European text-writers and statesmen the atrocious sentiments suggested are to be fastened. Upon M. Massé ? Upon M. Bluntschli? Or is it upon the late Dr. Lieber? Among living advocates of the reform is the eminent name of Charles Francis Adams, who closed his New York Historical Society address, in 1870, upon the American doctrine of Neutrality, by declaring in favor of such improvements in international law that there shall be "peace to non-combatants everywhere," and further, "that no innocent, unarmed private voyager of any country, found on any ocean of the globe, shall take harm to himself or his property merely from the fact that he belongs to a belligerent nation." Another eminent name is that of Charles Sumner. There is before us the highest warrant (though hitherto unpublished) for saying that he desired in the Treaty of Washington more than the securing of any and all claims, "the complete enfranchisement of the seas, and the recognition of those humane principles which our government at the beginning proclaimed by the pen of Franklin. Such a triumph would have been more than any damages." Is either of these distinguished men to be suspected of the preposterous comparative estimate of person and property broached in the North American Review?

It should be added that the "Draft Outlines" of Mr. Field, whose materials have here been largely used, is a volume of 670 pages, and more than a thousand sections, disclosing everywhere very great ability of treatment, and touching other topics which recent public events have clothed with unusual interest, -some of which deserve discussion as much as that to the present condition of which this paper is devoted. So admirable a piece of work by a learned and accomplished American -containing the results of extraordinary research and information crowded into the most condensed form and the fewest possible words, and marked by insight and judgment of the very highest character-it has seldom been our good fortune to see. It is sufficient basis, alone, for a first class reputation in its own line of things. The labor involved must have been very great.

Since this Article was sent to the printer, an interesting and -it is to be hoped-influential "congress of jurisconsults" and others interested in international questions has been held in Belgium. But meagre reports of the meeting and its discussions and results have yet been received in this country, but it is understood to have been attended by the gentlemen appointed by the Social Science Congress to draw up an International Code. Mr. Field, Rev. James B. Miles, D.D., of Boston, Sec. Amer. Peace Society, and Rev. Joseph P. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., now of Berlin, were present from the United States. The meeting was held at Brussels, a preliminary meeting having been had at Ghent. The first subjects considered were arbitration, an international code, and the topic discussed above.

ARTICLE V.-EVOLUTIONISM VERSUS THEISM.

Pater Mundi; or Doctrine of Evolution. By Rev. E. F. BURR, D.D., Author of Ecce Coelum and Ad Fidem, and Lecturer on the Scientific Evidences of Religion in Amherst College. Second Series. Boston: Noyes, Holmes & Co. 1873.

THIS book is written in the interest of theism. The author, deeming evolutionism and the evidences of theism incompatible, has in downright earnest attempted to demolish the one, that the foundations of the other may stand undisturbed. It is manifest that whatever touches our Christianity comes very near his heart-a feeling in which we presume most if not all our readers will fully sympathize.

Dr. Burr has been an efficient and a successful worker in the field of the Christian evidences. He has in an eminent degree united eloquence and power in the various works he has put forth. While therefore we are compelled to think he has been less successful in this his latest book, we desire to suggest that any strictures we make upon it will not diminish the value of his previous efforts. We are constrained by personal acquaintance and friendship to record our wish not to seem antagonistie to him individually, but to be working together with him in endeavors to find solid and immovable ground for our Christian faith.

Our first inquiry will be whether the attempt made in this volume to overthrow the doctrine of evolution has been successful. We will then consider whether atheism be not a result which even the evolutionist himself can not logically arrive at. "The Doctrine of Evolution," as the author defines it, "in its ripest form, is that all things we perceive, including what are called spiritual phenomena, have come from the simplest begin nings, solely by means of such forces and laws as belong to matter" (p. 9). These first beginnings are nebulous matter diffused through space. This is developed by means of the forces inherent in it into worlds and world-systems. The world is developed till it becomes a fit abode for living beings, and then

these are spontaneously produced, commencing with the lowest and simplest forms and gradually ascending to the highest, both in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, up to man himself. The difficulties of the scheme cluster around four points. 1. The nebular origin of worlds. 2. Spontaneous generation of living organisms. 3. Transmutation of species by which the higher organisms spring out of the lower. 4. The rational soul springing out of the cerebral and nervous organization. The fourth of these Dr. Burr does not make a separate point. We deem it the most important of the whole. These four points are none of them dependent upon any of the others; the establishment of one establishes neither of the others; the overthrow of one disproves none of the rest. Whoever would establish a godless cosmogony must make good all four of them; but the theist may reject some and admit others if he sees reason to do so, and as far as he goes in admitting them he will be an evolutionist. Dr. Burr expressly rejects the three he takes up and would certainly reject the fourth.

He has especially concentrated his force upon the nebular hypothesis. In reference to the origin of the solar system he brings a series of objections under five heads. 1. The amount of heat in the sun. 2. The different chemical constitution of the various members of the system. 3. Certain mechanical relations among them. 4. The rotations. 5. The revolutions. Some of these embrace several particulars. They are as follows. 1. The present heat of the sun, after such an immense period of cooling, implies an intensity of heat in the original fire mist incredible and improbable. 2. The various members of the system should have the same chemical constitution throughout, which does not seem to be the fact. 3. There ought to be, but is not, either a uniformity or a regular gradation in such matters as size, density, presence or absence of air and water, position, number of satellites. 4. The axis of rotation should be, but is not, perpendicular to the planes of the orbits; also the law of the periods the same for both planets and satellites; and the axis, instead of being always parallel to itself during the entire revolution, should always be inclined at the same angle to a line drawn to the central body: taking for instance the earth at the winter solstice, the north pole, being then

turned away from the sun, should during the entire revolution lean equally away. 5. The revolutions of the system should be, but are not, all in the same direction, all exactly circular, and all exactly in the plane of the sun's equator. The five heads. contain thirteen particulars. (See Lecture 7th.) We will examine them seriatim.

1. The present heat of the sun, after so immense a period of cooling, implies an original heat beyond possibility of belief. To this we oppose two considerations. a. The emission of

heat does not necessarily imply a reduction of temperature. Water, e. g., at 32° Fahrenheit, gives out one hundred and forty degrees of heat in changing from the liquid to the solid form, without any diminution of temperature. The present heat of the sun is supposed to be due, in part at least, to chemical changes going on within it, rather than to the wasting away of its already accumulated stores, and these chemical changes may be far more active now than in the earlier periods of the process of world formation.

b. But leaving out of view this source of heat, still there could never have been the augmented intensity of heat which the author supposes, because the surface from which the heat was given out was so vastly greater, when the mass was expanded to fill the circumferences of the planets in succession, that the intensity of the heat would be correspondingly diminished, and because in an expanded substance much of the heat is latent which becomes sensible upon contraction. It is said that the present amount of heat given out by the sun could all be supplied from this source alone, with an amount of contraction so small as to be entirely inappreciable even in long periods of time.

Whatever difficulties there may be in accounting for the source of the heat now emitted by the sun, they are not escaped by a denial of the nebular hypothesis; they press just as hard upon any other supposition as upon this. In fact, we know of no hypothesis which offers so rational an explanation of the present heat of the sun as this same nebular hypothesis.

2. The various members of the system, says Dr. Burr, should have the same chemical constitution throughout. But the evidence of the spectroscope on which we rely for our know