as to this, because they are so weak as to be scarcely tangible. But here is his own summary of them :—

“Thus we can trace up, among races in different degrees of civilization, every step, from the treatment of woman as a mere chattel, to the sacred idea of matrimony as it exists among ourselves; and we find clear evidence that the gradual change has been one of progress and not degradation."

I cannot agree with this. And I fear the great change introduced by Christianity in this respect-of which Sir John Lubbock takes no notice is scarcely now maintained. We need not point to Mormonism in illustration of a tendency to which Sir John Lubbock simply shut his eyes; we can also find laxity enough in the present day very much nearer home.

29. Sir John next glances at arbitrary customs as proving unity of descent, and discusses at length an argument from the universality of certain superstitions connected with sneezing, advanced by the witty Judge Halliburton in the Nova Scotian Institute of Natural Science. Sir John then goes on, in opposition :

"To justify such a conclusion, the custom must be demonstrably arbitrary. The belief that two and two make four, the division of the year into twelve months, and similar coincidences, of course, prove nothing: but I very much doubt the existence of any universal, or even general, custom of a clearly arbitrary character." [The italics are mine.]

Strangely enough while thus writing, Sir John has himself actually named one such world-wide arbitrary custom, which in his eager pleading he overlooks. "The division of the year into twelve months" is purely arbitrary. There are thirteen months (or moons) in the year; and yet the division into twelve is "universal," wherever there are traces of civilization. The custom is "demonstrably arbitrary" and "therefore it justifies and proves the conclusion" Sir John disputes!

30. In connection with that artificial and arbitrary division of the year, we have a cognate instance and a much more remarkable one of pure arbitrariness, in the mapping of the starry firmament into constellations of stars, grouped in connection with the imaginary figures of men and animals, and divided into the twelve signs of the zodiac. And this purely arbitrary custom is common to all the whole world where there is the least knowledge of astronomy retained. It is absolutely universal-common to Egypt, Assyria, Greece, China, India, Mexico;-the figures, too, employed are almost everywhere identical, though in Central America there is most divergence in the actual figures-the least remains of this manifestly common tradition. As the sole or most probable key to this marvellous universal tradition and evidence of the common origin and antiquity of civilization, I must be content here to refer

to the remarkable book named Mazzaroth, or the Constellations, by the late Miss Frances Rolleston of Keswick, to which I have more than once already referred in our discussions in this Institute.

31. Having now replied to Sir John Lubbock, I proceed to reconsider the subject briefly, in a somewhat more systematic manner. I take for my hypothesis and foundation of my argument, what has been revealed to us in Holy Scripture that the Maker of all things is God; that all things animate and in animate were created by Him, distinct as they are, and not evolved out of one another, the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is;-every plant of the field and all herbs; every fish and every fowl; every beast of the field and creeping thing; each after its kind; and last of all man, made "in the image of God," "upright," and "very good," like all God's other works. But it would be wrong to say that those who believe this, do so merely because it purports to be revealed. It is believed by them, also, because it commends itself to their conscience and understanding. Whether they could have arrived at the same conviction apart from revelation matters not, if so be they can now justify their faith by reason. In what follows here, all will be made to depend upon reason and analogies from nature; but it would be simply absurd and not very honest not to admit at the outset that our hypothesis is taken from the first book of Moses.

32. On the other hand we have another hypothesis to consider, which has been more than once broached to mankind, but which in its latest form comes before us from Mr. Charles Darwin, the eminent living naturalist. His theory is that man was not created, and that other animals and plants were not created distinctively as they now are, but were evolved from some primary creation-for the theory is not professedly Atheistic-of a few forms, or of one, into which life was first breathed by the Creator. The majority of men however understand this to be an Atheistic or a Pantheistic hypothesis; but some, and some even in this Institute, have taken other grounds, and consider it quite consistent with what is revealed of creation in Genesis. Be that also as it may, I reject the evolution. theory, not merely because I consider it inconsistent with revelation; but because I find it to be improbable, irrational, and contrary to all the analogies and all our knowledge of nature.

33. Thus, then, the one theory comes before us as stated in the Scriptures, which purport to be the Word of God, on the authority of Moses. The other, as professedly found out in the world of nature, that is, as exhibited in the Works of God, on the authority of Mr. Darwin, I place the two thus in antithesis plainly, that all may understand the issues; not in order to prejudice the subject. Henceforth in this discussion, I desire to let both stand upon a Lond. Rivingtons; a few copies on sale at 8, Adelphi Terrace.

:

level, and to bring both to the same common tests of reason, probability, analogy, and fact. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum! One may say this, as I do, with all reverence, without any apprehension that either the sky will fall, or that heavenly truth is in the least danger.

34. Darwinism, then, or "the law of natural selection," appears to me, ab initio, to be out of joint and at issue with all nature. It begins, merely with the things that have life,-unlike the more thorough evolution theories of the ancients, who began the world itself with an egg. Sir John Lubbock says it is "the only theory that accounts for the origin of man"; but man, as well as all other living beings, animal or vegetable, depend upon inanimate things for their subsistence; and unless our theory can account for the origin of all things it is valueless. Mr. Darwin speaks of "this planet cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity," whilst "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved." But what as to the origin of this "fixed law of gravity," and of" this planet" itself, and of the air, and water, earth and fire, taking either this ancient rude division of the elements, or their sixty-four chemical constituents, as discovered in modern times,-Are they evolved-fire from air, air from water, water from earth, or vice versa, or either from gravity? Or is carbon evolved from hydrogen, hydrogen from oxygen, oxygen from nitrogen, and so on through all the gaseous elements of the world? If not,and what chemist or natural philosopher but would laugh at such an idea of the constitution of natural things ;-if each of these elements has its nature or distinctive character, and measure and weight, Is it natural or rational à priori to imagine, when we come to living beings, that they have a heterogeneous constitution, different from that of the other things by which they are actually nourished and kept alive ?-that originally they all were muddled into one, and have evolved themselves into their present distinctive characteristics?

