public domain works from the ,university
 of ,michigan ,digital ,libraries7      
,,what ,,is ,,darwinism8  ,,by ,,charles
 ,,hodge1 ,,princeton1 ,n4 ,j4  ,,new   
,,york3 ,,scribner1 ,,armstrong1 ,,and  
,,company4 #ahgd4   ,entered according  
to ,act of ,congress1 in the year #ahgd1
 by ,,scribner1 ,,armstrong1  ,,company1
 ,in the ,office of the ,librarian of   
,congress1 at ,washington4              
,,riverside1 ,,cambridge3 ,,stereotyped 
,,and ,,printed ,,by ,h4 ,o4 ,,houghton 
,,and ,,company4     ,,contents4        
,,page ,,importance ,,of ,,the          
,,question                              
#a  ,,different ,,theories ,,as ,,to    
,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,universe1   
,,and ,,specially ,,of ,,vegetable ,,and
 ,,animal ,,organisms4   #a4 ,the       
,scriptural ,theory                     
#c   #b4 ,the ,pantheistic ,theory      
#g   #c4 ,the ,epicurean ,theory        
#aj   #d4 ,the ,doctrine of ,herbert    
,spencer                         #aa    
#e4 ,hylozoic ,theory                   

#ba   #f4 ,unscriptural ,forms of       
,theism                            #bb  
,,darwin',s ,,theory                    
#bf  ,,natural ,,selection              
#ca  ,,sense ,,in ,,which ,,darwin      
,,uses ,,the ,,word ,,natural           
#dj  ,,the ,,three ,,elements ,,or      
,,darwinism                             
#dh  ,,the ,,exclusion ,,of ,,design    
,,in ,,nature ,,the ,,formative ,,idea  
,,of ,,darwin',s ,,theory               
#di  ,,proof ,,of ,,darwin',s ,,denial  
,,of ,,teleology1 ,,from ,,his ,,own    
,,writings                              
#ec  ,,proof ,,from ,,the ,,expositions 
,,of ,,his ,,theory ,,by ,,its ,,avowed 
,,advocates4   ,mr4 ,russell ,wallace   
#fd   ,professor ,huxley                
#gb   ,dr4 ,bchner                      
#hd   ,carl ,vogt                       
#he   ,prof4 ,haeckel                   
#hg   ,strauss                          
#adg  ,,proof ,,from ,,the ,,objections 
,,urged ,,by ,,the ,,opponents ,,of     
,,mr4 ,,darwin',s ,,theory4   ,duke of  

,argyll                                 
#if   ,agassiz                          
#aja   ,professor ,janet                
#aje   ,m4 ,flourens                    
#ajh   ,rev4 ,walter ,mitchell          
#aaa   ,principal ,dawson               
#aai  ,,relation ,,of ,,darwinism ,,to  
,,religion                              
#abe  ,,causes ,,of ,,the ,,antagonism  
,,between ,,science ,,and ,,religion    
#abf  ,,the ,,evolution ,,theory        
,,contrary ,,to ,,facts ,,and ,,to      
,,scripture     #ada  ,,sir ,,william   
,,thomson ,,on ,,teleology              
#afe  ,,dr4 ,,asa ,,gray                
#agd  ,,darwinism ,,tantamount ,,to     
,,atheism                               
#agg     ,,what ,,is ,,darwinism8       
,this is a question which needs an      
answer4 ,great confusion and diversity  
of opinion prevail as to the real views 
of the man whose writings have agitated 
the whole world1 scientific and         
religious4 ,if a man says he is a       
,darwinian1 many understand him to avow 

himself virtually an atheist2 while     
another understands him as saying that  
he adopts some harmless form of the     
doctrine of evolution4 ,this is a great 
evil4  ,it is obviously useless to      
discuss any theory until we are agreed  
as to what that theory is4 ,the         
question1 therefore1 ,what is           
,darwinism8 must take precedence of all 
discussion of its merits4  ,the great   
fact of experience is that the universe 
exists4 ,the great problem which has    
ever pressed upon the human mind is to  
account for its existence4 ,what was its
 origin8 ,to what causes are the changes
 we witness around us to be referred8   
,as we are a part of the universe1 these
 questions concern ourselves4 ,what are 
the origin1 nature1 and destiny of man8 
,professor ,huxley is right in saying1  
,the question of questions for          
mankind--the problem which underlies all
 others1 and is more interesting than   
any other--is the ascertainment of the  
place which ,man occupies in nature and 

