396 
than others ; and generic terms— such as metal, or minister- 
have a certain vagueness which does not attach to specific 
terms, such as iron or Levite. In the history of science, this 
ambiguity of terms has been a constant source of error. I he 
Greek philosophy was rendered almost fruitless by it ; and 
from that time to the present, some words, such as fermenta- 
tion, have been used to express two or more different ; modes 
of action. Sometimes even now a word has a different signi- 
fication among the votaries of one science to that which it 
bears among those attached to another : thus, if a geologist 
hammer out of a rock a bone or shell, which in process of 
acres, has been reduced simply to phosphate and carbonate ol 
lime, he places the relic among his “ organic remains, while 
a chemist examining the specimen, will pronounce it to be 
wholly “ inorganic.” Other words, as Catalysis or Epipolism, 
seem to have been woven as a cover for our ignorance. And 
as to the appropriateness of terms— in inventing a name, a 
discoverer is tempted to make it express his own theory of the 
matter; the name thus becomes bright with sigmncance, a 
spark capable of kindling a similar thought in those minds on 
which it falls. But, while there is a present gam m this, there 
may be a future loss; and it may be fairly questioned, whether 
a simple unmeaning name is not often preferable, lhedis- 
advantage is this: as knowledge increases the theory alters, 
and the word becomes inappropriate ; and since it is very 
difficult to disturb a name which has acquired general accept- 
ance, the facts continue to be presented to the mmd under the 
old heraldic device, on which is conspicuous the bar sinister 
of an original mistake. Thus, when Priestley isolated a certain 
gas eminently capable of supporting combustion he called it 
“ Dephlogisticated air,” thus giving it a name that involved a 
theory then under discussion, and which shortly ceased to 
exist; and when Lavoisier renamed this gas, believing it to 
be the acidifying principle, he termed it “ Oxygen the Acid- 
producer, and “oxygen” it has ever since been called, though 
chemists know that some of the strongest acids contain none 
of this substance. I would just remind those acquainted wit 
the subject, how “chemical affinity” has come to mean almost 
the opposite of what the words naturally imply ; and how 
what is called the “north pole” of a magnet is i really its 
“south pole,” with reference to the north magnetic pole ot 
th ' Turning from natural to theological science, we find thesame 
dangers attending a bad choice or employment of words. _Wh . , 
however, theological terms are very often ambiguous, I believe 
they are more appropriate than those of most other scienc • . 
