that could fly in the firmament of heaven would never have been evolved. Or, if we suppose the mouse to have been the progenitor of the bat, the elongation of the fingers during the slow progress of the formation of the membrane could only have incommoded it. There are. other cases which present grave difficulties to accepting this theory, Take the case of double evolution that would be required, (and remember, not by design, but by accidental variation) in the case of orchids which require for their fertilisation the assistance of particular insects. In this case the variations of the plants and animals must have been coincident in time and area.

How could the eye be formed by accidental variations without respect to the law of optics, the heart without respect to the laws of hydrostatics, so with the ear and various other organs? But the original monad had none of these organs, not even nerves to become sensitive (which Darwin takes as the basis of his supposition.) Admitting this difficulty, he affirms that into some 8 or 10 primordial forms, the Creator breathed the breath of life. But if 8 or 10 be admissible, why not 100, why not 1000? The answer is hard to give.

Again, in regard to special powers, as in the cell making bee. How is it that if this be the result of some most won. derful power of Natural Selection, there are some 250 kinds of bees, (not extinct) but all working alongside each other, which do not make hexagonal cells, and some of which are necessary to the continuance of plants, as in the case of the humble bee, which is necessary to the fertilization of the red clover.

And when we come to man-by what principal of Natural Selection and struggle for existence, can we explain mental and moral qualities that distinguish him from the brute creation. How account for the faculty of speech, which, as Max Muller says, is the great barrier between the brute and man. "No power of Natural Selection can ever distil significant words out of the notes of birds or the cries of beasts."

All these points, as I said, I have been obliged simply to notice. But, lastly, nothing that has been said has accounted for the "origin of species." That is as far in the dark on

this theory as ever, and we are compelled to seek for other sources for explanation of it. Trace back, if you can, by the surest steps, the long drawn series which, culminating in man, goes back through thousands upon thousands of varied forms to the very lowest form in which life, not only is known, but can be supposed to have existed, and still, upon this theory, its origin remains unknown.

Let us now consider in Mr Darwin's own words the conclusion which he places before us.

"Therefore, on the principle of Natural Selection with divergence of character, it does not seem incredible that from some such low and intermediate form as the spores of Alge both animals and plants may have been developed; and if we admit this, we must admit that all organised beings which have ever lived upon earth may have descended from some one primordial form.'

Now if we had met with this in a work on logic, to show how that art might be used in illustration of what is usually called " begging the question," we should not have been startled; but to find it seriously used in a scientific work for the purpose of supporting a theory, certainly does startle us. If we admit that which has to be proved, of course difficulties vanish. But, if we admit that every individual being starts from a common origin, the same germinal vesicle, we want still to know the origin of that. The spore of the seaweed came from a seaweed, but where did the seaweed come from? Go back as far as you can, Creation must come in at last, and a Creator and Designer. And the religious element, as it is called, really does not come in more powerfully in favour of successive creations of species, than if we believe in an original Creation, having the design by an overruling Providence, to evolve" successive species from the "primordial form." The one appears to me as grand an exhibition of power, and wisdom, and forethought in the Creator as the other; but, until we have better evidence than Mr. Darwin has brought, that such has been the course of God's providence I, for one, shall decline to hold more loosely the theory of suc

cessive creations, which has been sufficient to account to the minds of thinkers, certainly as capable and as logical as Mr. Darwin, for all the known facts in relation to the organic world.

Mr. Darwin himself admits that a difficulty has been advanced, that looking on the dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may imagine, presented the simplest structure, how could the first steps in advancement, or in the differentiation and specialisation of parts have arisen? I can make no sufficient answer" he says; "and can only say that as we have no facts to guide us, all speculation on the subject would be baseless and useless." And yet he wishes us to believe, after admissions like this, that not only are such things possible, but that they did take place; and asserts that hereafter we must ignore former opinions on the subject, and accept his theory as the only rational explanation of the facts of nature.

The most that Mr. Darwin has done is to show that naturalists may have pushed their differences between varieties and species too far; but that species exist, by whatever term we may choose to call them, is clear. I have instanced to you the necessity of caution in the reception of facts, until those facts have been established by the test of wide experience and observation. I have further warned you against the acceptance of causes, principles, or laws which do not cover the whole ground of the facts they are to explain; and, above all, against the acceptance of hypothetical theories, based upon an abuse of the imagination, and supported by baseless suppositions and inconclusive reasoning.

However we may accept any theory of the formation and causation of matter, we must ultimately come to a point where science has to confess itself powerless to go further, and where the only solution is that of revelation, a Creator, and Universal Orderer. To what end were things created and led up to man, if not created by God who had the good of His creatures as the end? The laws of science must themselves be limited, as it is contrary to reason to assume a law without a lawgiver, a rule without a ruler. The highest conception the human

mind can form of greatness and wisdom is that in which order prevails by the direction of the orderer, and not that in which a Creator leaves his creation to the conditions of chance. But to suppose that the Creator of law cannot control the action of one law by the operation of another is to limit His omnipotence. The fact of the power of the human will to divert the chain of causation ought alone to be sufficient to disprove such a necessity. If human will can prevent the consequences of certain actions by its power, how much more may a power which is unknown in its potency as the Creator's, prevent the action of one law by the interposition of another. And when we consider the so-called " self-evolving powers of Nature," we are constrained to ask-What is Nature but another name for the Unknown, unless we believe in a Creator?

How are we to account for the origin of matter? how for the appearance of vitality? Much more, how are we to account for its continuance in Species without reference to the ordinance and controlling government of a Creator who, in His wisdom, has established boundaries beyond which the imagination may, but beyond which the stern realities of fact cannot pass. All experience goes to show that there are limits which cannot be overstepped, and to assume from probability that which experience belies, is a forced and unnatural method of proceeding, unworthy of a scientific mind,