1880. ] The Critics of Evolution. _ 401 
the ear, but have not seen him with the eye in his ‘works,’ and 
on the other hand, are there not many who have seen the works 
without seeing the Maker, who can even ‘magnify God’s works 
which men behold’ without knowing the author of them? 
Would it not be well to bring more together in friendly discus- 
sion and comparison of notes, those who thus look on only one 
side of the shield? (3) Should we not beware of the error of 
view of God and of himself. He had not considered or fairly 
viewed the world around him in its grandeur, its complexity, its 
unaccountable relations, and contrasted it with his own little 
sphere of thought and work.” 
So to the hitherto untaught, whether layman or divine, who, in 
ignorance of nature, have so generally “ uttered what they under- 
stood not,” “ obscured counsel by words without knowledge,” and 
have misrepresented God’s plans, the philosophy of evolution 
will yet prove to be a revelation of the Divine wisdom. 
Adhesion of Dr. MeCosh—The work of Dr. James McCosh, 
the distinguished professor of logic and mathematics of Queen's 
College, Belfast, on the “Divine Government, Physical and 
Moral,” has been pronounced of preeminent merit, and even Dr. 
Charles Hodge, of Princeton, the accuser of Darwinism as 
rank atheism, asserts “it is generally regarded as one of the first 
books of the age.” Dr. McCosh also wrote, in connection with 
Dr, Dickie, “Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation,” 
which is described as “ in the modern phases of infidelity, as likely 
to prove more cogent than Butler and quite as unanswerable.’ 
Dr. McCosh proved so powerful a champion against modern 
infidelity, so able a vindicator of the truths of revealed religion, 
at the College at Princeton, New Jersey, invited him to 
become its Principal. The directors were aware that there was 
no man among their divines of American theological training, 
competent to combat the “infidels” and do credit to their institu- 
tion as a learned and accomplished president. Now what is the 
testimony of this distinguished teacher? It is that! “good may ` 
“Ts the Development Hypothesis Sufficient?” by Dr. James McCosh in the 
Popular Science Monthly, Vol. X, pp. 86-100. 
