Notes

1. . Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1965.
2. . Mircea Eliade. “Cultural Fashions and the History of Religions,” in Joseph M. Kitagawa, Mircea Eliade, and Charles H. Long (eds.), The History of Religions; Essays in Divinity, Vol. I (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 32.
3. . I cannot claim sufficient competence in German to call attention to the considerable literature on Teilhard in that language, although I shall refer to a few works.
4. . Le Phénomène Humain (Paris: Seuil, 1955); &LcarApparition de &lcarHomme (Paris: Seuil. 1956); La Vision du Passé (Paris: Seuil, 1957); Le Milieu Divin. Essai de Vie Intérieure (Paris: Seuil, 1957); &LcarAvenir de &lcarHomme (Paris: Seuil, 1959); &LcarEnergie Humaine (Paris: Seuil, 1962); &LcarActivation de I'Energie (Paris: Seuil, 1963); Hymne de &lcarUnivers (Paris: Seuil, 1961). American editions soon appeared published by Harper & Row, New York and Evanston: The Phenomenon of Man (1959); The Divine Milieu (1960); The Future of Man (1964); Hymn of the Universe (1965); The Appearance of Man (1966). Michael H. Murray, The Thought of Teilhard de Chardin: An Introduction (New York: Seabury Press, 1966) pp. 171–72, lists the following works of Teilhard in French, some of them not yet translated: Le Groupe Zoologique Humain (Paris: Aloin, 1956); Lettres de Voyage de 1923 à 1955 (Paris: Grasset, 1961) English translation, Letters from a Traveller (New York: Harper & Row, 1962); La Genèse &dcarune Pensée, Lettres de 1914 à I919 (Paris: Grasset, 1961). Murray also lists unpublished writings: “Comment Je Crois” (1934); “Esquisse d'un Univers Personnel” (1936); “Super‐Humanité, Super‐Christ, Super‐Charité” (1943); “Comment Je Vois” (1948); “Le Christique” (1955). For a more complete listing of the works of Teilhard and philosophical and theological discussions of his ideas, see A Basic Teilhard Bibliography, 1955–April 1968, edited by Romano S. Almagno, O.P.M., Librarian, American Teilhard de Chardin Association, Inc., 157 East 72d Street, New York, New York 10021, and available for $1.00
5. . New York: Harper & Row, 1967.
6. . Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, p. 26.
7. . Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (New York: Harcourt. Brace & World, 1964), p. 152. See also Theodosius Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern (New York: New American Library, 1967). chap. vi, “The Teilhardian Synthesis,” pp. 108–37, for a sympathetic evaluation of Teilhard. See Ralph Wendell Burhoe's review of this work by Dobzhansky and his comments on Teilhard in Zygon, II (September, 1967). 290–300.
8. . Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), III, 5.
9. . See Roger Garaudy, From Anathema to Dialogue (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966), pp. 48–54, for references to Teilhard. For another Marxist appreciation of Teilhard, see Joseph Needham's review of The Phenomenon of Man, in the New Statesman, LVIII (November 7, 1959), 632–33.
10. . Teilhard Review  , II, No. 2 (Winter, 196768), 48.
11. . New York Harper & Row, 1963.
12. . Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.
13. . Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1965.
14. . New York Human Energetics Research Institute, 1965.
15. . New York: Harper & Row and New American Library.
16. . See Ewert H. Cousins, “Christ and the Cosmos,” Cord (April, 1966); “The Evolving Cosmos: Teilhard de Chardin and Bonaventure,” Cord (May. 1966).
17. . A French lexicon enumerating terms characteristic of Teilhard is Claude Cuénot, Lexique Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Seuil, 1963). An English translation is urgently required. Other listings of Teilhardian words may be found in the following French works: Norbert Hugédé, Le Cas Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Librairie Feschbacher. 1966), pp. 199–204; George Magloire and Hubert Cuypers, Présence de Pierre Teilhard (Paris: éditions Universitaires. 1961), pp. 213–22; Emile Rideau. La Pensée du Père Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Seuil, 1964), pp. 576–92. The English edition, The Thought of Teilhard de Chardin (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) unfortunately omits the vocabulary
18. . B. A. G. Fuller and S. M. McMurrin, A History of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy (New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. 1955). p. 1.
