NorwastheolderbranchoftheChurchtobeleftbehindinthischorus。Bayma，intheCatholicWorld，declared，“Mr。Darwinis，wehavereasontobelieve，themouthpieceorchieftrumpeterofthatinfidelcliquewhosewell-knownobjectistodoawaywithallideaofaGod。”
　　Worthyofespecialnoteasshowingthedeterminationofthetheologicalsideatthatperiodwasthefoundationofsacro-scientificorganizationstocombatthenewideas。Firsttobenotedisthe“Academia。”plannedbyCardinalWiseman。Inacircularletterthecardinal，usuallysomoderateandjust，soundedanalarmandsummedupbysaying，“NowitisfortheChurch，whichalonepossessesdivinecertaintyanddivinediscernment，toplaceitselfatonceinthefrontofamovementwhichthreatenseventhefragmentaryremainsofChristianbeliefinEngland。”ThenecessarypermissionwasobtainedfromRome，theAcademiawasfounded，andthe“divinediscernment“oftheChurchwasseenintheutteranceswhichcamefromit，suchasthoseofCardinalManning，whicheverythoughtfulCatholicwouldnowdesiretorecall，andinthediatribesofDr。Laing，whichonlyarousedlaughteronallsides。AsimilareffortwasseeninProtestantquarters；the“Victoriainstitute“wascreated，andperhapsthemostnotedutterancewhichevercamefromitwasthedeclarationofitsvice-president，theRev。WalterMitchell，that“DarwinismendeavourstodethroneGod。”[23]
　　[23]ForWilberforce’sarticle，seeQuarterlyReview，July，1860。
　　ForthereplyofHuxleytothebishop’sspeechIhavereliedontheaccountgiveninQuatrefages，whohaditfromCarpenter；asomewhatdifferentversionisgivenintheLifeandLettersofDarwin。ForCardinalManning’sattack，seeEssaysonReligionandLiterature，London，1865。Forthereviewarticles，seetheQuarterlyalreadycited，andthatforJuly，1874；alsotheNorthBritishReview，May1860；also，F。O。Morris’sletterintheRecord，reprintedatGlasgow，1870；alsotheAddressesofRev。
　　WalterMitchellbeforetheVictoriaInstitute，London，1867；alsoRev。B。G。Johns，MosesnotDarwin，aSermon，March31，1871。
　　FortheearlierAmericanattacks，seeMethodistQuarterlyReview，April1871；TheAmericanChurchReview，JulyandOctober，1865，andJanuary，1866。FortheAustralianattack，seeScienceandtheBible，bytheRightReverandCharlesPerry，D。D。，BishopofMelbourne，London，1869。ForBayma，seetheCatholicWorld，vol。
　　xxvi，p。782。FortheAcademia，seeEssayseditedbyCardinalManning，abovecited；andfortheVictoriaInstitute，seeScientiaScientarum，byamemberoftheVictoriaInstitute，London，1865。
　　InFrancetheattackwasevenmoreviolent。Fabred’Envieubroughtouttheheavyartilleryoftheology，andinalongseriesofelaboratepropositionsdemonstratedthatanyotherdoctrinethanthatofthefixityandpersistenceofspeciesisabsolutelycontrarytoScripture。TheAbbeDesorges，aformerProfessorofTheology，stigmatizedDarwinasa“pedant。”andevolutionas“gloomy“。MonseigneurSegur，referringtoDarwinandhisfollowers，wentintohystericsandshrieked：“Theseinfamousdoctrineshavefortheironlysupportthemostabjectpassions。
　　Theirfatherispride，theirmotherimpurity，theiroffspringrevolutions。Theycomefromhellandreturnthither，takingwiththemthegrosscreatureswhoblushnottoproclaimandacceptthem。”
　　InGermanytheattack，iflessdeclamatory，wasnolesssevere。
　　CatholictheologiansviedwithProtestantsinbitterness。Prof。
　　MichelisdeclaredDarwin’stheory“acaricatureofcreation。”
　　Dr。Hagermannassertedthatit“turnedtheCreatoroutofdoors。”
　　Dr。Schundinsistedthat“everyideaoftheHolyScriptures，fromthefirsttothelastpage，standsindiametricaloppositiontotheDarwiniantheory“；and，“ifDarwinberightinhisviewofthedevelopmentofmanoutofabrutalcondition，thentheBibleteachinginregardtomanisutterlyannihilated。”RougemontinSwitzerlandcalledforacrusadeagainsttheobnoxiousdoctrine。
　　Luthardt，ProfessorofTheologyatLeipsic，declared：“Theideaofcreationbelongstoreligionandnottonaturalscience；thewholesuperstructureofpersonalreligionisbuiltuponthedoctrineofcreation“；andheshowedtheevolutiontheorytobeindirectcontradictiontoHolyWrit。
