and the same is true of sound. We confess that we do not feel competent to decide as to the correctness of the author's positions in this part of his argument. He is revolutionary in science, and, if he be correct, much that has passed in the scientific world as true must be utterly discarded. This much may be safely said: The author has here troubled the scientists; and to command and retain confidence, they must fairly refute his arguments, and show that his positions cannot be maintained.

The author's special object in demolishing, as he confidently believes he has done, the wave theory of sound, is to throw, by this means, disespecially upon Mr. Darwin [Tyndall], the most prominent exponent in our day of the wave-theory of light and sound. If it can be shown that he has made almost incredible blunders in these matters, then his arguments and conclusions relating to evolution may well be suspected. This leads the author to what may be called the third part of his work, "Evolution Evolved." This we have already noticed, and need not now fur

credit upon the conclusions of the scientists, and

ther refer to it.

On the whole, this volume must produce something of a sensation in the scientific world. A long and elaborate review of it appears in the Scientific Reporter for October. The reviewer is disposed to regard the main positions taken by the author as demonstrated. This judgment may be partial, but the scientists must show that it is not well-founded. For our own part, with the exception above noted, we have gone over these chapters with great interest. The volume is very handsomely printed and bound.

On receiving a copy of the above notice, I wrote a friendly note to Dr. Barr explaining briefly the difference between my views and those of the pantheist and materialist, and requested a reply. He politely declined entering into a correspondence with a nom de plume, upon which Lint the publishers, at my suggestion and under my prompting, commenced a correspondence with the Doctor, the last two letters of which I will now copy, and which will speak for themselves:

PHILADELPHIA, PA., Dec. 25, 1878. MESSRS. HALL & Co.

Gentlemen: A few words in reply to yours of the 23d inst. seem to be necessary. In reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith, I may say that there is certainly a way to amend it, or revise it at any time, but so far as I know in relation to the matter referred to in my former letter, namely, the teaching of the Confession on the subject of creation, there is no demand for a change or amendment. It is believed by Presbyterians, I think almost without exception, that God did in the beginning make all things out of noth

ing. Dr. Charles Hodge may be fairly taken as expressing the views of Presbyterians generally in relation to this matter. In his great work on Theology he strenuously maintains the doctrine of the Confession, and what is of far more importance proves, as I think clearly, that the doctrine of the Confession is the doctrine of the Bible. Believing, therefore, that the Bible teaches that God did make all things out of nothing, Presbyterians are not likely to "amend" their confession of faith in this particular.

You ask me to give you an explicit declaration of scripture that God made all things out of nothing. I think I did this in my former letter. To present the proof fully would require more time and space than I can command. I must limit myself to an outline. The first verse in Genesis declares that God did in the beginning create the heavens and the earth. Now it is true that the word rendered create does not always, nor does it in itself mean, absolutely, to make something out of nothing, but it is the very best word afforded by any human language anterior to revelation to express the idea of absolute making. Remember, too, that it was in the beginning, in the absolute beginning, that God created the heavens and the earth. Afterward there was chaos, and if the object of the inspired writer had been to declare that God did make all things out of nothing, he could not have employed language that would have better expressed that idea. Then Christ speaks of the glory which he "had with the

Father before the world was"-existed. "Before thou hadst formed the earth and

the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God." How could this be said if the matter of the world was everlasting? Besides the scriptures attribute the eristence of things purely to the “will,” “ word,” "breath" of God, and never even indirectly imply the presence of any other element or condition of their being such as preexisting matter. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."-Ste Heb. xi. 3., Psalm 33. 6; 148. 5. mistake and that of "Wilford" in relation to this matter arises out of your confusion of mind in relation to substance, or substantive being. You seem to teach that if we admit the substantive being of God,

Your

that then all difficulty is removed in relation to his imparting his substance to the things which we see, and which are properly called material. In other words you identify substance with material. You certainly ought to know that the term substance is applied to existences whether they are spiritual or material. But there may be a wide difference between what is substance and what is material. Christ's person is divine, but that divine person exists in two natures, the nature of God which is substance and spiritual, and the nature of man which is also substance, but is material. To say that the substance is in both cases identical, the one only more refined or sublimated than the other, is to ignore the essential difference between spirit and matter. Tuis is exactly what "Wilford" does, as we understand him in his book, and this is exactly wherein lies his materialism, or else his pantheism. Christ has a human nature as truly as you have. If that human nature is of the same substance with God himself, you are essentially the same in substance with God, you are a part of God, and so may be worshiped.