of his relation to the universe of      
things4 ,whence our race has come1 what 
are the limits of our power over nature1
 and of nature's power over us1 to what 
goal are we tending1 are the problems   
which present themselves anew and with  
undiminished interest to every man born 
into the world4#a ,mr4 ,darwin          
undertakes to answer these questions4   
,he proposes a solution of the problem  
which thus deeply concerns every living 
man4 ,darwinism is1 therefore1 a theory 
of the universe1 at least so far as the 
living organisms on this earth are      
concerned4 ,this being the case1 it may 
be well to state1 in few words1 the     
other prevalent theories on this great  
subject1 that the points of agreement   
and of difference between them and the  
views of ,mr4 ,darwin may be the more   
clearly seen4   ,the ,scriptural        
,solution of the ,problem of the        
,universe4  ,that solution is stated in 
words equally simple and sublime3 ,in   
the beginning ,god created the heavens  

and the earth4 ,we have here1 first1 the
 idea of ,god4 ,the word ,god has in the
 ,bible a definite meaning4 ,it does not
 stand for an abstraction1 for mere     
force1 for law or ordered sequence4 ,god
 is a spirit1 and as we are spirits1 we 
know from consciousness that ,god is1   
7#a47 ,a ,substance2 7#b47 ,that ,he is 
a person2 and1 therefore1 a             
self-conscious1 intelligent1 voluntary  
agent4 ,he can say ,i2 we can address   
,him as ,thou2 we can speak of ,him as  
,he or ,him4 ,this idea of ,god pervades
 the ,scriptures4 ,it lies at the       
foundation of natural religion4 ,it is  
involved in our religious consciousness4
 ,it enters essentially into our sense  
of moral obligation4 ,it is inscribed   
ineffaceably1 in letters more or less   
legible1 on the heart of every human    
being4 ,the man who is trying to be an  
atheist is trying to free himself from  
the laws of his being4 ,he might as well
 try to free himself from liability to  
hunger or thirst4  ,the ,god of the     

,bible1 then1 is a ,spirit1 infinite1   
eternal1 and unchangeable in his being1 
wisdom1 power1 holiness1 goodness1 and  
truth4 ,as every theory must begin with 
some postulate1 this is the grand       
postulate with which the ,bible begins4 
,this is the first point4  ,the second  
point concerns the origin of the        
universe4 ,it is not eternal either as  
to matter or form4 ,it is not           
independent of ,god4 ,it is not an      
evolution of his being1 or his existence
 form4 ,he is extramundane as well as   
antemundane4 ,the universe owes its     
existence to his will4  ,thirdly1 as to 
the nature of the universe2 it is not a 
mere phenomenon4 ,it is an entity1      
having real objective existence1 or     
actuality4 ,this implies that matter is 
a substance endowed with certain        
properties1 in virtue of which it is    
capable of acting and of being acted    
upon4 ,these properties being uniform   
and constant1 are physical laws to      
which1 as their proximate causes1 all   

the phenomena of nature are to be       
referred4  ,fourthly1 although ,god is  
extramundane1 ,he is nevertheless       
everywhere present4 ,that presence is   
not only a presence of essence1 but also
 of knowledge and power4 ,he upholds all
 things4 ,he controls all physical      
causes1 working through them1 with them1
 and without them1 as ,he sees fit4 ,as 
we1 in our limited spheres1 can use     
physical causes to accomplish our       
purposes1 so ,god everywhere and always 
coperates with them to accomplish his   
infinitely wise and merciful designs4   
,fifthly1 man a part of the universe1   
is1 according to the ,scriptures1 as    
concerns his body1 of the earth4 ,so    
far1 he belongs to the animal kingdom4  
,as to his soul1 he is a child of ,god1 
who is declared to be the ,father of the
 spirits of all men4 ,god is a spirit1  
and we are spirits4 ,we are1 therefore1 
of the same nature with ,god4 ,we are   
,god-like2 so that in knowing ourselves 
we know ,god4 ,no man conscious of his  

