definitely stopped, so evolution in the grand life-scale stops fixedly with man—there is nothing beyond. This of the egg, larva, etc., I present not as analogical, but merely as illustrative.

My hypothesis bases evolution and the peculiar forms, functions, instincts, terrestrial life has assumed, not so much in outward circumstances of condition, as in the internal original life-force working from within outwards, along a line fixed by the peculiar endowment of the primal germ or germs.

I. The hypothesis now offered escapes some difficulties which Darwinism can only surmount by subsidizing utterly gratuitous auxiliary hypotheses. E. g., this hypothesis has no need, 1, of a duration, of which there is no trace, of organic life beyond the Laurentian period as great as that from it to our day; this Darwin declares a sine qua non of his hypothesis. 2. Nor has it need of a closely allied series of forms, not now found, connecting the constantly suddenly arising new types of life with their considerably diverse homologues-which lack in the rock record, Darwin declares, affords "one of the gravest objections" to his theory.

II. This hypothesis solves difficulties standing in the way of Darwinism e. g., it is quite consistent with this hypothesis, while difficult to explain by Darwinism, 1, that we find some forms persistent, with little or no variation throughout almost the entire geological record-the power of giving life to new forms was not imparted to this line. 2. That no species appears twice in the rock record; if species were the mere happen of circumstances through natural selection, we might perhaps expect to see repetitions, but if evolution, as it has taken place in nature, is the progressive evolution of an idea of an overruling Intelligence, repetition is excluded; and just this accords with the facts. 3. That along some lines of life there is found degradation; the life-power given this line is fading out, has accomplished its purpose, and is passing away. 4. That the organs, e. g., the eye, should be found in every creature-even the lowest, in all its complications, perfect for its conditions of life-and that all its complex machinery should spring forth coetaneously, the only method by which it could serve its purpose; thus also of the complicated arrangements of organs, functions, instincts of some creatures, e. g., honey-bee, kangaroo; in all these cases Darwinism fails of explanation, and he says: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 5. That in some creatures we find forms of life persistent which are harmful to them, e. g., the rattles of the snake,

the swelling of the cobra; also losses that have taken place, e. g., the prehensile foot in man, the covering of hair; those peculiarities in the serpents, harmful to the creatures themselves, are, in the idea of the Intelligence from whose thought they are evolved, means of protection to other creatures-man included-the losses in the new creature, man, are whispers of his new sphere of life, and another endowment he should receive-the distinctive man-stuff, embracing reason in its unique human manifestations, amply compensating for his physical losses-but Darwinism permits neither of these explanations. 6. That the brain, with dormant powers largely beyond the man's needs, also the nice organization of the hand, the ear for appreciation of musical sounds, the larynx for producing them, should be found in the most ancient type of man, and the most savage-but this is wholly at variance with Darwinism, (as noted by Wallace and Mivart), the first principle of which is, "all changes of form or structure, all increase in the size of an organ, or in its complexity, all greater specialization or physiological division of labor, can only be brought about, inasmuch as it is for the good of the being so modified" -but in the most ancient and in the lowest types of man we find absolutely unused power in brain, hand, ear, larynx. 7. That species are variable within, but not beyond, certain limits; that no new species, genera, etc., are now evolved; that the human form is not now evolved from the brute; that man does not evolve some creature higher than himself; the originally deposited life-force in the creature exhausts itself, and terminates in man; man is, anatomically, the ultimate term of terrestrial creature evolution.

And now creature evolution, anatomical, functional, instinctive, and terrestrial elemental evolution, physical, chemical, and vegetative evolution, having all moved along harmoniously in the line of the primal idea of the originating, governing, guiding intelligence, the ultimate power in the universe, all things now ready, the pre-arranged physique, towards which all the past had been ever tending, and of which it had been ever prophesying, evolved, that Infinite mind and power breathed into the derivatively created human organism-made of the dust-the unite life distinctively constituting man-the selfconscious, thinking, reasoning, formulating, (therefore) speaking, moral, instinctively God-seeking, God-enjoying creature, man, breathed this distinctive life, in its entire compass (so far as it is distinctive), into the newly evolved physique, just as he "breathed," as Darwin claims, the distinctive lower brute life at the first "into one or more primordial forms "; each was an utterly new beginning, a life distinct 1 Dr. Carpenter's "Mind in Universal Nature."

in kind. We have in this hypothesis an explanation of all the new wondrous beginnings in man, so inexplicable to Darwinism-new beginnings anatomical, physiological, mental, linguistic, moral, religious-also of aborted members in him and other creatures, such an enigma to direct creationism; it also accords with man's original sinless, complete nature, his then intimacy with God; and the " birth" is a to-day constantly occurring exhibition of the working of his same power outside immanent force in the creature. 1

new

But, says the objector, this calling in of the Creator to complete your scheme, is unscientific; scientific evolution is evolution simply by the power of law. But I inquire: What are these "laws" in nature of which we speak, and declare to be able to do such great things? Says Dr. Carpenter: 2

To set up these laws as self-acting, and as either excluding or rendering unnecessary the power which alone can give them effect, appears to me as arrogant as it is unphilosophical. To speak of any law as "regulating" or "governing" phenomena is only permissible on the assumption that the law is the modus operandi of a governing power. The deep-seated instincts of humanity and the profoundest researches of philosophy alike point to mind as the one and only source of power. It is the prerogative of science to demonstrate the unity of the power operating through the ages.

