to explain causes, is at once consistent with facts, experience, nature, reason, and revelation. It is in harmony with all true principles of science and of religion.
The doctrine can not be resisted on the grounds that it is hypothetical, for it must be remembered that natural philosophy is largely hypothetical, particularly in regard to sound, heat, and light. The hypothetical enters extensively into higher mathematics, and chemistry is based upon the hypothetical atom. In fact without the hypothetical, there would be but little of philosophical science. The explanation based upon hypothesis being reasonable, the hypothetical is properly granted, and taken as true. This is an everyday occurrence with the scientist, with which he should be too familiar to oppose at the outset a theory that to him might at first glance appear hypothetical. Yet the doctrine of creation by Correspondence is not in any field of reasoning hypothetical. The main argument will be sufficiently supported by invulnerable rational truth.
Evolution and the doctrine of creation by Correspondence are exact opposites, both in substance and in method of development. Evolution begins with the atom, or with forces operative in nature, like gravity, attraction, and chemical affinity; and ascends. The doctrine of Corre-