19. . Note Tillich's conviction that any metaphysical approach to reality, whether of the Scholastics, or of James, or Whitehead, or Schleiermacher, or Wieman. Or the idealists or naturalists, rests on a “mystical a priori”: “In both the empirical and metaphysical approaches, as well as in the much more numerous cases of their mixture, it can be observed that the a priori which directs the induction and the deduction is a type of mystical experience…. The theological concepts of both idealists and naturalists are rooted in a ‘mystical a priori,’ an awareness of something that transcends the cleavage between subject and object” (Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951], I, 9). Teilhard's mystical a priori is his law of complexification‐consciousness designating a dynamic, underlying reality beyond subject and object.
20. . Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, pp. 120, 150–51.
21. . Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe, pp. 68–69. It is to be noted that Professor Henri Peyre, Chairman Emeritus, Department of French, Yale University, who has lectured on Teilhard on many occasions, regards Hymn of the Universe as “the greatest mystical book of the twentieth century.” This is his considered opinion given in an address to the Alliance Française, “Teilhard de Chardin: Religion, Science et Poésie” (New Haven, Conn.: March 16, 1965).
22. . Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu, p. 87.
23. . A philosophy of process is sometimes described as a philosophy of function Similarly, Teilhard's outlook may appear to be “operational” in its categories and not substantial. However, the strong emphasis on the layers of matter in Teilhard would seem to preclude his philosophy from being merely “operational.” While a comparison of Tillich and Teilhard is beyond the scope of this study, Tillich's warning to philosophers of function needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the Teilhardian system: “The problem of substance is not avoided by philosophers of function or process, because questions about that which has functions or about that which is in process cannot be silenced…. Substance as a category is effective in any encounter of mind and reality; it is present whenever one speaks of something” (Tillich, op. cit., I. 197).
24. . Roy Wood Sellars, V. J. McGill, and Marvin Farber, Philosophy for The Future: The Quest of Modern Materialism (New York: Macmillan Co., 1949), p. vi.
25. . The relevant quotation from William Temple which will enable us to appreciate Teilhard is: “For as far as it is true that matter is the necessary condition for the actuality of life and this also of spirit, so also is it true that, in our experience at least, spirit arises within and as part of an organism which is also material, and expresses its spirituality, not by ignoring matter but by controlling it. … It may safely be said that one ground for the hope of Christianity that it may make good its claim to be the true faith lies in the fact that it is the most avowedly materialist of all the great religions. … By the very nature of its central doctrine [“The Word was made flesh”] Christianity is committed to a belief in the ultimate significance of the historical process, and in the reality of matter and its place in the divine scheme” (William Temple, Nature, Man and God [London: Macmillan & Co., 1953], pp. 477, 478).
26. . Again we shall better understand Teilhard's doctrine of divine activity within the material levels of the universe if we keep in mind a similar orientation in Tillich: “God is eternally creative … through himself he creates the world and through the world himself. There is no divine nature which could be abstracted from his eternal creativity” (Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957], II, 147).
27. . While the “Death of God” theologians have done their worst, along with the help of Harvey Cox, to denigrate metaphysical pursuits, let us draw strength from Sellars' affirmation: “I am an unashamed ontologist and a convinced believer in the ontological reach of science. And this in spite of pragmatist, Viennese positivist, or religious personalist. If empirical knowledge is not knowledge of what exists, then it is not knowledge” (Roy Wood Sellars, The Philosophy of Physical Realism [New York: Macmillan Co. 1932], p. vii).
28. . Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1911); Samuel Alexander, Space, Time, and Deity (New York: Macmillan Co., 1920); C. Lloyd Morgan, Emergent Evolution (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1923); Jan Christian Smuts. Holism and Evolution (New York: Macmillan Co., 1926); Roy Wood Sellars, The Philosuphy of Physical Realism (see n. 27 above); Errol E. Harris, Revelation through Reason (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1958), and The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science (New York: Humanities Press, 1965); L. S. Thornton, The Incarnate Lord (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1928); W. Norman Pittenger, The Word Incarnate (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959); Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1960). Whitehead is not included in this list, since his position with respect to emergent evolution is ambiguous. as suggested by Errol E. Hams: “The scale of forms is never emphasized by Whitehead and the relation of successive concrescent occasions to the ultimate realization of potentialities in the ‘Consequent Nature of God’ is never made clear” (The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, p. 468). Teilhard's evolution depends on the immanent Within of matter. Whitehead's depends on the ingression of eternal objects from some Platonic realm. He is not strictly a philosopher of emergent evolution.