　　Butin1863cameaneventwhichbroughtseriousconfusiontothetheologicalcamp：SirCharlesLyell，themosteminentoflivinggeologists，amanofdeeplyChristianfeelingandofexceedinglycautioustemper，whohadopposedtheevolutiontheoryofLamarckanddeclaredhisadherencetotheideaofsuccessivecreations，thenpublishedhisworkontheAntiquityofMan，andinthisandotherutterancesshowedhimselfacompletethoughunwillingconverttothefundamentalideasofDarwin。Theblowwasseriousinmanyways，andespeciallysointwo——first，aswithdrawingallfoundationinfactfromthescripturalchronology，andsecondly，asdiscreditingthecreationtheory。Theblowwasnotunexpected；invariousreviewarticlesagainsttheDarwiniantheorytherehadbeenappealstoLyell，attimesalmostpiteous。”nottoflinchfromthetruthshehadformerlyproclaimed。”ButLyell，likethehonestmanhewas，yieldedunreservedlytothemassofnewproofsarrayedonthesideofevolutionagainstthatofcreation。
　　AtthesametimecameHuxley’sMan’sPlaceinNature，givingnewandmostcogentargumentsinfavourofevolutionbynaturalselection。
　　In1871waspublishedDarwin’sDescentofMan。Itsdoctrinehadbeenanticipatedbycriticsofhispreviousbooks，butitmade，nonetheless，agreatstir；againtheopposingarmytroopedforth，thoughevidentlywithmuchlessheartthanbefore。Afewwereveryviolent。TheDublinUniversityMagazine，afterthetraditionalHibernianfashion，chargedMr。Darwinwithseeking“todisplaceGodbytheunerringactionofvagary。”andwithbeing“resolvedtohuntGodoutoftheworld。”ButmostnotablefromthesideoftheolderChurchwastheelaborateanswertoDarwin’sbookbytheeminentFrenchCatholicphysician，Dr。
　　ConstantinJames。Inhiswork，OnDarwinism，ortheMan-Ape，publishedatParisin1877，Dr。JamesnotonlyrefutedDarwinscientificallybutpouredcontemptonhisbook，callingit“afairytale。”andinsistedthatawork“sofantasticandsoburlesque“was，doubtless，onlyahugejoke，likeErasmus’sPraiseofFolly，orMontesquieu’sPersianLetters。TheprincesoftheChurchweredelighted。TheCardinalArchbishopofParisassuredtheauthorthatthebookhadbecomehis“spiritualreading。”andbeggedhimtosendacopytothePopehimself。HisHoliness，PopePiusIX，acknowledgedthegiftinaremarkableletter。Hethankedhisdearson，thewriter，forthebookinwhichhe“refutessowelltheaberrationsofDarwinism。”“A
　　system。”HisHolinessadds，“whichisrepugnantatoncetohistory，tothetraditionofallpeoples，toexactscience，toobservedfacts，andeventoReasonherself，wouldseemtoneednorefutation，didnotalienationfromGodandtheleaningtowardmaterialism，duetodepravity，eagerlyseekasupportinallthistissueoffables……And，infact，pride，afterrejectingtheCreatorofallthingsandproclaimingmanindependent，wishinghimtobehisownking，hisownpriest，andhisownGod——pridegoessofarastodegrademanhimselftotheleveloftheunreasoningbrutes，perhapsevenoflifelessmatter，thusunconsciouslyconfirmingtheDivinedeclaration，WHENPRIDE
　　COMETH，THENCOMETHSHAME。Butthecorruptionofthisage，themachinationsoftheperverse，thedangerofthesimple，demandthatsuchfancies，altogetherabsurdthoughtheyare，should——sincetheyborrowthemaskofscience——berefutedbytruescience。”WhereforethePopethankedDr。Jamesforhisbook，“soopportuneandsoperfectlyappropriatetotheexigenciesofourtime。”andbestowedonhimtheapostolicbenediction。Norwasthisbriefall。Withittherecameasecond，creatingtheauthoranofficerofthePapalOrderofSt。Sylvester。Thecardinalarchbishopassuredthedelightedphysicianthatsuchadoublehonourofbriefandbrevetwasperhapsunprecedented，andsuggestedonlythatinaneweditionofhisbookheshould“insistalittlemoreontherelationexistingbetweenthenarrativesofGenesisandthediscoveriesofmodernscience，insuchfashionastoconvincethemostincredulousoftheirperfectagreement。”Theprelateurgedalsoamoredignifiedtitle。TheproofsofthisneweditionwereaccordinglyallsubmittedtoHisEminence，andin1882itappearedasMosesandDarwin：theManofGenesiscomparedwiththeMan-Ape，orReligiousEducationopposedtoAtheistic。Nowonderthecardinalembracedtheauthor，thankinghiminthenameofscienceandreligion。”Wehaveatlast。”hedeclared，“ahandbookwhichwecansafelyputintothehandsofyouth。”
