily antagonistic, "provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution." He goes on to say,

But if we condition the theory by allowing the occasional [sic] constant oversight of God in the whole process, & his occasional supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something new i. e., something not included even in posse in preceding conditions,—we may hold to the modified theory of evolution & be Xtians[sic] in the ordinary orthodox sense.

I say we may do this. Whether we ought to accept it, even in this modified sense is another matter, & I leave it purposely an open question:**

Livingstone in using this quote goes on to say, "Warfield left the matter an 'open question' in 1888, but there is no mistaking his increasing acceptance of evolutionary theory over the years."34

Nevertheless, consider the chronology. As a college student in 1868 Warfield refers to himself as a Darwinian and by his 1888 Anthropology lectures is moved to consider evolution, an "open question". In the alumni article of 1916 he has fallen away from McCosh's evolutionary "orthodoxy" and dates it "thirty years agone" which would be around 1886. In what sense does any of this data exhibit an "increasing acceptance" on Warfield's part? None, because there was rather an increasing skepticism from Warfield concerning

32Ibid., 652. 33Benjamin B. Warfield, Lectures on Anthropology (Dec. 1888), Speer

Library, Princeton Theological Seminary (Livingstone erroneously identifies Speer Library as part of the University) as quoted in Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, 119.

^Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, 119.


many aspects of the theory. It remains for us to discover the "orthodoxy" of McCosh which Warfield "outgrew."

According to Deryl Freeman Johnson, Warfield classified evolutionary theory according to three possible positions. In the first, evolution is a purely naturalistic theory. This he considered a new form of an atheistic philosophy. Into this category Warfield placed men such as Darwin and Huxley. Warfield felt that the key to Darwin's rejection of Christianity was "his enthusiastic acceptance of his own theory of evolution, in the mechanical, naturalistic sense in which he conceived it."35 The exclusion of God would of course necessitate the orthodox theologian's rejection of it.

According to the second position evolution is "a discovery of science of the order and conditions under which the various forms have as a matter of fact come into existence."36 This position yields some insight into McCosh's "orthodoxy". As a method which God uses, it in no way denies the goodness, order and design inherent in creation. McCosh claimed also that there was no such thing as a "chance" variation and the production of new species via natural law was not necessarily an atheistic notion. "It may be by descent that types are formed, and yet all be done by a plan in the divine wisdom which is thus manifested." Earlier in the same work he wrote, "Supernatural design produces natural selection."37 God's government of organic nature was then by secondary means i. e., according to law.

Prior to the publication of his book The Religious Aspect of Evolution (1890), McCosh's 1888 lectures of the same title were reviewed. The reviewer claimed there are two propositions which summarized the "life-teaching" of McCosh. The first is that "we are to look on evolution simply as the method by which God works" and the second is that people need to view the theory based on the evidence in support of it. In doing so "they will find that whatsoever is true is also good, and will in the end be favorable to religion. "38

Warfield placed before his students a third position in which he stated ground rules for those desiring to hold a form of evolution and orthodox Christianity: 1) guard against any de-supernaturalization; 2) keep the evolutionary process divinely guided; and 3) if holding a strictly "mechanical view" maintain God as everywhere present and

35Benjamin B. Warfield, "Darwin's Arguments Against Christianity and Religion," Homiletic Review 17 (January 1989): 15.

^Johnson, \yjt quoting page 2 of Warfield's Lectures on Anthropology in which he quotes McCosh.

3^McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 7,12. 3^Anon., Review of McCosh lectures on 'The Religious Aspect of Evolution"

as quoted in The New Princeton Review, vol. 6 (July 1888): 138-139.


active even if only according to law. 3 9 Any evolutionary theory was recommended only as a working hypothesis, i. e. "a more or less probable, or more or less improbable conjecture of scientific workers as to the method of creation."40

Warfield did not discuss in his Anthropology lectures the extent to which he believed evolution had actually occurred. Instead he examined how far one could go in accepting aspects of evolutionary theory while still maintaining Christian orthodoxy as well as points of conflict between the two.41