29. . Madeleine Barthélemy‐Madaule, Bergson et Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Seuil, 1963).
30. . Ibid. p. 241: “Les différentes théses teilhardiennes structurent la conception de la matiére. Au contraire, l'esprit analytique de Bergson considére l'évolution dans le département bien circonscrit de la vie; le psychologisme de Bergson voit la durkée de l'univers à travers la durkée intérieure et n'accuse point de propriétés spécifiques du temps cosmique; nous n'en avons point l'appréhension directe. Aussi. tout en pressentant l'universalisation de la durée, Bergson n'a pu saisir la portée et la structure de la duré de &lcarunivers.”
31. . Ernst Benz, Evolution and Christian Hope: Man's Concept of the Future from the Early Fathers to Teilhard de Chardin (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1968), pp. 192–93. See also Ernst Benz, “Teilhard de Chardin und Sri Aurobindo,” in Helmut de Terra (ed.), Perspektiven Teilhard de Chardins (München: Verlag C. H. Beck. 1966), pp. 80–123.
32. . Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper Torch‐books. 1961). pp. 56–57.
33. . Durant Drake, Invitation to Philosophy (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1933), pp. 382–83.
34. . Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe, p. 88.
35. . Ibid., p. 86.
36. . Karl Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World,” Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), V, 176–77.
37. . The Phenomenon of Man (1959 ed.), p. 262.
38. . Ibid., p. 294. The moot question as to whether Teilhard in The Phenomenon of Man has given us merely a scientific description or has introduced a metaphysical point of view is answered in the passage in which he admits that, when we turn toward the summit of evolution, we inevitably engage in a religious quest: “When, in the universe in movement to which we have just awakened, we look at the temporal and spatial series diverging and amplifying themselves around and behind us like the laminae of a cone. we are perhaps engaging in pure science. But when we turn towards the summit, towards the totality and the future, we cannot help engaging in religion” (ibid., p. 284).
39. . “Fulfilment is universal. … No person is separated from other persons and from the whole of reality in such a way that he could be saved apart from the salvation of everyone and everything. One can be saved only within the Kingdom of God which comprises the universe. But the Kingdom of God is also the place where there is complete transparency of everything for the divine to shine through it. In his fulfilled kingdom, God is everything for everything” (Tillich, op. cit., I, 147). While it is beyond the scope of this article to undertake a complete comparison of Tillich and Teilhard, nevertheless Tillich's cosmic theology is to be under scored for, to him as to Teilhard. the Kingdom of God “comprises the universe.” It is that stage of final development when the “essentialization of all things” is reached and the divine unity shines through all objects and persons and through the whole evolutionary process as a vast transformation of potentiality into actuality. Tillich and Teilhard are very close in their cosmic theology of human fulfilment. They both imply a mysticism of process, articulated by Teilhard through his law of com‐plexification‐consciousness, and by Tillich through the drive to the essentialization of all things in the polarities of being.
40. . Anton C. Pegis (ed.), The Wisdom of Catholicism (New York: Modern Library, 1949). p. 412.
41. . For varieties of Thomistic interpretations, see Helen James John, S.N.D., The Thomist Spectrum (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966).
42. . London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948.
43. . James Collins, in America, CXVIII. No. 2 (January 13, 1968), 32.
44. . Teilhard de Chardin, Letters from a Traveller, p. 354. Teilhard's comment on Van Dusen is interesting as an indication of his opposition to Barthian theology: “I was greatly taken by Van Dusen, in spite of some traces of Barthian pessimism, and I expect our paths will cross again” (ibid.).
45. . John H. Miller (ed.), Vatican 22: An Interfaith Appraisal (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966).
46. . Ibid., pp. 182–83, 320–31.
47. . Paris: Beauchesne, 1966. Also, English translation, Henri de Lubac, S.J. (ed.), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Maurice Blondel Correspondence (New York: Herder & Herder, 1967). It is interesting to note that Maurice Blondel, French Catholic philosopher whose thought is being revived at this time, as far back as 1919 wrote the following memorandum on Teilhard's Christology: “I share the ideas and the feelings of Pére Teilhard de Chardin in face of the Christological problem. Faced by the horizons widened by the natural and human sciences, one cannot, without betraying Catholicism, rest satisfied with mediocre explanations and with limited views which make Christ into an historical accident, which isolate him from the cosmos like an extrinsic episode, and which seem to make him into an intruder or an exile, dépaysé in the crushing and hostile immensity of the universe” (Maurice Blondel, The Letter of Apologetics and History and Dogma [New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964], p. 50).