manhood can be ignorant of his          
relationship to ,god as his ,father4    
,the truth of this theory of the        
universe rests1 in the first place1 so  
far as it has been correctly stated1 on 
the infallible authority of the ,word of
 ,god4 ,in the second place1 it is a    
satisfactory solution of the problem to 
be solved1--7#a47 ,it accounts for the  
origin of the universe4 7#b47 ,it       
accounts for all the universe contains1 
and gives a satisfactory explanation of 
the marvellous contrivances which abound
 in living organisms1 of the adaptations
 of these organisms to conditions       
external to themselves1 and for those   
provisions for the future1 which on any 
other assumption are utterly            
inexplicable4 7#c47 ,it is in conflict  
with no truth of reason and with no fact
 of experience4#b 7#d47 ,the ,scriptural
 doctrine accounts for the spiritual    
nature of man1 and meets all his        
spiritual necessities4 ,it gives him an 
object of adoration1 love1 and          

confidence4 ,it reveals the ,being on   
whom his indestructible sense of        
responsibility terminates4 ,the truth of
 this doctrine1 therefore1 rests not    
only on the authority of the            
,scriptures1 but on the very            
constitution of our nature4 ,the ,bible 
has little charity for those who reject 
it4 ,it pronounces them to be either    
derationalized or demoralized1 or both4 
,,footnotes3  #a ,evidences of ,man's   
,place in ,nature4 ,london1 #ahfd1 p4   
#eg4  #b ,the two facts which are       
commonly urged as inconsistent with     
,theism1 are the existence of misery in 
the world1 and the occurrence of        
undeveloped or useless organs1 as teeth 
in the jaws of the whale and mamm on the
 breast of a man4 ,as to the former     
objection1 sin1 which is the only real  
evil1 is accounted for by the voluntary 
apostasy of man2 and as to undeveloped  
organs they are regarded as evidences of
 the great plan of structure which can  
be traced in the different orders of    

animals4 ,these unused organs were--says
 ,professor ,joseph ,le ,conte1 in his  
interesting volume on ,religion and     
,science1 ,new ,york1 #ahgd1 p4         
#ed--regarded as blunders in nature1    
until it was discovered that use is not 
the only end of design4 ,by further     
patient study of nature1 he says1 came  
the recognition of another law beside   
use1--a law of order underlying and     
conditioning the law of use4 ,organisms 
are1 indeed1 contrived for use1 but     
according to a preordained plan of      
structure1 which must not be violated4  
,it is of little moment whether this    
explanation be considered satisfactory  
or not4 ,it would certainly be          
irrational to refuse to believe that the
 eye was made for the purpose of vision1
 because we cannot tell why a man has   
mamm4 ,a man might as well refuse to    
admit that there is any meaning in all  
the writings of ,plato1 because there is
 a sentence in them which he cannot     
understand4   ,the ,pantheistic ,theory4

  ,this has been one of the most widely 
diffused and persistent forms of human  
thought on this whole subject4 ,it has  
been for thousands of years not only the
 philosophy1 but the religion of ,india1
 and1 to a great extent1 of ,china4 ,it 
underlies all the forms of ,greek       
philosophy4 ,it crept into the ,church1 
concealed under the disguise of         
,scriptural terminology1 in the form of 
,neo-,platonism4 ,it was constantly     
reappearing during the ,middle ,ages1   
sometimes in a philosophical1 and       
sometimes a mystical form4 ,it was      
revived by ,spinoza in the seventeenth  
century1 and subsequently became        
dominant in the philosophy and          
literature of ,europe4 ,it is coming up 
again4 ,some distinguished naturalists  
are swinging round from one pole to the 
opposite2 from saying there is no ,god1 
to teaching that everything is ,god4    
,sometimes1 one and the same book in one
 half teaches materialism1 in the other 
half idealism3 the one affirming that   

everything is matter1 the other that    
matter is nothing1 but that everything  
is mind1 and mind is ,god4  ,the leading
 principles of the ,pantheistic theory  
are1--7#a47 ,that there is an ,infinite 
and ,absolute ,being4 ,of this ,being   
nothing can be affirmed but actuality4  
,it is denied that it is conscious1     
intelligent1 or voluntary4 7#b47 ,it is 
subject to the blind necessity of       
self-evolution or development4 7#c47    
,this development being necessary is    
constant2 from everlasting to           
everlasting4 ,according to the          
,braminical doctrine1 indeed1 there are 
successive cycles of activity and       
repose1 each cycle being measured by    
countless milliards of centuries4       
,according to the moderns1              
self-evolution being necessary1 there   
can be no repose1 so that ,ohne ,welt   
kein ,gott4 7#d47 ,the ,finite is1      
therefore1 the existence form of the    
,infinite2 all that is in the latter for
 the time being is in the former4 ,all  