What portion of McCosh's view then did he reject? In Warfield's opinion evolution as "the method by which God works" failed to maintain the distinction between creation and evolution thereby diminishing the supernatural aspect of Christianity.42 He thought that McCosh had gone too far when he said evolution is '"completely made out,' 'proved,' 'demonstrated' (although not 'mathematically')."43 Both Darwin's evolutionary theory and others arising to answer its failings were highly speculative in Warfield's opinion. He clearly echoes Hodge here. Beyond this he breaks with his college mentor in two other ways: First he was suspicious of the ability of natural selection actually to do its job. Secondly, as to whether species have been produced by descent he said, "I am more of a pure agnostic."44

These points are dramatically illustrated in Warfield's 1908 review of "Darwinism To-day" by Vernon L. Kellogg. After some warm comments on the utility of the book for the layman, Warfield gives some of his own views on the current state of the theory. He begins the review asserting that the theory of evolution is "simple and convincing" and appears to be "unassailable."45 Yet as we read on he increasingly reveals his skepticism of the evolutionary process.

Logically unassailable as the theory is, however, so soon as we presume that this process has actually gone on, we find ourselves faced with many difficulties. The difficulties are important-or let us frankly say, as it seems to us, are destructive of the theory. But they do not lie against the logical

39Johnson, 206-208. 40Benjamin B. Warfield, Review of The Religious Aspect of Evolution by

James McCosh, The Presbyterian Review 9 (July 1888): 511; quoted in Johnson, 198.

4 1 Johnson, 222 42Ibid., 257. 43Warfield, Review of The Religious Aspect, 511; as quoted in Johnson,198. ^Johnson, 201, quoting page 17 of Warfield's Lectures on Anthropology. ^Benjamin B. Warfield, Review of "Darwinism To-day" by Vernon L.

Kellogg, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932; reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 10:181.


completeness (and therefore the plausibility) of the theory, but against its actual working power.4**

It was a theory which in his estimation looked formidable on paper, but suspect when put to work in nature. After raising a series of questions, all related to the efficacy of natural selection he concludes: 'The formal completeness of the logical theory of Darwinism is fairly matched, therefore, by its almost ludicrous actual incompetence for the work asked of it."47 Are these the words of a man who is increasingly accepting Darwinian theory? I do not understand how Mr. Livingstone can read this review by Warfield and come to that conclusion.

A further quotation from Warfield makes the point conclusively:

The lay reader may be excused if, reading over the outlines of these several theories, he is oppressed with a sense of their speculative character; in a word, of their unreality. For ourselves we confess frankly that the whole body of evolutionary constructions prevalent today impresses us simply as a vast mass of speculation, which may or may not prove to have a kernel of truth in it. All that seems to us to be able to lay claim to be assured knowledge in the whole mass is that the facts of homology and of the palaeontological record suggest that the relation of animate forms to one another may be a genetic one. So soon as we come to attempt to work out for ourselves a theory of the factors and process of the differentiation of these forms, we are in the region of pure speculation and can claim for our constructions nothing more than that the facts leave them tenable. Whether they ought to be held as well as are capable of being held, we seem to lack all direct evidence. [Italics mine. ]

The question may be raised about seemingly contradictory statements in which Warfield defends: (1) Calvin's view of creation as allowing for evolution in Warfield's restricted sense or (2) the possibility that man's body is descended from animals. Such statements must be read in the light of Warfield's view of "mediate creation," a category he placed between "absolute or immediate" creation on the one hand and providence on the other. In distinguishing "evolution" from "special creation" in the context of a discussion about the creation of the human body he writes,

We do not quite understand, therefore. Dr. Orr's remark on p. 87, to the effect that "evolution" and "special creation" are not mutually exclusive, whether as terms or as things. Surely "evolution" means just "modification"; and "creation" just "origination": and surely "modification" and "origination" are ultimate conceptions and mutually exclude one the other. You cannot "originate" by "modifying"; you cannot "modify" by "originating." Whatever comes by "evolution" that certainly cannot arise by "creation";

46Ibid., 182. 47Ibid., 183. 48Ibid., 186.


and whatever is "created" certainly is not "evolved.". . Unless the thing produced is above what the powers intrinsic in the evolving stuff are capable of producing (under whatever divine guidance), the product is not a product of "creation" but "providence." And "providence" can never do the work of "creation.". . Evolution can never, under any circumstances, issue in a product which is specifically new: "modification" is the utmost that it can achieve-'Origination" is beyond its tether.49