48. . October 12, 1963.
49. . Winter, 1967.
50. . October, 1966.
51. . February, 1966.
52. . May 29, 1965.
53. . September, 1966.
54. . October, 1966.
55. . February, 1967.
56. . May, 1967.
57. . July, 1967.
58. . XXXI. 275–89.
59. . XXXI, 293–98.
60. . XXXI, 290–92.
61. . I (Summer, 1951), 26–37.
62. . III (February, 1952), 1–5.
63. . IX (Fall, 1959), 315–30.
64. . XXXVI (July, 1962), 353–67.
65. . Ibid., p. 366.
66. . XXXVI (July, 1962), 368–80.
67. . Ibid., p. 378.
68. . See n. 12 above.
69. . XI1 (Winter, 1962), 115–18.
70. . Paris: Bauchesne, 1960.
71. . Paris: Librairie Plon, 1958.
72. . XXXVI (April, 1962), 254–57.
73. . See n. 4 above.
74. . XIII (Summer, 1963). 383–85.
75. . See n. 4 above.
76. . XV (Spring, 1965), 252–55.
77. . Frank M. Magill (ed.). Masterpieces of Catholic Literature (New York: Harper & ROW, 1965). pp. 1017–21.
78. . Ibid., p. 1021.
79. . Winter, 1959–60.
80. . Ibid., pp. 563, 567–68.
81. . New York Macmillan Co., 1960.
82. . December, 1961. Teilhard had little sympathy for existentialism: “The difference between Teilhard and his existentialist opponents was the difference between one who could perceive, in spite of disconcerting appearances, a sense and a direction in life, and those who could only see its incoherence and absurdity; between those for whom the world was broken and those for whom it was merely cracked (Robert Speaight, The Life of Teilhard de Chardin [New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1967], p. 292).
83. . April, 1967, p. 143. On the contrary, I would be inclined to say that Bergson regarded matter as an obstacle to the development of spirit, while Teilhard regards matter and its complexification as the necessary cosmic preparation for the emergence of spirit. Teilhard is closer to Alexander and to Smuts than he is to Bergson.
84. . April, 1967. Note the following from Teilhard's letters dating to the period 1922–24: “Mais recueillez tous les plus magnifiques attributs du Divin (Immensité, Immanence, irresistible Puissance, Unité…) qu'a pu vous découvrir la contemplation passionnée de la Matiére et de la Vie.–‐Donnez à tout cela la chaleur, la consistance. la lumiére, I'hyper‐personalit4 du grand Christ‐universe1 (ou Verbe) de saint Paul, saint Jean, et de tant de Péres” (p. 258). “Gather together, however, the most magnificent attributes of the divine (immensity, immanence, almighty power, unity …) which have been discovered by the passionate contemplation of Matter and of Life.–‐Give to all this the warmth, the coherence, the light, the hyper‐per‐sonality of the great universal Christ (or Word) of Saint Paul, Saint John, and so many of the Fathers” (my translation).
85. . IV (1965), 249.
86. . VIII (Autumn, 1960). 133–36.
87. . Ibid., pp. 137–42.
88. . Ibid., pp. 143–47.
89. . XLII (Autumn, 1967), 383–402.
90. . XLII (Winter, 1967), 519–42.
91. . Ibid. pp. 541–42.
92. . See n. 4 above. Other works of Teilhard are: Cahiers de Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Seuil, 1958); Lettres à Léontine Zanta (Paris: Desdée de Brouwer. 1965); Science et Christ (Paris: Seuil, 1965); Ecrits du temps de la Cuerre (Paris: Gnat, 1965); Lettres d'Hastings et de Paris (Paris: Aubier, 1966); Réflexions sur le Bonheur (Paris: Seuil, 1960); Je m'ExpIique (Paris, 1966). These have not yet been translated into English.
93. . See Teilhards Werke bei Walter (Walter‐Verlag, 1966). I am indebted for this information to Dr. Joanna Sahlin, professor of world literature, University of Connecticut.
94. . See n. 12 above.
95. . See n. 13 above.
96. . Theodosius Dobzhansky, The Biological Basis of Human Freedom (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), p. 124, as quoted by Robert T. Francoeur in Perspectives in Evolution, p. 261.