that is possible is actual4 7#e47 ,the  
,finite is the ,infinite1 or1 to use    
theistic language1 the ,world is ,god1  
in the sense that all the world is and  
contains is the form in which ,god1 at  
each successive moment1 exists4 ,there  
is no power1 save only the power        
manifested in the world2 no             
consciousness1 intelligence1 or         
voluntary activity1 but in finite       
things1 and the aggregate of these is   
the power1 consciousness1 intelligence1 
and activity of ,god4 ,what we call sin 
is as much a form of ,god's activity as 
what we call virtue4 ,in other words1   
there is no such thing as free agency in
 man1 no such thing as sin or           
responsibility4 ,when a man dies he     
sinks into the abyss of being as a drop 
of water is lost in the ocean4 7#f47    
,man is the highest form of ,god's      
existence4 ,god is incarnate in the     
human race4 ,strauss says1 that what the
 ,church teaches of ,christ is not true 
of any individual man1 but is true of   

mankind4 ,or1 as ,feuerbach more        
concisely expresses it1 ,man alone is   
our ,god4 ,the blasphemy of some of the 
,german philosophers on this subject is 
simply unutterable4 ,in ,india we see   
the practical operation of this system  
when it takes hold on the people4 ,there
 the personification of the ,infinite as
 evil 7the ,goddess ,kala7 is the most  
popular object of worship4   ,epicurean 
,theory4  ,epicurus assumed the         
existence of matter1 force and          
motion1--,stoff und ,kraft4 ,he held    
that all space was filled with molecules
 of matter in a state of rapid motion in
 every direction4 ,these molecules were 
subject to gravity and endowed with     
properties or forces4 ,one combination  
of molecules gave rise to unorganized   
matter1 another to life1 another to     
mind2 and from the various combinations1
 guided by unintelligent physical laws1 
all the wonderful organisms of plants   
and animals have arisen4 ,to these      
combinations also all the phenomena of  

life1 instinct1 and intelligence in the 
world are to be referred4 ,this theory  
has been adopted in our day by a large  
class of scientific men1 especially in  
,germany4 ,the modern advocates of the  
theory are immeasurably superior to the 
ancient ,epicureans in their knowledge  
of astronomy1 botany1 zology1 and       
biology2 but in their theory of the     
universe1 and in their mode of          
accounting for all the phenomena of life
 and intelligence1 they are precisely on
 the same level4 ,they have not added an
 idea to the system1 which has ever been
 regarded as the opprobrium of human    
thought4 ,bchner1 ,moleschott1 ,vogt1   
hold that matter is eternal and         
indestructible2 that matter and force   
are inseparable3 the one cannot exist   
without the other4 ,what1 it is asked1  
is motion without something moving8     
,what is electricity without an         
electrified body8 ,what is attraction   
without molecules attracting each other8
 ,what is contractibility without       

muscular fibre1 or secretion without a  
secreting gland8 ,one combination of    
molecules exhibits the phenomena of     
life1 another combination exhibits the  
phenomena of mind4 ,all this was taught 
by the old heathen philosopher more than
 two thousand years ago4 ,that this     
system denies the existence of ,god1 of 
mind as a thinking substance distinct   
from matter1 and of the possibility of  
the conscious existence of man after    
death1 are not inferences drawn by      
opponents1 but conclusions openly avowed
 by its advocates4   ,herbert ,spencer's
 ,new ,philosophy4  ,mr4 ,darwin calls  
,spencer our great philosopher4 ,his is 
the speculating mind of the new school  
of science4 ,this gives to his opinions 
special interest1 although no one but   
himself is to be held responsible for   
his peculiar views1 except so far as    
others see fit to avow them4 ,mr4       
,spencer postulates neither mind nor    
matter4 ,he begins with ,force4 ,force1 
however1 is itself perfectly            