35. As rational and reasoning beings we must reject this, as at least à priori utterly improbable. But, of course, if we have à posteriori proof to the contrary, we shall be quite prepared to reconsider the matter. At present, however, the whole Darwinian theory, as the analogous theory of Lucretius was, is merely an à priori and unproved hypothesis; and so far, the à priori argument is against evolution. It is not even alleged by those who hold this theory, that gravitation, electricity, light, heat, cold, gases, air, water, earths or metals, were probably evolved one out of another. Only animals and plants and not even them out of pre-existing elements, without the first breathing of life "by the Creator into a few forms or into one." I am aware this passage has been removed from its place in the first edition of The Origin *Darwin, Origin of Species (1st ed.), p. 525.

of Species by Mr. Darwin, but I believe he has not ventured to expunge it altogether; and in point of fact I do fairly state the case he has not, like the ancient evolutionists, professed to evolve the whole world of being from an atom or egg.

36. Well then, my next argument is, that we cannot, as rational beings and natural philosophers, adopt an incongruous hypothesis, which would thus place the animate and inanimate world of being at issue. We must, therefore, reject Darwinism, with reference to the special subject now under consideration. And besides, I am not bound to argue here against it further, in detail, inasmuch as Sir John Lubbock does not make the least attempt to break a lance in its favour.

37. I proceed, therefore, upon the other hypothesis, that just as the inanimate elements were not evolved out of one another, but always had the distinctive nature and characteristics they now have, ever since they had existence,-so the flora and fauna of creation have not been evolved, but have always had the distinctive characteristics they now have. But to save time I must pass altogether from plants to animals,-man being an animal, and as our search is for the closest natural analogies as to the original probable constitution of man.

38. As regards the inferior animals, therefore, what do we find, apart from quixotic speculation?

'Just as there is no evolution, or progress,' or 'future,' for rocks, or metals, for trees or herbs or flowers, there is none for birds, insects, fishes, or quadrupeds. There are no essential changes in their constitution or character. What they ever were, they are, and ever shall be while they exist, so far as we have reason to believe. Insect architecture has not progressed or retrograded, like the architecture of man's invention. Each kind of bee builds its own peculiar kind of cells; they never learn or copy from one another; nor do spiders ever copy from or work like bees. The nautilus of to-day has made no discovery in ocean navigation unknown to its ancient prototypes. Animal instinct is perfect in its sphere: it cannot be improved and it never deteriorates. Such is nature and its laws. But man is not subject to like conditions." +

39. "Not subject to like conditions!"-then where, it may be asked, is the analogy? To this I reply, that analogy does not mean identity; and that I by no means wish to place man and the inferior animals in all respects upon a level. That would be quite as unnatural, it seems to me, as to evolve the one out of the other. The proposition I desire to establish from analogy is this

* I have done so already in the Institute. Vide Journ. of Trans., vol. I. p. 174, et seq.

+ Fresh Springs of Truth: a Vindication of the Essential Principles of Christianity, p. 241. (London: Griffin & Co.)

the probable original perfection of man, from the perfection we find in the rest of the animate creation. It is neither my argument nor that of those whom I oppose, that man is now what he was originally. The question therefore is-having rejected the "evolution theory" for all living as well as for all inanimate nature-In what condition and with what character did man probably come from the hands of his Creator? He evidently somehow has changed, and he changes his character before our very eyes; while the inferior animals do not so change, and apparently never have changed. If we found the mason-bee or carpenter-bee copying from one another, or endeavouring to rival the construction of the cells of the hive-bee, or the latter making the least advance or fresh discovery from generation to generation; then we might by analogy reason that man had in like manner advanced from an inferior primitive state. But, it may be replied, that if man has not advanced he has degenerated; and that this destroys the analogy between him and the other animals whose instincts and character thus remain unaltered. No doubt whatever it does. The analogy breaks off, and becomes an antithesis whenever we admit that man has changed. But that is not the question. We only desire to establish by analogy what was his probable original condition.

40. What I argue is, that as all nature has a beauty and perfection and fitness of its own, exhibited in every element, and in every plant, and every animal, save man; we are bound from analogy to conclude,-man being now the exception to that rule,— that originally there was no such exception. We are bound from all analogy to argue, that as the ant, the bee, the spider, the beaver, the elephant, the dog, have each their peculiar and marvellous instincts and intelligence adapted to their nature and place in creation, so that man when originally created would surely in like manner come perfect from the hand of his Creator, with an intelligence and enlightened reason adapted to his superior place in the creation. If not, we should have a solecism in nature: in other words, it is unnatural and irrational to come to such a strange conclusion. But it is not only contrary to all we do know of nature, but it is derogatory to our conception of the character of the Creator, to conclude that He made man less perfect than the inferior creatures. 41. That man is now a solecism in the creation is, alas! too true. Here is a picture of his present condition, which I drew six years ago:

"Nature is not for him a sufficient guide. He has no perfect instincts. Nature does not even clothe him, as it does the birds and beasts. His birth brings with it pain and sorrow and sickness unknown to the lower creation. His period of utter helplessness as an infant and child is long and protracted. If not carefully trained and taught and elevated, he degenerates. By his wilful acts he may demoralize himself, and often does, even after