inherent power of producing new species. This solution, though entirely consistent with a theistic view of evolution, is environed with difficulties. To say that in addition to the power which maintains species for such an indefinitely lengthy period of time there is also an innate energy capable of destroying the marks and breaking down the limits of species is a solution which many naturalists refuse to consider satisfactory.

3. We have the theory of Mr. Charles Darwin that the transmutation of species is gradually but surely effected by "natural selection," "the survival of the fittest," "the struggle for existence." This hypothesis, though embodying much and explaining not a few of the facts, is not viewed, even by a majority of evolutionists, as an adequate explanation-indeed, not a few careful students of Darwin deny that he assigns any efficiency to "natural selection" in the origination of new species, affirming that he merely regards it as the mode in which unknown causes operate in the production of the results. If he designs it as an agency, St. George Mivart's work furnishes theologians with an unanswerable argument against this particular form of evolution.

So far at least as regards the agencies by which evolution has been effected, the defenders of the Mosaic account of creation can scarcely be called upon to assume the defensive till their opponents have agreed, with at least reasonable unanimity, upon some hypothesis that will bear the test of a rigid scientific investigation. That no such hypothesis has been presented is conceded in the fact that so many are engaged in demolishing others' theories in order to clear the ground for the establishment of their own.

Those who have attempted a refutation of evolution have also undertaken to assign causes adequate

to produce the changes which are known to have occurred.

1. It has been maintained that new species are results of some constitutional affection of parental forms. This explanation was pressed with great vigor in the earlier discussions upon this subject. It is now abandoned, it being conceded that sensitive as the reproductive system is, and many as are the diseases of parent organisms, such causes are inadequate to the production of new species.

2. Others, when the subject was less thoroughly understood than it is at present, were disposed to consider the changes as mere freaks of nature, such as produced the porcupine-man and his descendants. This unscientific explanation has had its day and is no longer worthy of mention except as a specimen of the subterfuges to which even profound reasoners will sometimes resort.*

3. It has been said, the changes result from the action of climate upon constitutional tendencies. It is admitted that varying degrees of heat and altered modes

* Francis Turretin, a distinguished Protestant Professor of Theology, whose writings have sustained an enviable reputation even to the present day, asks, "Do the sun and the moon move in the heavens round the earth, while the earth remains at rest?" He answers, "Yes, in opposition to certain philosophers. First, The sun is said in Scriptures to move in the heavens, and to rise and set. Second, The sun by a miracle stood still in the time of Joshua; and by a miracle it went back in the time of Hezekiah. Third, The earth is said to be fixed immovably. Fourth, Neither could birds, which often fly off through an hour's circuit, be able to return to their nests; for in the meantime the earth would have moved four hundred and fifty miles. Fifth, Whatever flies or is suspended in the air ought, by this theory, to move from west to east; but this is proved not to be true from arrows shot forth, atoms made manifest in the sun, and down floating in the atmosphere."

The same author presents a series of labored arguments to prove that man must have been created in the autumn-if not, he would have starved to death ere he could have raised a crop, or found it prepared to his hand by bounteous

nature.

of life may produce new varieties-can it also produce new species? Sufficient evidence to prove this has not been presented.*

It is not claimed, however, that the doctrine of evolution is refuted by showing that its advocates are unable to agree in reference to the agencies by which new species are developed from antecedent organisms. It is conceivable that they should succeed in establishing a law of evolution without being able to specify the causes which produce the ever changing series of effects; indeed, to regard the theory as absurd, especially in its more modest pretensions, is to acknowledge ignorance of the facts, or to confess oneself under the influence of strong prejudice; on the other hand, to view the theory as fully established, even to the furthest limits to which it has been pushed, is to proclaim oneself satisfied with evidence that is less than sufficient to enforce conviction. It seems the dictate of prudence to concede that at present it is difficult, practically impossible, to fix the limits of species; more difficult still to fix those of genera; simple folly to attempt to determine those of tribes and families. We may console ourselves, however, with the fact that a system of faith which outlived the scientific dictum of the fixity of the earth can easily display vitality sufficient, if neces

* In Corsica, horses, dogs, and other animals become beautifully spotted. It is also said that sheep when taken to the West Indies lose their wool and become covered with hair: in Guinea, they undergo such changes as to bear little resemblance, except in bleat, to those in Europe, the wool giving place to black or brown hair. Dogs taken to the mountains of India are said to become covered with wool. In Boeotia the herds are generally yellow, in the Roman Campagna uniformly gray, in other parts of Italy commonly red. The camel's hump, as that of the Indian cow, is supposed to have arisen from a fatty deposit in consequence of exposure to heat, being a deviation, it is asserted, from the original type. European dogs, taken to foreign countries, have been known to degenerate greatly, the ears becoming long and stiff, the bark turning into a hideous howl.

sary, to survive even after the doctrine of the immutability of species has been reverently laid away in the roomy receptacle of perished beliefs. We shall only be forced to acknowledge that the permanence of species is a doctrine which is in no sense needed for the defence of Scripture.

Whilst it would be presumptuous to pronounce the theory baseless, it would be no less so to affirm that it satisfactorily explains all the phenomena; it would in fact be to array oneself against able reasoners who oppose it, not on theological grounds, but on scientific. Professor Agassiz says, "I wish to enter my earnest protest against the transmutation theory." Even Darwin concedes, with a frankness characteristic of his writings, "The transitional forms, joining living and extinct species, not being found—the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in European formations-the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata-are undoubtedly difficulties of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent palæontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick.etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species." Again: "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created."*

* Haeckel, who in the preface of his work entitled, The Evolution of Man, expresses great contempt for so-called revelations and for "the black mischievous host [the defenders of Scripture] against whom modern society has at last taken up the struggle for culture," sees fit to indulge in the following empty boast:-"When in 1873, the grave closed over Louis Agassiz, the last great upholder of the constancy of species and of miraculous creation, the dogma of the constancy of species came to an end, and the contrary assumption-the assertion that all the various species descended from common ancestral formsnow no longer encounters serious difficulty."

At present, however, it is perhaps safest to concede that the permanent and complete immutability of species has not been proved: neither has mutability been proved.

In respect to this question, as to many others, it is wise to permit the mind to remain in suspense. It is easy to err. Leibnitz pronounced Newton's theory of gravitation subversive of natural religion. Until a comparatively recent date two hypotheses in reference to the nature of light claimed the suffrages of the learned. The emission theory, though for a long time vigorously defended by a majority of naturalists, has given place to the undulatory. A small minority of reasoners won the victory. The adoption of the wave theory of light soon led to the hypothesis of the correlation and transmutability of light, heat, electricity, and magnetism. This hypothesis, after running the gauntlet of an incessant fire is now generally adopted. The nebular hypothesis, though strong objections have been urged against it, many of which are as yet unanswered, is now accepted as harmonizing accepted facts into a probable and consistent whole.

Christianity, notwithstanding the accumulation of cogent arguments and in face of the affirmation boastingly made, "The Bible is refuted," can well afford to wait till its opponents have become reasonably well united upon an accurately defined position. Till this measure of unanimity is secured, we are not called upon to decide whether we will surrender the Mosaic account, adopt a new interpretation thereof, or undertake a refutation of the theory. Why should we waste our energies upon an imaginary foe whilst the mailed warriors of sin are confronting us?