inscrutable4 ,all we know about it is1  
that it is1 that it is indestructible1  
and that it is persistent4  ,as to the  
origin of the universe1 he says there   
are three possible suppositions3 #ast4  
,that it is self-existent4 #b;d4 ,that  
it is self-created4 #c;d4 ,that it is   
created by an external agency4#c ,all   
these he examines and rejects4 ,the     
first is equivalent to ,atheism1 by     
which ,spencer understands the doctrine 
which makes ,space1 ,matter1 and ,force 
eternal and the causes of all phenomena4
 ,this1 he says1 assumes the idea of    
self-existence1 which is unthinkable4   
,the second theory he makes equivalent  
to ,pantheism4 ,the precipitation of    
vapor1 he says1 into cloud1 aids us in  
forming a symbolic conception of a      
self-evolved universe2 but1 he adds1    
really to conceive self-creation1 is to 
conceive potential existence passing    
into actual existence by some inherent  
necessity1 which we cannot do4 7p4 #cb74
 ,the ,theistic theory1 he says1 is     

equally untenable4 ,whoever agrees that 
the atheistic hypothesis is untenable   
because it involves the impossible idea 
of self-existence1 must perforce admit  
that the theistic hypothesis is         
untenable if it contains the same       
impossible idea4 7p4 #ch74 ,the origin  
of the universe is1 therefore1 a fact   
which cannot be explained4 ,it must have
 had a cause2 and all we know is that   
its cause is unknowable and inscrutable4
  ,when we turn to nature the result is 
the same4 ,everything is inscrutable4   
,all we know is that there are certain  
appearances1 and that where there is    
appearance there must be something that 
appears4 ,but what that something is1   
what is the noumenon which underlies the
 phenomenon1 it is impossible for us to 
know4 ,in nature we find two orders of  
phenomena1 or appearances2 the one      
objective or external1 the other        
subjective in our consciousness4 ,there 
are an ,ego and a non-,ego1 a subject   
and object4 ,these are not identical4   

,it is1 he says1 rigorously impossible  
to conceive that our knowledge is a     
knowledge of appearances only1 without  
at the same time conceiving a reality of
 which they are appearances1 for        
appearance without reality is           
unthinkable4 7p4 #hh74 ,so far we can   
go4 ,there is a reality which is the    
cause of phenomena4 ,further than that1 
in that direction1 our ignorance is     
profound4 ,he proves that space cannot  
be an entity1 an attribute1 or a        
category of thought1 or a nonentity4    
,the same is true of time1 of motion1 of
 matter1 of electricity1 light1         
magnetism1 etc41 etc4 ,they all resolve 
themselves into appearances produced by 
an unknown cause4  ,as the question1    
,what is matter8 is a crucial one1 he   
dwells upon it in various parts of his  
writings4 ,newton's theory of ultimate  
atoms2 ,leibnitz's doctrine of monads2  
and the dynamic theory of ,boscovich1   
which makes matter mere centres of      
force1 are all dismissed as unthinkable4

 ,it is not very clear in what sense    
that word is to be taken4 ,sometimes it 
seems to mean1 meaningless2 at others1  
self-contradictory or absurd2 at others1
 inconceivable1 i4 e4 that of which no  
conception or mental image can be       
formed2 at any rate1 it implies what is 
unknowable and untenable4 ,the result   
is1 so far as matter is concerned1 that 
we know nothing about it4 ,our          
conception of matter1 he says1 reduced  
to its simplest shape1 is that of       
coexistent positions that offer         
resistance1 as contrasted with our      
conception of space in which the        
coexistent positions offer no           
resistance4 7p4 #aff74 ,resistance1     
however1 is a form of force2 and1       
therefore1 on the following page1       
,spencer says1 that forces standing in  
certain correlations1 form the whole    
contents of our idea of matter4  ,when  
we turn from the objective to the       
subjective1 from the external to the    
inward world1 the result is still the   

same4 ,he agrees with ,hume in saying   
that the contents of our consciousness  
is a series of impressions and ideas4   
,he dissents1 however1 from that        
philosopher1 in saying that that series 
is all we know4 ,he admits that         
impressions necessarily imply that there
 is something that is impressed4 ,he    
starts the question1 ,what is it that   
thinks8 and answers1 ,we do not know4   
7p4 #fc74 ,he admits that the reality of
 individual personal minds1 the         
conviction of personal existence is     
universal1 and perhaps indestructible4  
,nevertheless that conviction cannot    
justify itself at the bar of reason2    
nay1 reason is found to reject it4 7p4  
#fe74 ,dean ,mansel says1 that          
consciousness gives us a knowledge of   
self as a substance and not merely of   
its varying states4 ,this1 however1 he  
says1 is absolutely negatived by the    
laws of thought4 ,the fundamental       
condition to all consciousness1         
emphatically insisted upon by ,mr4      

