402 The Critics of Evolution. [June, 
arise from showing that when the doctrine of development is 
properly explained and understood, and kept within its legitimate 
sphere, there is nothing in it inconsistent with natural or revealed 
religion.” In his comments on Huxley’s lectures he admits that! 
“transitional forms are ever casting up,’ and that “in certain 
elds we have these transitions already disclosed,” that “ certain 
cases indicate a tendency on the part of the reptile to rise to the 
bird, and of the bird to retain properties of the reptile. Z have 
ever Stood up,’ says he, “for a doctrine of development.” “I see 
nothing irreligious in holding that the bird may have been evolved 
by numerous transitions from the reptile, and the living horse 
from the old horse of the Eocene formation.” ‘ Let us suppose 
they can also, in rare cases of combination, produce species, 
religion is not thereby undermined either in its evidences or in 
its essential doctrine.” “God is present in all His works, and acts 
in all their actings.” “For in Him we live and move and have our 
being.” “For we are also His offspring.” “ This doctrine may be so 
stated as to make it pantheistic. It is the one grand truth con- 
tained in pantheism, giving it all its plausibility, and making it 
superior to that dald theism which makes God create the world at 
first, and then stand by and see it go.’ “This doctrine can be so 
stated as to free it from all such tendencies on the one side or the 
other, so as to make God distinct from all His works and yet act- 
ing in them. This is, I believe, the philosophical doctrine. It 
has been held by the greatest thinkers which our world has pro- 
duced, such as Descartes, Leibnitz, Berkeley, Herschel, Faraday 
and multitudes of others.” In the view of the renowned Jonathan 
Edwards, “nature is a perpetual creation.” Dr. McCosh con- 
tinues: “ God is to be seen not only in creation at first, but in the 
continuance of all things. He is acknowledged not only in the 
origination of matter, but in its development, not only in the rep- 
tile and the bird, but in the steps by which the one has been 
derived from the other; not only in the Orohippus, but in the 
stages by which that animal has risen into the horse so useful to _ 
man.” ‘I do believe that these old horse forms were preparations 
for the horse now living.” Finally, we conclude our numerous 
extracts from the writings of Dr. McCosh, with the following: 
“Suppose we admit all that Huxley claims on this subject, what 
then? Have we set aside any doctrine of philosophy or religion? 
1« Is the Development Hypothesis Sufficient?” by Dr. James McCosh, in the 
Popular Science Monthly, Vol. xX, pp. 86-100. 