Your saying that God breathed life into man is true, but did he by so doing breathe a part of his own substance into man? He made man in his image and likeness, but this does not say that he made him of his substance.

You say that a drop from the ocean is not the ocean. True, but it is of the same substance as the ocean. Is the material universe the same in substance as God?

You say that air has been condensed into water. So it has, but is not that a change in form, not in substance? As I understand "Wilford's" teaching, the universe is simply a change of the substance of God himself in form, not any change in essence. How that can be different from pantheism I cannot possibly conceive.

I would be as anxious as you or "Wilford" to meet the objections of the scientists. But to do this by running into greater error, and by going in the face of the belief and teachings of orthodox Christendom is certainly not gain, but unspeakable loss.

I must insist upon it that the scientists who would "scout the idea that God made all things out of nothing," are only the scientists that scout the Bible, the atonement made by Christ and every dis

tinctive doctrine of our holy religion. "Wilford" need not be anxious to conciliate these men. They will, as soon as it suits them, scout him, professing to teach Christianity and at the same time teaching pantheism. Glad would they be if the Christian Church would adopt "Wilford's" views. Their victory would be about complete. |

But I must stop this. It is gratifying to know that you are going to inquire into this matter. I am certain that if you go to the prominent theologians in this country, and take their advice, your second edition will be revised. Yours very truly,

DEAR DR. BARR:—

W. W. BARR.

NEW YORK, Dec. 30th.

We are glad to receive your carefully written letter of the 25th inst., and we feel sure that this friendly correspondence can not do either you or us anything but good. We are pleased also that you have taken the time and trouble to point out definitely your reasons for believing in the general principle involved in that article of the Westminster Confession of Faith, namely, the Creation of all things out of nothing. Will you pardon us if we still are not fully satisfied, and suggest a few reasons for our doubts? We intend, however, that these letters shall not prejudice a careful investigation of the entire question in the future.

You

First, as to matter and substance. say there may be a wide difference between what is substance and what is material. Certainly this is true; but not necessarily involving a contradiction of the idea taught by Wilford, that gross matter and substance of the most attenuated nature, imperceptibly blend into each other, so that we cannot tell where one ends and the other begins,-from platinum, up through iron, water, air, hydrogen gas, dor, electricity, light, heat, sound, life, mind, spirit, to the fountain of all life and mind, God himself, the embodiment of all substance, and from whom, and of whom, all forms in nature, whether visible or invisible, exist. There is as much difference, surely, between platinum and odor, both corporeal substances, as between odor and magnetic currents, or between electricity and life substance, or between life and spirit.

You say if the forms of nature were created out of a portion of God's substantial being we would be worshiping God in worshiping a stone. Not at all, any more than in admiring or revering a great man we would necessarily be admiring and revering the substance of which his feet and hands were constituted! Even our mental organism has grades of substance from the highest spiritual qualities to the lowest animal passions and instincts. So may the Omnipresent God possess, for ought we know, a dual organism or nature, the higher elements of His being, or His wisdom and goodness, being that which is worshiped. You catch our idea, though we cannot clearly express it in appropriate words.

Secondly, the creation of the heavens and earth described in the first of Genesis, you think, is expressed in the strongest language in reach of the inspired writer to convey the idea of making the world out of nothing. This implies that the framers of the Westminster Confession had more power than Moses in selecting words, Now the word nothing and the phrase not anything occur all through the Bible, and surely could have been selected, or the original from which they are translated, had the inspired writers wished to convey such an idea as that in the Westminster Confession. In the first chapter of John it "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." It would have been just as easy for Moses to have said: "In the beginning God created" of not anything or : nothing, "the heavens and the earth." No: instead of this the same words and forms of language are used in speaking of the creation of the heavens and the earth, as

was easy:

