arms, legs, head, brain, or whatever might be serviceable to any animal. If the old woman of the fable, and her calf, could have lived together through all these generations, she might easily have come to lift an ox, or even an elephant, if the calf had grown to that size; or she might have changed into an elephant or a calf herself, and gone through all the metamorphoses of Ovid.

If the geologic record is urged against him, he appeals for evidence in his favor to the blanks of geologic history; while he expresses his surprise, indeed, that more wrecks of ancient life, in caves, etc., have not been preserved (p. 127). He reminds us also of the immensity of time requisite to produce the actual changes by natural selection (p. 247), and thinks that the lapse of years required for each geologic formation may be short, in comparison with the time requisite to transform one species into another (p. 257). Indeed he never would have thought the geologic record so imperfect, but for the necessity of saving his theory (p. 264). "From these and similar considerations," he adds, "but chiefly from our ignorance of the geology of other countries beyond the confines of Europe and the United States; and from the revolution in our paleontological ideas on many points, which the discoveries of even the last dozen years have effected, it seems to me about as rash in us to dogmatize on the succession of organic beings throughout the world, as it would be for a naturalist to land for five minutes on some barren point in Australia, and then to discuss the number and range of its productions."

Now all this, from his stand-point, the stand-point of a mere baseless and begging theory, is simply ludicrous; almost as ludicrous as the inference he elsewhere makes from certain experiments which have not been tried with the kidney-bean, (p. 129). He seems to forget that others besides geologists may rashly "dogmatize on the succession of organic beings. throughout the world." Yet it would be well for our geologists to give heed to what Mr. Darwin has here told them. For, though the imperfect results of their partial investigations may be abundantly sufficient to annihilate a mere hypothesis like Mr. Darwin's, it is clear they cannot have a feather's weight

against the truth or credibility of one well attested scientific or historical fact.

Mr. Darwin appeals with confidence to rudimentary organs, as a final confirmation of his theory; and he presses them into his service in a characteristic way, by assuming that, as all organs have been developed by use, these have become rudimentary again by long-continued disuse. But he has not furnished the slightest, evidence of the fact. He refers to the papillæ on the breasts of males; but he has not given a particle of evidence that, though they have been disused from the earliest known generations of men, they have diminished in the slightest degree, or shown the slightest sign of a tendency to become effaced since the earliest delineations or knowledge of the human form. And yet this result should certainly have followed; for if the once full-developed organs could have been reduced to rudiments by disuse, that disuse continued should efface the rudiments entirely. The rudiments are surely as useless as ever the original organs could be; and after the immense changes that must have taken place in developing a man and a turnip from the same primordial form, it is strange that these useless rudiments should remain unchanged and uneffaced.

Mr. Darwin instances the rudimentary upper teeth of calves, and thinks they may be the relics of teeth that were once useful when cattle lived by browsing; but he has not exhibited any evidence that the upper teeth of modern calves are a whit less distinct than they were in ancient times; nor has he shown that they become more fully developed when the parents live by browsing; nor, finally, has he shown that upper teeth would not be as useful for oxen in grazing as they are for sheep and horses. The upshot of the matter is, that he can more readily believe that the ox, with his lower as well as the rudimentary upper teeth, and man with his rudimentary papillæ, his hands, feet, head, brain, his eye in fine frensy rolling, his discourse of reason looking before and after, his conscience, and all, have come by natural generation from the same hermaphroditic, vegeto-animal, primordial form from which have come the gnat and the elephant, the ichthyosaurus

and the megatherium, the mammoth and the maggot, the cabbage and the pumpkin, than to believe that God could have made these species of men and oxen as they are, or could have arranged his creation according to any laws of economy or mutual analogy.

Does he not know that ninety-nine one hundredths of all forest seeds perish or are destroyed without developing into trees, and yet are organized and fitted every one for germination and growth? And does he find in this a proof that no intelligent, designing, creative mind can have constituted the trees to bear such seed to be wasted and lost? What does he mean by what he calls "the law of correlation of growth," to which he himself appeals when he gets beyond his depth with the principle of natural selection? Is not "correlation of growth" a sort of natural harmony and correspondence in organic developments, which defies either accident or utility to explain it? Is it not as consistent with specific creation as with natural selection? And will it not explain the existence of rudimentary organs, as well at least, as it can be explained by this monstrous theory of the historical development of all organic beings from one primordial type?