97. . Francoeur. ibid., p. 264.
98. . Ibid., p. 269.
99. . See n. 4 above.
100. . Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1964. p. 69. A German translation of this work was published under the title Entstehung und Zukunft des Menschen (Luzern: Rex‐Verlag, 1961).
101. . New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961.
102. . Ibid., pp. 189–90.
103. . Petro Bilaniuk, “The Christology of Teilhard de Chardin,” in Robert J. O'Connell, S.J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Teilhard Conference 1964 (New York: Human Energetics Institute, Fordham University, 1965). pp. 113–15. The whole volume is extremely informative.
104. . New York: Exposition Press, 1967.
105. . New York Seabury Press, 1964.
106. . Note the connection between Smuts and Teilhard: “It was at the instance of Field Marshal Smuts that Teilhard received the invitation … to join Breuil in South Africa during the July of 1947” (Robert Speaight, op. cit., pp. 276–77.)
107. . New York: Hawthorn Books, 1965. This work was published by Burns & Oates, London, 1965, under the title The Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, which is a translation of La Priére du Pére Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1964).
108. . De Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin: The Man and His Meaning, pp. 109–10.
109. . Ibid. p. 144.
110. . Ibid., pp. 197–203.
111. . Ibid., pp. 186 ff., 197–203.
112. . Paris: Aubier, 1962.
113. . New York Desclée Co., 1967.
114. . Paris: Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1964.
115. . Ibid., p. 9. My translation: “To defend minds, particularly those of the young, against the dangers in the works of P. Teilhard and of his disciples.”
116. . Ibid., pp. 125–26. My translation: “No, the Teilhardian cosmo‐anthropo‐christogenesis does not develop Catholic dogma in a homogeneous and legitimate way. It perverts it, it warps it. Spring waters no longer preserve their purity.” However, it is important to note that Philippe de la Trinité's work is not a complete condemnation, for on pages 26n and 27n, he praises Teilhard's sincerity: “La droiture et la noblesse des intentions de Teilhard sent hors de cause” (p. 27n). “The upright character and the nobility of intention of Teilhard are beyond question” (my translation). Also, with respect to the law of complexification‐consciousness, Philippe de la Trinité writes: “Du point de vue de la phénomenologie scientifique. 18 encore pas l'ombre d'une difficult&. bien au contraire: la vue est grandiose et ontologiquement assimilable et féconde” (p. 26n). “From the point of view of scientific phenomenology, there again there is not the shadow of a difficulty; quite the contrary: it is a grandiose view, fruitful and ontologically assimilable” (my translation). Philippe de la Trinité, then, in spite of his reservations about the cosmic Christ, finds the law of complexification‐consciousness not only an operational description but a law having ontological roots.
117. . Henri de Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin: The Man and His Meaning, p. 53. “St. Paul's statement,” to which de Lubac refers, is the Pauline basis for the cosmic Christ found in Colossians 1:16: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible…. All things were created by him and for him.”
118. . Paris: Editions Universitaires. 1963. A German edition of this work is Die Neue Erde (Olten and Freiburg im Breisgau: Walter‐Verlag. 1962). The German edition has a much shorter Introduction than the French, though it contains a brief comparison of Pascal and Teilhard, absent in the French.
119. . Paris: Flammarion, 1952.
120. . New York: Macmillan Co. 1960.
121. . Quoted by Corte. ibid., p. 94.
122. . Op. cit. (see n. 17 above).
123. . Ibid., pp. 161–62. “The Christ, exposed on the Cross, certainly bears a burden, but no longer that of sin: it is the burden of universal evolution, of this immense and painful cosmic effort, the suffering of the earth itself which hides ‘the ascending force of the world.’… With Teilhard de Chardin, the Cross has ceased to be the divine folly which confounds the wisdom of the wise, but it becomes, in the direct line of the most ancient Gnosticism, the superior form of the wisdom of the world…. One feels very well that the Christ of Teilhard could have dispensed with the crucifixion” (my translation).
124. . Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Maurice Blondel Correspondence, p. 174.
125. . Ibid., p. 130.
126. . Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1959. The French edition is Introduction b la pensée de Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Seuil, 1956).
127. . Ibid. (English ed.), p. 98. Tresmontant is here quoting from Teilhard, “L'ǎme du monde” (1918).
128. . Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1967.
129. . London: Souvenir Press, 1965. This is a translation from the Paris edition published by Pierre Seghers in 1961.
130. . Ibid. (English ed.), p. 30.
131. . New York: Herder & Herder, 1965. This is a translation from the French: L'Ětre humain selon Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1959).
132. . Ibid. (English ed.), p. 133.
133. . Ibid., p. 170.
134. . Mircea Eliade in Kitagawa et al., op. cit. (see n. 2 above), p. 33.
135. . Ibid., p. 34.
136. . New York: Paulist Press, 1966.
137. . Ibid. p. 77.
138. . Paris: Seuil, 1965.
139. . Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1967.
140. . Ibid., p. 295.
141. . Ibid., pp. 274–17.
142. . New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
143. . Ibid., p. 201.
144. . XXV (1964), 576–610.
145. . LVIII (1965), 91–126.
146. . Baltimore and Dublin: Helicon Press, 1966.
147. . Ibid., p. 27.
148. . Ibid., p. 71.
149. . Ibid., chapter on “The Basic Category of Process Established,” pp. 91–139.
150. . Ibid., p. 22.
151. . Ibid., p. 318.
152. . Ibid., p. 319.
153. . Ibid., p. 320.
154. . Leslie Dewart, The Future of Belief (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966), pp. 206, 209–11.
155. . Ibid., p. 46.
156. . Zaehner, op. cit. (see n. 11 above).
157. . Ibid., p. 186. Such views represent a distinct advance over those expressed in J. Franklin Ewing, S.J. “The Present Catholic Attitude towards Evolution.” Anthropological Quarterly (October, 1956). pp. 123–39.
158. . Preface by Henri de Lubac (New York: Herder & Herder, 1965).
159. . New York: Herder & Herder, 1967.
160. . Tr. by J. Maxwell Brownjohn (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1964). p. 112.
161. . New York: Herder & Herder, 1965. Professor Barbour showed a film of his expeditions with Teilhard at the annual meeting of the American Teilhard Association, April 27, 1968.
162. . Paris: éditions Universitaires, 1960.
163. . Toulouse: éditions Priére et Vie, 1966.
164. . Paris: Lettres Modernes, 1962.
165. . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967.
166. . Op. cit. (see n. 1 above).
167. . Ibid., pp. 392–93.
168. . Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p. 16.
169. . New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1962.
170. . Ibid., pp. 21–22.
171. . XXXIV (Autumn, 1965), 500–510.
172. . Our reservations as to the inclusion of Whitehead in this group will be found in n. 28 above.
173. . New York: Harper & Bros., 1959.
174. . Ibid., p. 166.
175. . See n. 147 above.
176. . Pittenger, The Word Incarnate, p. 167. Pittenger's most recent work in process theology is Reconceptions in Christian Thinking 1817–1967 (New York: Seabury Press, 1968). See chap. ii. “Christian Faith and Scientific Thought,” pp. 27–50, in which he sketches the familiar British philosophers of emergent evolution, and mentions, but does not discuss, Teilhard de Chardin, on pp. 47 and 70. He is much more willing to include Whitehead than we are among process philosophers.
177. . Religion in Life (Autumn, 1966), pp. 617–21
178. . Ibid., p. 617.
179. . The Phenomenon of Man, pp. 261 ff.
180. . E. L. Mascall, The Christian Universe (New York: Morehouse‐Barlow Co., 1966), pp. 93–94.
181. . Ernst Benz, Evolution and Christian Hope: Man's Concept of the Future from the Early Fathers to Teilhard de Chardin (see n. 31 above), p. 233.
182. . Ibid., p. 240.
183. . Mascall, op. cit., p. 97.
184. . Ibid., p. 95.
185. . Michael Novak, “The New Relativism in American Theology,” in Donald R. Cutler (ed.), The Religious Situation: 1968 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), p. 221.
186. . John Macquarrie, “The Natural Theology of Teilhard de Chardin,” Studies in Christian Existentialism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), p. 168. Macquarrie deplores doctrines of God involved in the evolution of the universe, which he caricatures as a God “who is on his way,” and he appears to prefer “a God of eternal static perfection.” Yet, is not Tillich close to Teilhard when he affirms: “God is eternally creative … through himself he creates the world and through the world himself. There is no divine nature which could be abstracted from his eternal creativity” (Systematic Theology, 11, 147)?
