tion of parents for cross-breeding, thereby originating new varieties of the same species, and the facts derived from some naturalists in regard to the blending of species and varieties in our classifications-constitute the only ground for his doctrine of the origin of species by Natural Selection. Numerous other facts cited by our author, sometimes to support his assumptions, and sometimes to be fancifully explained by them, are all susceptible of a much more philosophical application than he makes of them, and are not properly relevant to his hypothesis.

The fact that all his numerous breeds of pigeons, manifesting every variety of form and color, were well ascertained descendants of the blue rock pigeon, gives good ground for the belief, that many plants and animals, presenting less marked physical differences, though classed as distinct species, are also descendants from a common parent. This furnishes a strong argument against the endless multiplication of species, with which our present systems of classification are burthened,-but it is no evidence in favor of transmutation.

So also his facts and reasoning in regard to the numerous races of dogs; the stripes and bars on horses; hybridity of plants and animals; the change of form and habits produced under domestication, by skillful selection, or occurring naturally; the modification of some races and the extinction of others;-and much other matter which he misapplies, might be aptly cited to show that our knowledge of the conditions essential to the perpetuation of varieties, and of the limits to which their development may be carried, is still very imperfect. These facts would go far to prove that many reputed species, living and extinct, are simply varieties of one or more primordial species, but they furnish no proof whatever, that the duration and successive phases of development, of each primordial form were not pre-determined and immutably fixed by the law of its creation.

The analogies drawn from embryology and homology, in support of transmutation, are utterly fallacious. The affinities of structure and development, are no proofs of successive derivation; they only illustrate the infinite contrivance of the Crea

tor, Who, from a few elements, has constructed an endless variety of forms and functions. A mechanic, in building a boat, a carriage, a balloon, or a house, may and does use the same materials, and constructs each upon the same principles of art, and he may, if he choose, give to them all a similarity of external form; yet each of these structures is a distinct creation, designed for a different element, and a different purpose, which cannot be transmuted by any kind of selection, without doing violence to the design of the builder.

Mr. Darwin devotes a considerable portion of his book to a labored and able attempt to prove, by facts and reasoning, that each species has migrated from a common center or "area," and has thus been distributed over the face of the globe. The establishment of this fact is necessary for those who maintain the common theory of the separate and independent creation of man and animals, which Mr. Darwin is combating. But we confess that we cannot see how it is relevant to an hypothesis which can consistently claim any necessary multiplication of centres or areas. In fact, this claim is an essential feature of his scheme. Why should not his ever vigilant Natural Selection act as efficiently in one part of the world as another? The waters that wash the shores of every island, would furnish an abundance of "primordial forms," out of which Natural Selection could manufacture those species which were the best adapted for the locality, without the necessity of their emigrating from a distant area. Saving of time can be no object, for Mr. Darwin can justly claim that his friend Lyell has furnished him with illimitable periods of duration, for the most recent formation of the earth.

In conclusion, we would remark, that the philosophical aspect of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, is as objectionable as the scientific. A fallacious kind of argumentation characterizes all his reasoning. He confounds varieties with genetic differences of species, and then, by a false analogy, drawn from the great changes in animals of the same species, resulting from a skillful selection, made by the human reason, he accounts for difference in species, by referring it to a natural selection, dependent on appetite and other causes, external and accidental. Man,

guided by reason,-a gift which allies him to his Creator,-can sub-create, so to speak, and modify, within certain limits, the form and qualities of a dog, an ox, or a pigeon, by a judicious selection of parents, but he cannot make the slightest approach towards transmuting one of these animals into the other, -as is conclusively proved by the sterility of hybrids. They present specific genetic differences, imposed by the Author of creation, which man cannot alter or disturb. Is it not, then, the height of philosophic absurdity to appeal to this selection of the human reason, in proof of the assumption, that an unintelligent natural selection, operating through a blind "chance," can transmute a bear into a whale, even though our author can see no great difficulty, as he says, in such an operation?

Another radical vice in Mr. Darwin's philosophy consists in confounding, or rather confusing, the gradual, constant, and steady progress of life, from the simplest to the highest forms, in each of its fixed great typical divisions,-a gradational progress taught with equal clearness by Geology and Revelation,with transmutational advances from one type to another, by "intermediate gradational forms," of which there is not a particle of evidence, either in existing nature, or in the records of Geology.