The question which must concern us is whether Warfield believed that in man's body God has made something totally new, or whether the body of man came about through the modification of previously created matter. If the former, then man is "created". Otherwise it appears Warfield would place the development of man's body under the control of the evolutionary process, divinely guided. In his "Editorial Notes" for The Bible Student he writes, "in man God 'created' something new, the elements of whose being were not all present even potentially in the precedent stuff."50 Such quotes however, must be balanced by others. Warfield did not want his readers to think that God's direct intervention necessarily involved "the denial of the interaction of an evolutionary process in the production of man."51 If then we say, "Warfield allowed for the possibility that man's body was created solely by a divinely guided evolutionary process," we have gone too far. If on the other hand we say, "Warfield allowed for the possibility that man's body was created solely by God apart from any evolutionary process," we have not gone far enough.

Granted that Warfield was not as solidly in McCosh's camp as some suggest, it still seems possible to demonstrate that he was closer to Hodge than we are led to believe. Historians, such as James McCosh's biographer J. David Hoeveler, Jr., claim that "Hodge differed from McCosh in his refusal to accept the evidence of science to which McCosh totally deferred."52 Hoeveler in my opinion is wrong on both counts, for Hodge did not refuse to open his eyes to the scientific support

49Warfield, Review of God's Image in Man, and its Defacement, in the Light of Modern Denials by James Orr, in The WorL· of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932; reprint Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 10:139.

50Warfield, "Editorial Notes," The Bible Student 8 (November 1903): 243-244, as quoted in Johnson, 236-237. In quoting from this same source Johnson writes, "However, Warfield felt that the language of the Scriptures 'clearly represent man as something specifically new ' which even a 'wisely led' evolution could not 'get out of the preceding forms' because it 'was not already potentially at least in them. '" While Warfield never claims what is "specifically new," Johnson applies his words only to the soul of man (p. 237).

51Ibid. 243, as quoted in Johnson, 236. 52Hoeveler, 274.


of evolution, nor did McCosh close his to its shortcomings. In contrast to Hoeveler's view, others such as David Livingstone have done a very good job in dealing with the nuances of Hodge's position, calling both his "analysis and instincts sound."53

In drawing this essay to a close, I would like to recall several points from the earlier discussion. First, Charles Hodge was not averse to the idea of evolution with certain qualifications. In discussing the complex organs of plants and animals he writes, "If God made them, it makes no difference, so far as the question of design is concerned, how he made them: whether at once or by a process of evolution."54 For Hodge the important thing was that the framework be one of design and purposed creation by God.

Next consider the three positions previously mentioned, which Warfield set forth in his Anthropology lectures. Certainly neither Hodge, Warfield nor McCosh would fit into a strictly naturalistic interpretation of Darwin's theory. The second position is the "evolution as God's means" position espoused by McCosh and held by Warfield in his early years, but from which he fell away later. The remaining category Warfield delineated is what we might call "evolution as hypothesis with qualifications." Both Warfield and Hodge fit this category better than the other two. Neither man rejected scientific discovery nor was unwilling to change his views accordingly where necessary, but both needed to be persuaded by the evidence before they would do so.

'Evolution' can in no case be accepted as the formula of all that is; we must in any case rise above it to the higher formula of 'God'—who is more than evolution, and works, in evolution indeed, but also out of it. When we say this is true 'in any case,' we intend to leave the impression that we are by no means so sure of the reality of evolution in the wide range which Dr. Iverach gives it, as he is. We would not willingly drag behind the evidence indeed— nor would we willingly run ahead of it.55

^Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders,105. ^Hodge, What is Darwinism, 58. 55Warfield, Review of Christianity and Evolution by James Iverach, The

Presbyterian and Reformed Review 7 (April 1895): 366.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Aucker, W. Brian. "Hodge and Warfield on Evolution." Presbyterion 20.2 (1994) 131-42.

Documents

Transcript of Aucker, W. Brian. "Hodge and Warfield on Evolution." Presbyterion 20.2 (1994) 131-42.