arate and independent creations,"-meaning thereby the Mosaic theory. He is constantly challenging this theory, as incompetent to explain those mysteries of life which he thinks are so clearly elucidated by his own fanciful speculations. Aristotle attributes distinct creations to the "mens divina,”Plato, to the "anima mundi,"-and Harvey, a wiser physicist than either, to "the Creator and Father of all things in heaven and earth;" but Mr. Darwin charges with folly or wilful blindness, all who cannot see that Natural Selection exercises all the attributes of a Divine Creator. Notwithstanding this arrogant assumption of superior wisdom, had he fairly and scientifically generalized from the facts which he has confusedly heaped into a visionary hypothesis, he would have more rationally deduced the theory, that all animals were originally divided into fixed classes, according to great structural types, as Science attests. He would have recognized, that in each of these divisions, life had been breathed into a certain number of primordial forms,—we know not how many,-and that each of these primordial forms, whose "seed was in itself,” was endowed with an inherent capability of variation,-to what extent we know not,-but such as would enable the race to conform to surrounding conditions, and to the progressive changes of the earth's surface.

Such a theory would be in accordance with Natural Science, and it would also be in accordance with the Mosaic record or creation, which claims to be a direct Revelation from its Divine Author. Such a claim, however, would not be admitted by the author of the "Origin of Species by Natural Selection." It would require too much Faith on the part of a scientific physicist, who studiously avoids all recognition of the agency of a Divine Creator, but who, nevertheless, with singular inconsistency, invests physical agents with the attributes of a provident Divinity.

-his

To show how much faith our author demands from us,own cosmical Genesis, if thrown into an equally compendious form as that of Moses, would necessarily be as follows, according to his own statements. "In the beginning there was, probably, 'some one primordial form, into which life was first

breathed,' for all animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or less number.' These progenitors, who were simple vegetable cells, or animal monads, have produced, by natural generation, each after his kind, whose seed is in itself, all the grass, herbs and trees on the face of the earth; also, all the creatures that move in the waters, or which fly in the air; also all the creeping things, beast and cattle of the field; also all the men that inhabit the earth. All these were generated by, 'probably,' only one monad, who developed 'variations' according to a law styled Variability,' and transmitted them to successive generations of lineal descendants, in virtue of a law styled 'Inheritance,' which is implied by the law of 'Growth, with Reproduction.'-Thus were created all the diverse complicated structures of the Radiates, Molluscs, Articulates, and Vertebrates, which now inhabit earth, air and water.-Moreover, as each new animal came, successively, into existence by chance' variations, his appropriate place was allotted him, his proper functions assigned, and his due and orderly relations to other animals prescribed by Natural Selection,' which is a consequence of the 'frequently recurring struggle for existence' arising from the fact of many more individuals being born than can possibly survive.'

6

We assert that the above is a truthful expression of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, given, as nearly as possible, in his own language, but divested of its verbiage and sophistry. The bare statement of its requirements shows, that it is equally opposed to analogy, scientific observation, human experience, and

common sense.

He demands from Naturalists FAITH to believe in opposition to Science and sound Philosophy, that the four great types according to which all animals above Protozoans have constantly and uniformly been constructed, from the dawn of creation, are simply inherited variations in the forms of primordial monads. He requires them to believe that the orderly arrangement, by which all animals according to each distinct type, have been distributed into distinct natural classes of genera and species, manifesting the affinities of their peculiar types in an endless

variety of structural resemblances, yet always separated by fixed genetic differences, and that the skillful contrivance by which each of these distinct types has been modified in the construction of each species of animals, fitting them to inhabit land, water and air,-are accidental results. Also, that the consummate wisdom, manifested in the co-adaptation and the corelation of their diverse functions, establishing the mutual interdependency of all, in connection with individual antagonisms, thus binding all into one harmonious system, evincing the forethought of a plan, is fortuitous. We are modestly asked to believe, that all this order, contrivance and wisdom, is merely the result of slight chance variations of the lowest form of Protozoans, accumulated and systematically arranged by some incomprehensible and undefinable thing--a sort of physico-divinitya chimera of Mr. Darwin's imagination, which has no place either in Science or Nature-dubbed "Natural Selection."

There is not a single fact to support his foundation principle of transmutation by Natural Selection, nor a particle of evidence to countenance a belief in the intelligent agency, or even in the possible existence of such a Power; and therefore, the whole gigantic superstructure, built on this phantasm, stands, like an inverted pyramid, based on an ideal non-entity.

Surely, Mr. Darwin counts too much upon our credulity, as well as upon our ignorance of the secrets of Nature, when he asks us to accept such an hypothesis, as a substitute for the common theory of separate and independent creations,—or else he has sadly blundered in the use of his terms. The effects which he attributes to "variation" are distinct creations-and the agency of an intelligent, Divine Creator, is mystified under the name of "Natural Selection."

The reader will doubtless desire to know upon what facts so astounding an hypothesis is based. We answer, mainly upon some observations of pigeons, made by the author, who is at pains to inform us that he has "associated with several eminent fanciers, and have [has] been permitted to join two London Pigeon Clubs." These observations, and certain facts obtained from gardeners, cattle-breeders, and others, in regard to the great and beneficial changes effected by a judicious selec

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. 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,