1880.] The Critics of Evolution. 403 
God is still to be seen every where in His works, and rules over all. 
It appears to me,” he adds, “ that the whole doctrine of vegetable 
and animal species needs to be reviewed and readjusted, and relig- 
ion need not fear for the result. I have been convinced of this 
ever since I learned, when I was ardently studying botany, that 
the number of species of plants had risen to two millions. I was 
sure that all these are works of God, but I was not sure that each 
-was a special creation.”? Thus it appears that Dr. McCosh, one 
of the ablest defenders of the Christian faith against the attacks 
of modern infidelity, is a pronounced evolutionist ! 
Adhesion of Rev. Charles Kingsley —If the above from the able 
and orthodox Dr. McCosh does not suffice to show that the 
whole line of argument used by some popular anti-evolution 
critics is fitted only to delude the unwary, I may adduce the tes- 
timony of Rev. Charles Kingsley in my defense. 
This eloquent divine and naturalist, in his “ Westminster Ser- 
mons,’” and in a paper afterwards read to a meeting of London 
clergy at Sion College, remarks, “ The God who satisfies our 
conscience ought more or less to satisfy our reason also. To 
teach that, was Butler’s mission [in his ‘Analogy of Religion, 
Natural and Revealed’], and he fulfilled it well. But it is a 
mission which has to be refulfilled again and again, as human 
‘thought changes and human science develops. For if in any age 
or country the God who seems to be revealed by nature seems 
also different from the God who is revealed by the then popular 
religion, then that God and the religion which tells of that God, 
will gradually cease to be believed in.” “For the demands of rea- 
son must be, and ought to be, satisfied. And, therefore, when a 
popular war arises between the reason of any generation and its 
theology, then it behooves the ministers of religion to inquire, 
with all humility and godly fear, on whose side lies the fault ? 
Whether the theology which they expound is all that it should, 
be, or whether the reason of those who impugn it is all that it - 
Should be?” Kingsley pronouncing it the duty of the naturalist 
to find out the Avzw of things, and of the natural theologian to find 
out the why, continues: 
“But if it be said, ‘After all there is no why, the doctrine of 
‘Ts the Development Hypothesis Sufficient,’ by Dr. James McCosh, The 
Popular Science Monthly, Vol. X, pp. 86-100. 
? Charles Kingsley’s ‘‘ Westminster Sermons,” quoted in “ Darwiniana,” pp. 281, 
282, ; 