You quote Heb. 11, 3: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made out of things which do appear." To our mind this clearly implies that they were made of things which do not appear. If I say this chair was not made of oak, I imply that it was made of some other kind of wood. I surely do not wish to convey the idea that it was made out of nothing. The apostles frequently speak of things visible and things invisille, The worlds, then, were framed of things invisible, or things which do not appear. "He knows our frame that it is dust." The very word "framed," in Hebrews, proves that the worlds were made of pre-existing substance of some kind. No man frames a house or anything else out of nothing. The fact that Christ was with the Father before the world was, no more proves that the world was made out. of nothing, than His being with the Father before man was, proves that man was made out of nothing. We hope this is clear. "Before thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." You ask how could this be said if the matter of the world was everlasting. We have not supposed that matter, in its gross form, existed from eternity, but the elements of which gross matter was created, could have existed co-eternal with God, and as already explained, as the exterior nature of God Himself. To deny God a dual being, as Christ really possessed, would seem to limit Him.

We take it that God's breath, as when He breathed into Adam the breath of life, is figurative, and simply signifies His word of which Adam's life was constituted, when he became a living soul. Hence, this fig urative breath, or the word, by which, and of which, all things were made, was really a part of God Himself.

You made no reply to the strong point of our two previous letters which is here again made pertinent: "The word was made flesh." It is distinctly stated that the

word, as here used, and in this exact connection, “was God," and yet it was "made flesh." This seems positive proof that a part of God's substance or word became the flesh of Christ's body, which you state in your present letter to be as physical and material as any man's body. Unless this text is met, "and we see no way to meet it," it follows that God could just as well condense a part of his word or substance into a world as into a human body, and hence, Wilford is clearly correct in assuming that God may have created the universe out of the exterior substance of His own being.*

*

Wilford, it is evident, could not see how it was possible to meet atheistical scientists and show the reasonableness of creation only on the basis here explained. It is true, as you say, that the scientists who scout the idea of God's creating all things out of nothing, are only the scientists who scout the Bible. But they scout the Bible

*As an evidence that these views are not a dangerous form of pantheistical heresy tending toward materialism, we find the same sentiments precisely, published approvingly in the July number (1879) of the Reformed Presbyterian Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, Pa., formerly Mercersburg Review, from the pen of "A Presbyter of the Diocese of Ohio," whom we have ascertained to be the Rev. A. R. Kieffer, of Warren, Ohio, in a masterly paper on "The Kingdon of God," a single paragraph of which we here copy:—

"Our earth was not made out of nothing. The Bible no where says so. *** Let a spiritual standpoint be occupied in studying the Bible, and it will not appear antagonistic to human reason or science. Thus it teaches that the world was not made out of nothing, any more than it was made out of pre-existing material things. St. Paul declares that "the things that are seen were not made of things which do appear;" that is to say, they were made out of invisible things, the real though invisible substances of the spirit-world, which proceeded from God as the first canse, by numberless spiritual intermediates, which were, in their turn, the instrumental causes of material creations as their ef

feets. Each visible, material form must be the effect of its invisible spiritual cause. The spirit world, with its mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdons, īs materialized—is embodied in the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms of the material world. And as there is an unbroken de velopment downward on the spiritual side, so there appears on the visible side an unbroken development upward. Thus do we see the spiritual and material universe to be one; and the only way to understand the material is to look first and chiefly at the spiritual side where we find the causes which appear as effects on this

side."

because they have been always taught just such things, as a part of the Scriptures, which conflict with their reason, and supposing these things to be according to the true interpretation of the Bible, they are thereby led to scout the Bible itself, as absurd and unworthy of belief. These scientists are no worse than they were in Paul's day, when they laughed at the idea of the resurrection. Paul did not abandon them, but, appealing to their reason, tried to save them from their error, by asking: "why should it be taught a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” So Wilford reasons with mocking scientists by trying to convince them that the creation of the universe by an intelligent and all-wise God, was not "a thing incredible," but one every way in accordance with reason.

Science claims to have demonstrated that no substance can be annihilated, or, in other words, changed from something into nothing. We presume you a imit this. It is not the annihilation of wood, or one particle of it, to burn it up, but simply the change of its substance into other forms.