,mansel in common with ,sir ,william    
,hamilton and others1 is the antithesis 
of subject and object4444 ,what is the  
corollary from this doctrine1 as bearing
 on the consciousness of self8 ,the     
mental act in which self is known       
implies1 like every other mental act1 a 
perceiving subject and a perceived      
object4 ,if1 then1 the object perceived 
is self1 what is the subject that       
perceives8 ,or if it is the true self   
which thinks1 what other self can it be 
that is thought of8 ,clearly1 a true    
cognition of self implies a state in    
which the knowing and the known are     
one--in which subject and object are    
identified2 and this ,mr4 ,mansel       
rightly holds to be the annihilation of 
both4 ,so that the personality of which 
each is conscious1 and of which the     
existence is to each a fact beyond all  
others the most certain1 is yet a thing 
which cannot be known at all2 knowledge 
of it is forbidden by the very nature of
 human thought4 7pp4 #fe1 #ff74  ,mr4   

,spencer does not seem to expect that   
any man will be shaken in his conviction
 by any such argument as that4 ,when a  
man is conscious of pain1 he is not to  
be puzzled by telling him that the pain 
is one thing 7the object perceived7 and 
the self another thing 7the perceiving  
subject74 ,he knows that the pain is a  
state of the self of which he is        
conscious4 ,consciousness is a form of  
knowledge2 but knowledge of necessity   
supposes an intelligent reality which   
knows4 ,a philosophy which cannot be    
received until men cease to believe in  
their own existence1 must be in         
extremis4  ,mr4 ,spencer's conclusion   
is1 that the universe--nature1 or the   
external world with all its marvels and 
perpetual changes1--the world of        
consciousness with its ever varying     
states1 are impressions or phenomena1   
due to an inscrutable1 persistent force4
  ,as to the nature of this primal force
 or power1 he quotes abundantly and     
approvingly from ,sir ,william ,hamilton

 and ,mr4 ,mansel1 to prove that it is  
unknowable1 inconceivable1 unthinkable4 
,he1 however1 differs from those        
distinguished writers in two points4    
,while admitting that we know no more of
 the first cause than we do of a        
geometrical figure which is at once a   
circle and a square1 yet we do know that
 it is actual4 ,for this conviction we  
are not dependent on faith4 ,in the     
second place1 ,hamilton and ,mansel     
taught that we know that the ,infinite  
cannot be a person1 self-conscious1     
intelligent1 and voluntary2 yet we are  
forced by our moral constitution to     
believe it to be an intelligent person4 
,this ,mr4 ,spencer denies4 ,let those1 
he says1 who can1 believe that there is 
eternal war between our intellectual    
faculties and our moral obligations4 ,i1
 for one1 admit of no such radical vice 
in the constitution of things4 7p4      
#ajh74 ,religion has always erred1 he   
asserts1 in that while it teaches that  
the ,infinite ,being cannot be known1 it

 insists on ascribing to it such and    
such attributes1 which of course assumes
 that so far forth it is known4 ,we have
 no right1 he contends1 to ascribe      
personality to the ,unknown ,reality1 or
 anything else1 except that it is the   
cause of all that we perceive or        
experience4 ,there may be a mode of     
being1 as much transcending intelligence
 and will1 as these transcend mechanical
 motion4 ,to show the folly of referring
 to the ,unknown the attributes of our  
own spirits1 he makes the grotesque     
supposition that the tickings and other 
movements of a watch constituted a kind 
of consciousness2 and that a watch      
possessed of such a consciousness1      
insisted on regarding the watchmaker's  
actions as determined like its own by   
springs and escapements4 7p4 #aaa74 ,the
 vast majority of men1 instead of       
agreeing with ,mr4 ,spencer in this     
matter1 will doubtless heartily1 each   
for himself1 join the ,german           
philosopher ,jacobi1 in saying1 ,i      

