and may feel the joy of being amphitheatred in such a world of marvels-resonant with science, art, poetry, and enjoyment; but to him it must be crisp and dry-dull, dead-like, and inane-if only his little hour of life be given to search into and know its secrets and its sacredness. If he must prison his hope, and love, and life within the narrow rounds of the fast-fleeting years of animal existence; and, if he feels that there is no light to direct man

"To victory over life's distress, and shew

The future path whose light runs through death's glooms,"

that energic being which he feels bounding with the pulsing play of intellectual life cannot be to him the high and holy possession which it ought; nor can his philosophy of life be fully satisfactory to any soul whose hopes are thrilling with the full passion of life. For him there need be no Why? Utility will give him an instant answer to his momentary query. But the melody of being is not dirge-like and funereal: it is vital and hopeful, aspiring and triumphal. Speculative thought would circumscribe the circuit of its range immensely, did it cease to regard the immortal yearnings of mortal men-the tremulous forth-stretching of the sight to catch the sun-dawn on Futurity.

Being! Duty! Hope! three words of rare significance to man! These are the root-lying themes of philosophy. They comprise all the interests of man and life, time and eternity. Upon such topics philosophy expends her energies, and expands her powers. If these be worthy of human regard, if these possess an intensity of interest for man, if these deal with the highest problems of intellectuality, then there is worth, value, need, and scope for every exertion of speculative thought, not in psychics only but in physics-not regarding our own nature only, but regarding all Nature-its source, its energies, its operations, and its laws.

This is prescriptively the season of serious self-communing. The hidden but germinative powers of thought collect and aggregate themselves now, and impart their birth-essence to resolves. As the years roll on, and the circuit of the soul's horizon widens as the Past contracts upon us, the Present flees from us, and the Future opens its embracing arms-of life or death-to us and for us, the voiceless teachings of time rise up-like the secret writing of a palimpsest-out of the fibres of our memory, and induce, as well as conduce, to thought. If these few pencillings of ours should shape themselves into articulate influences in the minds of our readers, aud cause them at this season to raise again, and consciously the three grand queries of metaphysics-What can I know and do?— What ought I to do, become, and be ?-What may I hope?-we shall rejoice. Let us each measure his idea of duty by the power he possesses, and the hopes he entertains; and whensoever the new year of another being opens upon us, all is likely to be well. May that and all prior new years be happy-because made so by Duty done, Hope felt, and Faith securely founded. Adieu. S. N.

Philosophy.

ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEORY TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

HAVING discussed, in last month's Number, the negative articles which had, prior to that time, appeared, we now close the affirmative side of the debate by replying to A. J.'s article. This we find to be a somewhat difficult matter; not, however, because of the force of his reasonings, but from the utter absence of any arguments whatever. He expresses his surprise at no definition of the word "development" having been given. If he re-peruse carefully our remarks, he will find that the theory, so named, is explained, which we imagine to be more to the purpose than would be the wanting verbal exegesis. He, however, attempts to supply our alleged deficiency by informing us that the "word development signifies an unfolding;" for which enlightenment we are sincerely grateful, and hope that, after the acquisition of such information, we shall not any longer be deemed merely "would-be-thought profound ones." Then follow a copious use of notes of exclamation-a pitiable attempt at jocoseness-the use of ridicule as "a lawful weapon"-and a forty-three-lines long ridiculous (literally so) quotation from a recent review,-all of which are sufficient indications of the writer's want of sound and logical objections to our arguments. We had thought the day was past in which sarcasm could be honestly pitted against science. We can excuse the dull wit of that Italian friar, who thought he was effectually opposing Galileo's doctrines by preaching from the words, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ?" We can understand why Columbus, before his great discovery, should have been ridiculed as a dreamer. We can even conceive of the sneering and taunting reception accorded to the alleged facts of the earlier geologists ;all this seems only what might have been expected from those who were blinded by inveterate prejudice, and unenlightened by acquaintance with the subjects on which they affected to pass judg ment. But that in this so oft-vaunted “nineteenth century," and in a Magazine so advanced in liberality of tone and opinion as the British Controversialist, a writer should bring forward would-be witticisms, and illogical sneers, worthy of the middle ages, in opposition to a scientific theory, entertained by distinguished savans, is strange indeed. If it be said that ours is but a pseudoscientific theory, this should be confirmed by arguments, as no amount of sarcasm will prove it to be such a one.

66

A. J. summarily dismisses the believers in the Development Theory as "a few sceptical philosophers." Among the men so stigmatized, are the author of the "Vestiges," Professors Draper, Wallace, and Huxley, Dr. Hooker, and Mr. Darwin. The names of Lamark and Oken are well-known in the scientific world as propounders of the theory. Though they may have been sceptical, they were certainly not deficient in scientific knowledge, or philosophical acumen. We cannot refrain from quoting the following facts, recorded by the great Cuvier, which decidedly favour the theory: A villous plant, transported to a moist place, becomes smooth. Beasts lose hair in hot countries, but gain hair in cold. Certain external parts, such as stamens, thorns, digits, teeth, spines, are subject to variation of number, both in the more and the less. Parts of minor importance, such as barbs of wheat, &c., vary as to their proportions; homologous parts (des parties de nature analogue) change into one another, i. e., stamens into petals, as in double flowers; wings into feet; feet into jaws; and we might add, adhesive into breathing organs." A distinguished modern divine, though an opponent of the theory, has yet thus admitted what we deem the Principle of Development :-" Man, and a small number of animals peculiarly serviceable to man, are endowed with a capacity of adaptation to all the differences of climate, and other circumstances, not indeed unlimited, but extending through a wide range. This capacity requires, for its complete development, a gradual proceeding in subjection to the agents of change; for which the life of no individual is sufficiently long, nor even the duration of several generations. The process must be carried on through many steps of descent, and in its course considerable alterations of structure are slowly produced.”*