Law in nature, then, is simply the "human conception" of the modus operandi of an unseen power, that power the "Infinite Mind." Law, then, is not a power; it is simply the observed method of a power's manifestation. And to object to the hypothesis offered, "It forsakes evolution by law, and calls in the Creator," is simply saying, "At a certain point the power hitherto manifesting itself in a given method, manifests itself in a new method," which, certainly, is very far from being unscientific, if observed facts sustain the assertion; only observed facts up to this point of a claimed new modus operandi,

1 We cannot tell how many centuries or thousands of years the man-shaped creature of my hypothesis-the highest development of the brute in physique and reason-may have existed, before God put into a creature of this physique the distinctive human materialintellectual, linguistic, moral, and made a "helper corresponding to him, his counterpart." (Heb.) This man-shaped creature may have, untold centuries before God made the "Adam," been fashioning his rough stone implements on the banks of the Ouse, Waveny, Somme, as the true man has since done in other parts of the world, who has degenerated from the unique, God-deposited human life, towards the original brute whose entire nature he possesses, and which nature has gained the master over and shrivelled the higher life, and again become predominant in him. (This has application to Bible chronology--if there is any Bible chronology-of Adam's creation, and geological statement. But see my article, "Antiquity of Man," BAPTIST QUARTERLY, Oct., 1871.)

Inaugural Address.

gave any ground for formulating of the unseen power's method of operation, and enunciating our "laws." And my hypothesis also abundantly vindicates Carpenter's claimed "prerogative of science," viz., "the demonstrating the unity of the power operating through the ages." The mind that brought in the new man-life into the earth, is the same unmistakably as was from the first breathing of the brutelife into matter, "operating through the ages" persistently, uniformly, ever progressing towards the evolution of an organism fitted to contain, in all its unique, exalted functions this man-life, the crowning jewel of the most exquisite terrestrial casket.

Again, we may, in our day, in seeking to escape the error of the past, be carrying this uniformity idea of the unseen Power's modi operandi to the other extreme-be in error here. When we too hastily form our ideas of nature's methods, and seek to make her facts harmonize with our conceptions, we fall into the risks of old, a priori scholasticism. "The arcana of the kingdom of nature are entered, as the arcana of the kingdom of grace," says Bacon, "only in the spirit of a little child"-that we may know nature's utterances, we are simply to listen to her voice. Dr. Carpenter, after giving the exceptions of water and one or two other substances to the "law," "heat expands bodies," speaks of these exceptions as "a most valuable lesson as to the allowance we ought to make for the unknown possibilities of nature," and says: "Thus, from our study of the mode in which we arrive at those conceptions of the orderly sequence observable in the phenomena of nature which we call 'laws,' we are led to the conclusion that they are human conceptions subject to human fallibility, and that they may or may not express the ideas of the great Author of nature;" i. e., the power producing the phenomena in nature may act in a method not included in our "conception" of its methods, as expressed in our formulated "law." And this brings into the scientific method that suggested in my hypothesis, viz., as the Power in the universe giving rise to phenomena at the introduction of terrestrial life gave rise to it by a force not previously immanent in matter, by a new method of operation, either by direct creation or by derivative creation, whose methods of operation we do not at present understand; so also just this did that Power do when introducing that entirely new, unique thing into our earth, man-life. "The region of theory," says Tyndall, "both in science and theology, lies behind the world of the senses, but the verification of theory occurs in the sensible world. If the deductions from the theory be in accordance with the facts of observation, we accept the theory; if in opposition, the theory is given up." I claim the "facts of observation"

as to man's rise are strongly against Darwinism, and much more in accordance with my theory.

Adams and Leverrier, observing the facts connected with the perturbations of Uranus, affirmed the existence of a power producing these hitherto ignored by astronomers. They fixed that ignored power's locality. Galle turned his telescope on the indicated point, and saw the hitherto ignored producer of the perturbation, Neptune. We find perturbations in the evolution of nature, unaccounted for by any known force immanent in nature; one at the beginning of life on our globe, another at the introduction of the man-life. The legitimate inference is, some power not among the known forces immanent in nature exists. As the astronomer, outside of his mathematics, called to his aid in his search for the perturbation-causing Neptune, the telescope, the physicist in his search for the unknown perturbationcausing power along the scale of terrestrial life, may, perhaps, do well to call to his aid, outside the mere facts in nature physical, some auxiliary. There is a science of God, the "mind in universal nature," Beos koros, theology, as truly as there is a science of nature, the product of that mind. The former science is the grander, by as much. as the fountain excels one of its numberless streams. The broadest philosophy includes both of these sciences in its reasoning and formulating; until this is done, the universe must ever remain the sphinx. To exclude from our thoughts the Universal Worker is more irrational than to close our eyes to his works about us. And just here, in pointing the physicist to the "Universal mind in nature," a free intelligence, as the power which has produced the perturbations along the terrestrial life-scale, impossible to account for by the mere known immanent forces in nature, does the science of God, theology, offer aid to the science of his works. Theology, the science of God, tells the physicist of a Power outside of nature, able to create the observed. perturbations, which he is utterly non-plussed (as he confesses) to account for by his science. Accepting this help from her sister science, natural science finds all things fall into harmony; just as astronomical science, aided by the science of the optician, looked for the ignored power, saw Neptune, and at the same instant saw the unaccounted for perturbations reduced to harmony.

But to the physicist more than a mere harmonizing of physical phenomena, is involved in the due recognition of the science of God, theology. This science makes known to us a personal Being, our Creator, Sustainer, Father, Judge. Theology indicates it wisdom that man rise from God's works to God, give this person the glory due to him, ascribe the glory of his works to him, give him the place fitting