187. . For elaboration of these deficiencies of Alexander, see Alfred P. Sticrnotte, God and Space‐Time (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954).
188. . Macquarrie. op. cit., p. 193.
189. . Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966, p. 44.
190. . John A. Hutchison, review of The Future of Man, in Religion in Life, XXXVI (Spring, 1965), 300.
191. . Raven, Teilhard de Chardin: Scientist and Seer, pp. 176–77.
192. Ibid., p. 177.
193. . Decius WadeSafford, “Teilhard de Chardin: A Vision of the Past and of the Future,” Anglican TheoZogical Review  , XLVI (1964). 291.
194. . WilliamWhitla, “Sin and Redemption in Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin,” Anglican Theological Review  , XLVII (1965), 93.
195. . P. 228 (see n. 13 above). Note the new interpretation of “original sin” now being made by some Roman Catholic theologians and by Paul Tillich. Tillich stresses a positive evaluation of man by theology in the task of producing a realistic doctrine of man: “It may well be that such a task demands the definite removal from the theological vocabulary of terms like ‘original sin’ or ‘hereditary sin’ and their replacement by a description of the interpenetration of the moral and the tragic elements in the human situatin” (Tillich, Systematic Theology, 11, 39). See also Christ and Original Sin by Peter de Rosa (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1967). The author addresses himself to the question: “Does science suggest a new way of presenting the Church's teaching on original sin which is more accommodated to the modern mentality?” (p. 108).
196. . New York: Sheed & Ward, 1967, p. 140; see also chap. v, “The victory over Evil,” pp. 139–72.
197. . Etienne Borne, quoted by Cuénot, Teilhard de Chardin, pp. 397–98. These two poles of the Christian consciousness are again suggested in: “Lately there are again signs of appreciation for the critical clarifications as well as positive analogies that emerge for Christian faith, cosmologically, for instance, from the work of White‐head and Teilhard de Chardin…. From Barth and Bultmann one learned that cosmology and historiography can produce neither the God nor the Christ of faith. But it is also sensed today that Christian faith inescapably implies constructive relations with the scientific understanding of the world and history” (A. Durwood Foster, Jr., in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr [eds.], Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19671, pp. 68–69).
198. . Richmond Va.: John Knox Press, 1966.
199. . Heredity and the Nature of Man (see n. 7 above), pp. 151–52.
200. . Needham, op. cit. (see n. 9 above), p. 633.
201. . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964, p. 228.
202. . PaulTillich, Systematic Theology  , 111, 210.
203. . Andrew G. van Melsen, Evolution and Philosophy (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965), pp. 120–21.
204. . Needham, quoted by Simpson, op. cit., p. 233.
205. . T. H. Huxley and Julian Huxley, Touchstone for Ethics (New York and London: Harper & Bros., 1947), p. 137 n.
206. . P. 368.
207. . Op. cit. (see n. 7 above), pp. 108–37.
208. . Ibid., pp. 114–15.
209. . Ibid., p. 126.
210. . Ibid., p. 127.
211. . LXX (January, 1961). 99–106.
212. . Ibid., p. 106.
213. . Ibid., p. 99.
214. . Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern, p. 115.
215. . Harris, The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science (see n. 28 above), p. 150.
216. . Medawar, op. cit., p. 106.
217. . Ibid., p. 103.
218. . Harris, The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, p. 258.
219. . Medawar, op. cit., p. 105.
220. . Raven, Teilhard de Chardin: Scientist and Seer, p. 214 n.
221. “The Significance of Teilhard,” Christian Century (August 30, 1967), p. 1099. See also Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall, Inc., 1966). pp. 399408. for an exposition of Teilhard and of reactions to his world philosophy. Barbour stresses the theory of levels in Teilhard and relates him to the familiar philosophers of emergent evolution, such as Whitehead and S. Alexander. Barbour's conclusion is obvious: “We would submit that his writing should rather be viewed as a synthesis of scientific ideas with religious ideas derived primarily from historical revelation and religious experience” (p. 407). One needs to add that this is not a loose mixture of ideas but the placing of historical religious revelation within the larger framework of the world process.
222. . Commentary, XXXIX (March, 1965), 50–55.
223. . Ibid., p. 55.
224. . Ibid. p. 55.
225. . W. Norman Pittenger, The Word Incarnate, p. 153.
226. . Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern, p. 137. A NOTE ON