Hence, these scientific investigators logically argue, that as something cannot be changed into nothing, so nothing could not have been converted into something in the work of creation. Wilford, accepting these axioms, proceeded to answer the scientists and meet their atheism, which he never could have done, as we remarked in the previous letter, had he been confined to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

These reflections are offered, not in the spirit of controversy, but for the sake of truth, and we sincerely hope that good may come of this correspondence. Yours Fraternally,

HALL & Co.

to the substantial view of life, mind, soul It appears that Dr. Barr did not object and spirit maintained throughout this work, and took o exceptions to the hypothesis of an internal vital and mental organism within every animate being as constituting the exact form and outline of the physical structure, and as the true e ti y by which is specific corporeal form is originally developed from the ovule and maintained intact through all the organic ces and mutations of life. He even qts aprovingly this view of life and withstanding the hypothesis had

never before been mooted as a strictly scientific one by which to explain the physiological mysteries of procreation, growth, inheritance, transmission of parental likeness, and the wonders of vital and mental phenomena generally. I may regard this indorsement of the fundamental and pivotal law upon which the entire book is based, and by a theological authority so eminent, as one of the pleasantest episodes in my struggles with evolution and materialism.

But this great underlying principle of organic duality, this universal but hitherto unrecognized law of biological science, was not destined to ride into popular favor on flowery beds of ease, as many friends of the book had predicted, but was doomed rather to meet with sharp opposition and somewhat severe criticism at the hands of another clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Sheldrake of Winchester, Tennessee, who suggests various difficulties, wise and otherwise, all of which, with my answers, will be found in the following four letters which began and ended our correspondence. I copy these criticisms and the replies as the best possible means of stating and answering the objections raised, many of which might possibly have occurred to the

reader:

WINCHESTER, TENNESSEE,
July 3d, 1879.

Dear Sir:- Having read your book with deep interest, I write to ask as to your willingness to meet the difficulties that suggest themselves to the mind when reading your book. I would say that your exposition of Tyndall's Lectures on Sound (which I had the privilege of hearing at the Royal Museum of Mines), is simply crushing, and as to the wavetheory," I have no doubts.

As an exponent of the gospel, I should like to receive your hypothesis of an incorporeal entity, but see some grave difficulties in the way.

First: Is there not danger that your theory will result in the very worst form of materialism.

Those [materialists] that I have met hold that will, reason, sensation, etc., are properties of matter very highly refined. With a very little modification in their definition of matter, your arguments would sustain them.

Second: After some years of close study, I am fully satisfied that the word of God

presents man as a triune being, “spirit, soul, and body."-1 Thess. v. 23.

Soul and spirit are separate and distinct in God's word, one the seat of the appetites and affections, the other of the reason or judgment, animals possessing souls, but not spirits. I think this can be plainly shown from God's word, the soul being the connecting link between the spirit and the body. If inertia is a property of matter, it must be in all its forms, however attenuated. But your theory seems to me to be open to the objection that it makes "attenuated matter to acquire new properties, if, as your work seems to teach, this incorporeal entity is such attenuated matter. Intelligence, freedom, moral sensibilities, are not properties of matter, but spirit; and can never be acquired by matter, however attenuated.

I could accept the theory of an incorporeal organism, provided that the existence of spirit is still allowed, and such organism be regarded as the connecting link between; then my difficulties would be met.

Third: Without going into detail as to spirit, I have another difficulty. You use the reproduction of the leg of the salamander, and of supernumerary fingers, together with the consciousness of the presence of the leg, after it has been cut off, as arguments.

1. If the reproduction of the supernumerary finger is due to the presence of this organism, why are not ordinary fingers reproduced in the same way?

2. If the consciousness that some have of the presence of the leg after it is cut off is due to this organism, why do not all have it? and why does it not exist always?

3. If this consciousness is owing to this organism, then it must be the seat of sensation; if so, how comes it that when a man is partly paralyzed, sensation is gone from one-half the body? Is the organism partly destroyed?

4. If you reply that it is owing to the connection between this organism and part of the body being broken, then how comes it that the organism can be conscious of the presence of the leg after its connection with the leg is broken?

Fourth: According to Maudsley and others, insani y is due to physical causes. How would you harmonize your theory