figure the wildest beast of prey, and also traits so noble that man need not be ashamed of them" (p. 319). He says, "It is certainly a right feeling to which Darwin, in his 'Descent of Man,' gives expression when he says: "For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs, as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions" (p. 319).*

IV. READJUSTMENT OF TErms.

WITH such a state of opinion does it not seem to be time to make a readjustment of the terms used, so to avoid confusion? The whole discussion would proceed in a more orderly and intelligible way, if we did not assign to one word two very distinct if not contradictory meanings. The word "evolution" is employed to mean sometimes

theism and sometimes atheism.

*Quoted by Rev. J. W. Finn, Southern Presbyterian Review, 1885, p. 522.

The saying that there may be a theory of so-called evolution compatible with a belief in a Creator, does not preclude the saying that there may be an anti-theistic theory of evolution. The fact is that where there has been opposition made to the theory on religious grounds, such opposition has always been excited by a very apparent zeal, upon the part of those opposed by religious people, to use whatever seemed in favor of evolution in order to oppose the theistic idea. There is a doctrine of evolution which is atheistic. That which requires the eternity of matter plainly is such. That which excludes the efficient superintendence of a personal Originator of force, plainly is such. Those who hold such a theory have to carry the burden of their opposition to the religious intuitions of mankind, as well as the burden of having to gather such proofs of their theory as will satisfy the scientific mind. And it is not to be forgotten that those religious intuitions of mankind are as much facts demanding attention of science as the processes of human thinking or animal respiration.

Very much confusion would be avoided, if, hereafter, all who speak and write on the subject would use the words "evolution" and "development” as indicating the same process in nature, while "evolution" should exclude God and make the process in nature to be by nature, and "development" should always imply the theistic idea, describing a process going on among created things under the superintendence of their Creator. This distinction would promote clarity of thought.

In any case the propounder of a hypothesis must substantiate it.

1. There may be no God and no evolution.

2. There may be a God and no evolution.

3. There may be an evolution and no God. 4. There may be a God and some sort of evolution.*

It is plain that a man may hold any one of these four propositions. If the first, he calls upon theists to prove there is a God

In that case should it not be called "development" ?

and upon evolutionists to prove evolution. If the second, he demands of evolutionists the proof of evolution. If the third, he holds himself bound to establish evolution, and to call upon theists to prove the existence of God. If the fourth, he commits himself to prove the existence of a God and to show the truth of some kind of evolution-hypothesis. Observe that in every case the onus probandi falls on the evolutionists. No one is bound to show that the hypothesis is untrue. Its advocates must establish it. The question is simply this: Does evolution explain the universe in such a way as to be more consistent with most of the known facts, and is it freer from difficulties than any other theory? The doctrine of the law of gravitation was submitted to that test. It was found, and is still found, to have difficulties as every proposition accepted as truth is known to have; but it has fewer difficulties than any other theory on the same plane, and it consists with more known facts. Therefore it is accepted. If evolution can thus make good its claim, it must be accepted.

It is in a high degree illegitimate, and therefore unscientific, to assume that a hypothesis has been established because no one has proved its falsity. That only is to be regarded as a scientific hypothesis to which we have been led by a study of the facts of the universe. We must not discover an hypothesis and invent our facts-a process rather fashionable in our day—but we must discover the facts, and then invent some hypothesis,* in which they can stand and leave room for other facts. Then, whenever the facts become too great a multitude to stand in the circle of our hypothesis, we must increase the radius and so enlarge the space. Of two hypotheses, one of which embraces all the known facts of the universe except one, and the other embraces all the known facts, and then has room for the new comer, the first hypothesis must be abandoned and the second must become an ac cepted theory, or scientific doctrine.

*After I had written the phrase "invent some hypothesis," I met it in Professor Huxley's Origin of Species, Lecture IV. "In order to explain or get at the cause of complex masses of phenomena we must invent a hypothesis, or make what seems a likely supposition respecting their cause.'