　　ScarcelylessvigorouswerethechampionsofEnglishProtestantorthodoxy。InanaddressatLiverpool，Mr。Gladstoneremarked：
　　“UponthegroundsofwhatistermedevolutionGodisrelievedofthelabourofcreation；inthenameofunchangeablelawsheisdischargedfromgoverningtheworld“；and，whenHerbertSpencercalledhisattentiontothefactthatNewtonwiththedoctrineofgravitationandwiththescienceofphysicalastronomyisopentothesamecharge，Mr。GladstoneretreatedintheContemporaryReviewunderoneofhischaracteristiccloudsofwords。TheRev。Dr。Coles，intheBritishandForeignEvangelicalReview，declaredthattheGodofevolutionisnottheChristian’sGod。
　　Burgon，DeanofChichester，inasermonpreachedbeforetheUniversityofOxford，patheticallywarnedthestudentsthat“thosewhorefusetoacceptthehistoryofthecreationofourfirstparentsaccordingtoitsobviousliteralintention，andareforsubstitutingthemoderndreamofevolutioninitsplace，causetheentireschemeofman’ssalvationtocollapse。”Dr。
　　Puseyalsocameintothefraywithmostearnestappealsagainstthenewdoctrine，andtheRev。GavinCarlylewasperfervidonthesameside。TheSocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledgepublishedabookbytheRev。Mr。Birks，inwhichtheevolutiondoctrinewasdeclaredtobe“flatlyopposedtothefundamentaldoctrineofcreation。”EventheLondonTimesadmittedareviewstigmatizingDarwin’sDescentofManasan“utterlyunsupportedhypothesis。”fullof“unsubstantiatedpremises，cursoryinvestigations，anddisintegratingspeculations。”andDarwinhimselfas“recklessandunscientific。”[24]
　　[24]FortheFrenchtheologicaloppostitiontotheDarwiniantheory，seePozzy，LaTerreatleRecitBibliquedelaCreation，1874，especiallypp。353，363；alsoFelixDucane，EtudessurlaTransformisme，1876，especiallypp。107to119。AstoFabred’Envieu，seeespeciallyhisPropositionxliii。FortheAbbeDesogres，“formerProfessorofPhilosophyandTheology。”seehisErreursModernes，Paris，1878，pp。677and595to598。ForMonseigneurSegur，seehisLaFoidevantlaScienceModerne，sixthed。，Paris，1874，pp。23，34，etc。ForHerbertSpencer’sreplytoMr。Gladstone，seehisstudyofSociology；forthepassageintheDublinReview，seetheissueforJuly，1871。FortheReviewintheLondonTimes，seeNatureforApril20，1871。
　　ForGavinCarlyle，seeTheBattleofUnbelief，1870，pp。86and171。FortheattacksbyMichelisandHagermann，seeNaturundOffenbarung，Munster，1861to1869。ForSchund，seehisDarwin’sHypotheseundihrVerhaaltnisszuReligionundMoral，Stuttgart，1869。ForLuthardt，seeFundamentalTruthsofChristianity，translatedbySophiaTaylor，seconded。，Edinburgh，1869。ForRougemont，seehisL’HommeetleSinge，Neuchatel，1863alsoinGermantrans。。ForConstantinJames，seehisMesEntretiensavecl’EmpereurDonPedrosurlaDarwinisme，Paris，1888，wherethepapalbriefsareprintedinfull。FortheEnglishattacksonDarwin’sDescentofMan，seetheEdinburghReviewJuly，1871andelsewhere；theDublinReview，July，1871；theBritishandForeignEvangelicalReview，April，1886。SeealsoTheScriptureDoctrineofCreation，bytheRev。T。R。Birks，London，1873，publishedbytheS。P。C。K。ForDr。Pusey’sattack，seehisUnscience，notScience，adversetoFaith，1878；alsoDarwin’sLifeandLetters，vol。ii，pp。411，412。
　　Butitwasnotedthatthissecondseriesofattacks，ontheDescentofMan，differedinoneremarkablerespect——sofarasEnglandwasconcerned——fromthosewhichhadbeenmadeovertenyearsbeforeontheOriginofSpecies。WhileeverythingwasdonetodiscreditDarwin，topourcontemptuponhim，andeven，ofallthingsintheworld，tomakehim——thegentlestofmankind，onlyoccupiedwiththescientificsideoftheproblem——“apersecutorofChristianity。”whilehisfollowerswererepresentedmoreandmoreascharlatansordupes，therebegantobeinthemostinfluentialquarterscarefulavoidanceoftheoldargumentthatevolution——evenbynaturalselection——contradictsScripture。
　　Itbegantobefeltthatthiswasdangerousground。ThedefectionofLyellhad，perhaps，morethananythingelse，startedthequestionamongtheologianswhohadpreservedsomeequanimity。”WHATIF，AFTERALL，THEDARWINIANTHEORYSHOULDPROVETOBE