Having considered what claims special attention in the articles of our opponents, we will, without recapitulating our arguments, recur in outline to the principal natural facts which favour the Development Theory; and for this purpose we cannot do better than make use of the following resumé from a recent number of the Edinburgh Review:- The laws of irrelative or vegetative repetition, referred to at page 437 of Mr. Darwin's work; the law of unity of plan, or relations to an archetype; the analogies of transitory, embryonal stages in a higher animal, to the matured forms of lower animals; the phenomena of parthenogenesis; a certain parallelism in the laws governing the succession of forms throughout time and space; the progressive departure from type, or from the more generalised to the more specialized structures, exemplified in the series of species, from their first introduction, to the existing form." To these phenomena we may add the occurrence of hybrids, and other exceptional forms, proving that life, when exposed to new conditions, can and does assume new structures. When this and the foregoing facts are taken into consideration, and it is remembered

* Dr. J. Pye Smith on "Scripture and Geology," 3rd edit., p. 73.

that each change of species, during the pre-Adamic ages, was immediately preceded by a geological convulsion, changing the physical conditions of the earth, we cannot but think that the intelligent and impartial reader will recognise the working of the natural laws of cause and effect, and give credence to the Development Theory accordingly, and will perceive, also, that this theory attributes to the Creator a more harmoniously and beautifully designed, and more efficiently executed creation, than does that hypothesis (for such it really is, as much as the one we advocate), which supposes Him to have separately formed each individual species. E. M., JUN.

NEGATIVE REPLY.

WE are seriously impressed with the importance of the duty devolving upon us as we resume our consideration of this question. While our confidence in truth is great, and in the inherent power of truth to live and manifest itself in the world, we are exceedingly anxious that our small meed of influence should ever be on the side of truth. Perhaps no subject could possibly be more free from the vices of controversy than the one before us: this is to us a matter of felicitation, because we can pleasurably entertain opposing sentiments, without fear of destroying the bonds of good fellowship.

In our previous articles, we have observed that the greater portion of our experience, knowledge, and observation, prove the Development Theory a fallacy; the facts of every-day life, education, and history, contradict the theory; and hence the burden of proof lies with our opponents. In stating the peculiar features of the Development Theory, we remarked, that it affirms all nature to possess an inherent tendency to perfection, collaterally with a tendency to modification in all vital forces, for the most part of a favourable character, but not necessarily so. Thus, inanimate matter may possibly become animate, and this again may progress to the highest state of development possible in this sublunary sphere; or the whole, or parts, may become modified for good or evil by the associated circumstances connected with its being time, favourable circumstances, and the struggle for existence being the data for reasoning upon and deducing the efficient cause of development. In combating these views, we have remarked, that all bodies, whether animate or inanimate, have certain properties; that inorganic and organic matter are essentially distinct in their nature; and that organic matter is, farther, of two kinds, and these again are perfectly distinct, viz., the animal and vegetable kingdoms. We have shown that these three divisions of the physical world are essentially distinct in their natures and fundamental properties, and that no instance is recorded of any transitional link from either of these classes of being to the other, neither does any one class possess the power to furnish this transitional link. We have also shown that each class of beings has

assigned to it definite and invariable courses by which it is propagated, while no instance of the kind of change attributed to development is recorded on the pages of history or science.

We continued our remarks, by observing, that although the Development Theory and the transmutation of species had their origin in an age remarkable for scepticism, still our faith in truth leads us to believe that truth, and especially the Holy Scriptures, will prove equal to the conquest, and come off more than victorious. That Theory was seen to teach that the world, having been formed from nebulous matter, was originally metamorphic in its character; that by the process of natural laws the first forms of organic life were originated; that these forms were gradually developed and perfected, until the crowning act of creation was presented in the human shape divine, although still higher and more perfect development may be expected from the same natural laws during the course of vast enduring eons yet to come. All these assumptions we have shown to be either groundless or contrary to fact, or, at least, so purely hypothetical, as to be valueless for argument's sake. We have also shown reason to believe that, however much some forms of organic life may vary, still it is within such limits as must necessarily preserve the characteristic identity of the specific organism. This is manifest from the earliest embryonic condition to the latest moment of each individual life. We concluded our previous article with the observation, that the theory is a system of assumptions without proof, is contrary to fact; and that, in common with all theories, opposed to observation and the historic experiences of this world's life, demonstrable proof of each and every step must be produced by the advocates of the theory, from its foundation maxim to the most minute detail: until this is done, the permanence of species must be considered a truthful fact, and the theory of development remain an exploded fallacy or baseless hypothesis, alike opposed to reason, fact, and revelation.

In reply to these remarks, we have had articles from E. M., jun., and "Delta." We shall now proceed to analyze their advocacy of the theory, and either be convinced of their truthfulness, or prove their reasoning unsound, and baseless as the fabric of a vision.

E. M. has presented us with a syllogistic argument, to the effect, that it is more honourable to God, and more accordant with reason, to consider natural means as the order or law of creation; that the Development Theory is a natural means, accounting for the creation of species; and, consequently, the theory is true.

Thus E. M. puts the question plainly before us, by affirming that the Development Theory is true, because it is a natural means of accounting for creation; and all natural means of accounting for creation are more honourable to God, and more accordant with reason. He makes no effort to blink the question, and plainly indicates to us his reason for believing the theory true. How far he has succeeded in proving the theory true, we shall proceed to show. We think that E. M. has made some confusion in the terms