But the ineradicable fallacy which vitiates his whole scheme, and converts it into an incredible philosophical romance, consists in making the order, harmony and unity of design, which is so plainly stamped on the plan of creation, to depend on some blind, accidental concatenation of physical causes, occurring in the struggle for life among animals, and resulting in the consequent production of an intelligent and beneficent power, which creates all the forms of life, scrutinizes and controls all the phenomena of nature, and upon which the discoverer has conferred the name of "Natural Selection." It would be just as philosophical, and also just as intelligible, to say, that the Natural Selection consequent upon the motion of individual comets, has determined the orbits and relations of the heavenly bodies, as to assert, with Mr. Darwin, that the Natural Selection consequent upon the struggle for existence among individual animals, has exercised all the attributes of a provident Deity, in regulating the order of the Animal Kingdom.

We think we have said enough to shew the utter worthlessness of this transmutation doctrine, in a scientific and philosophical point of view. We have refrained from saying anything of its bearing on Revelation. We do not think it wise to attack with the sword of God's Word the honest infidelity of scientific men, who may be earnestly seeking to advance what they consider scientific truth, however much it may militate against our own views of Revelation,-provided always that no intended issue is sought by them.

Secure in the panoply furnished by the Holy Scriptures, we hold ourselves ever ready to give a reason for our faith in them, and to defend them from all attacks. We ask no odds against honest scientific infidelity, but are willing to meet it fairly on its own ground, confident, that although truth may sometimes appear to disagree with itself, yet it can never contradict or destroy itself, and that it must ultimately triumph over error. We have no fears for the safety of the Bible. It is, saith Sir Thomas Browne, "too hard for the teeth of time; it cannot perish but in the general flames, when all things shall confess their ashes."

The internal evidence of its Divine origin is set forth by Dryden, in an unanswerable argument.

"Whence but from Heaven could men unskilled in arts,

In several ages born, in several parts

Weave such agreeing truths? or how or why

Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie ?

Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice,

Starving, their gain, and martyrdom their price."

Nevertheless, we know that the faith of some unstable souls and weak minds, has been shaken by the incredible assumptions of this visionary hypothesis. Mr. Darwin seems to be aware of this fact, and meets the objection with his usual stereotyped argument of inability to see it. He says, in his Supplement, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one;" and then adds, with great self-complacency, "It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made, namely, the law of gravity,

was attacked by Leibnitz, 'as subversive of natural, and, inferentially, of revealed religion.'

It is charitable to suppose, that "an overweening confidence in the principle of Natural Selection," which Mr. Darwin admits he is chargeable with, has so obfuscated his mental vision, that he cannot see the inconsistencies and true drift of his own hypothesis. He cannot see why it should shock the religious feelings of any one! The reason is very obvious to others, if not to him. If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible "an unbearable fiction," fabricated during successive ages, under an incomprehensible system of preconcerted imposture, yet interwoven with, and supported by, the history of many nations; attested by stupendous frauds, which, nevertheless, defy the severest scrutiny; promulgated with perfect consistency by many generations of disinterested impostors, who manifest, in their lives and writings, the sublimest morality. If this hypothesis be true, then also have Christians, for nearly two thousand years, been duped by a monstrous lie,—which, nevertheless, has consoled them in every exigency of life, and supported them in the hour of death; and which has, by its own intrinsic power, elevated and civilized all mankind.

The issue is a very plain one. The Bible is a self-agreeing system of pretended truth, which deals with every man as a distinct, immortal, spiritual being; while the hypothesis of Mr. Darwin, in shocking opposition, denies or ignores the very existence of the human soul, on which this system is founded.

This feature of it furnishes us with our last and strongest argument against his absurd scheme of creation. We will not, however, attack him with any weapon drawn from the arsenal of God's Word, but will meet him upon his own ground.

We premise, and this must be well noted,-that Mr. Darwin is restricted, by his own terms, to the simplest form of life, as the starting point of creation. Unless, then, his primordial monad was also endowed with the principle of a human soul, when life was first breathed into it, it is evident that it could not transmit one to its descendants,-for there could not, possibly, be any chance variations of a principle which did not exist,-for Natural Selection to accumulate and develop. 17*

VOL. XVII.