A great multitude of questions, it seems to us, might be asked which Mr. Darwin's theory is bound to answer, but which it cannot satisfy-questions which the theory, or rather the fact, of creation answers in the most natural manner. For example, why do men have the same number of fingers on one hand as on the other, and the same number of toes as fingers, if every thing is determined by use, and nothing by creative laws of beauty, proportion and harmony? Why is not human hair sometimes green or blue, or the iris of the eye white or red? Can any better reason be given than the good pleasure of Him who made them? Why should men have a beard and women none? If it is of use to men, why not to women? And if it would be of use to women, why should not natural selection have multiplied the few women who have it? Why are not men eight or ten feet high, and as strong as elephants; would it not be useful to them? Why are there no races of winged men, as well as flying squirrels ;

is it only for want of the happy accident for natural selection to start with? It would be so convenient! Perhaps we may expect such developments among the infinite changes and chances of an eternal future

If natural selection is the key to the development of organic beings, whence come the infinite variety and fulness of the species of such beings, from the countless infusoria to the mammoth and the elephant, from the humblest and tiniest moss to the giant trees of California, from the oyster to rational man? Mr. Darwin admits and insists upon the fulness of nature, according to the adage, Natura non facit saltum. But is it not a strange kind of selection, which results in taking all sorts and sizes, just as if there were no selection at all? And is it not a strange sort of philosophy, which satisfies itself with natural selection as an explanation of the fact, rather than with the good pleasure and infinite intelligence of a wise and benevolent Creator? The truth is, as we have said, "natural selection" can mean nothing as a cause. It is, at best, only a restatement of the facts as they are, or a theoretical suggestion of the process or law by which they have come into their present condition. And if those who hold this doctrine reply that that is just what they mean by it, that they do not deny the agency of an intelligent Creator, that they admit and hold that He breathed the breath of life into the original primordial form of organic beings, or at least that he created the primeval fire mist and endued matter with its inherent laws, that they only propose to trace scientifically the laws and the process by which He works out his grand designs, and thus that they really honor and exalt the infinite Creator, more than we do by our childish theory of special interposition; if all this is said, we have only to ask again, by what right, when an intelligent Creator is once admitted, by what right of reason or revelation can they deny that he may have made the various species of organic beings by his creative fiat, each with its appropriate laws of growth and variation? By what right can this be denied, if he may be allowed thus to have created, created we say, a primordial organic form, or even a diffused nebulosity? Alone, natural selection can accomplish

nothing and explain nothing. Unless we are to couple it with chance or fate to solve the problems of nature, and be satisfied in these later scientific days with the old solution of Democritus; we may as well rest at once in an all-wise Creator as the real cause of all things, originating, organizing and disposing all according to his good pleasure, and by regular processes or laws; some of which processes and laws we may humbly learn, but which we are never authorized proudly to prescribe; of which we may avail ourselves for our use and comfort, but which we may never turn against the being and agency of Him who established them. "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" This is indeed mere Scripture; and, for aught we know, Mr. Darwin may be ready to dismiss it with a sneer of scientific contempt. But we honestly confess, that, in our judgment, it contains a greater truth, and a profounder scientific principle than Mr. Darwin's book can boast of, We recommend to those who would follow Bacon's philosophic method, to imitate also Bacon's reverent spirit.

ART. VIII.-MAINE DE BIRAN'S PHILOSOPHY. By REV. J. F. ASTIÉ,

PROFESSOR IN THE FREE CHURCH ACADEMY, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND.

Maine de Biran, sa vie et ses pensées, publiées par Ernest Naville. 8vo. Geneva, 1859.

Introduction Générale aux Euvres de Maine de Biran, par Ernest Naville. 1 vol. 8vo. Geneva, 1859.

Euvres Inédites de Maine de Biran, publiées par Ernest Naville, avec la collaboration de Marc Debrit. 8vo. Paris, 1859.

THESE three works relate to a solitary and original philosopher, who, after having been for some time rather overlooked in France, has lately attracted attention. He owes