confess to ,anthropomorphism inseparable
 from the conviction that man bears the 
image of ,god2 and maintain that besides
 this ,anthropomorphism1 which has      
always been called ,theism1 is nothing  
but ,atheism or ,fetichism4#d  ,mr4     
,spencer1 therefore1 in accounting for  
the origin of the universe and all its  
phenomena1 physical1 vital1 and mental1 
rejects ,theism1 or the doctrine of a   
personal ,god1 who is extramundane as   
well as antemundane1 the creator and    
governor of all things2 he rejects      
,pantheism1 which makes the finite the  
existence-form of the ,infinite2 he     
rejects ,atheism1 which he understands  
to be the doctrine of the eternity and  
self-existence of matter and force4 ,he 
contents himself with saying we must    
acknowledge the reality of an unknown   
something which is the cause of all     
things1--the noumenon of all phenomena4 
,if science and religion are to be      
reconciled1 the basis of the            
reconciliation must be this deepest1    

widest1 and most certain of all         
facts1--that the ,power which the       
universe manifests is utterly           
inscrutable4 7p4 #df74 ,the ultimate of 
ultimates is ,force4 ,matter and motion1
 as we know them1 are differently       
conditioned manifestations of force4    
,if1 to use an algebraic illustration1  
we represent ,matter1 ,motion1 and      
,force1 by the symbols x1 y1 z2 then we 
may ascertain the values of x and y in  
terms of z1 but the value of z can never
 be found2 z is the unknown quantity1   
which must forever remain unknown1 for  
the obvious reason that there is nothing
 in which its value can be expressed4   
7pp4 #afi1 #agj74  ,we have1 then1 no   
,god but ,force4 ,atheist is everywhere 
regarded as a term of reproach4 ,every  
man instinctively recoils from it4 ,even
 the philosophers of the time of the    
,french ,revolution repudiated the      
charge of atheism1 because they believed
 in motion2 and motion being            
inscrutable1 they believed in an        

inscrutable something1 i4 e4 in ,force4 
,we doubt not ,mr4 ,spencer would       
indignantly reject the imputation of    
atheism2 nevertheless1 in the judgment  
of most men1 the difference between     
,antitheist and ,atheist is a mere      
matter of orthography4  ,,footnotes3  #c
 ,first ,principles of a ,new ,system of
 ,philosophy4 ,by ,herbert ,spencer4    
,second edition4 ,new ,york1 #ahfi1 p4  
#cj4  #d ,von den gttlichen ,dingen1    
,werke1 ,,iii4 pp4 #dbb1 #dbe4 ,leipzig1
 #ahaf4   ,hylozoic ,theory4  ,this     
theory assumes the universe to be       
eternal4 ,there is nothing extra1 or    
antemundane4 ,there is but one          
substance1 and that substance is matter4
 ,matter1 however1 has an active and    
passive principle4 ,life and rationality
 are among its attributes or functions4 
,the universe1 therefore1 is a living   
whole pervaded by a principle not only  
of life but of intelligence4 ,this      
hylozoic doctrine1 some modern          
scientific men1 as ,professor ,tyndall1 

seem inclined to adopt4 ,they tell us   
that matter is not the dead and degraded
 thing it is commonly regarded4 ,it is  
active and transcendental4 ,what that   
means1 we do not know4 ,the word        
transcendental is like a parabola1 in   
that there is no knowing where its      
meaning ends4 ,to say that matter is    
transcendental1 is saying there is no   
telling what it is up to4 ,this habit of
 using words which have no definite     
meaning is very convenient to writers1  
but very much the reverse for readers4  
,some of the ancient ,stoics            
distinguished between the active and    
passive principles in the world1 calling
 the one mind1 the other1 matter4 ,these
 however were as intimately united as   
matter and life in a plant or animal4   
,theism in ,unscriptural ,forms4  ,there
 are men who are constrained to admit   
the being of ,god1 who depart from the  
,scriptural doctrine as to his relation 
to the world4 ,according to some1 ,god  
created matter and endowed it with      

certain properties1 and then left it to 
itself to work out1 without any         
interference or control on his part1 all
 possible results4 ,according to others1
 ,he created not only matter1 but life1 
or living germs1 one or more1 from which
 without any divine intervention all    
living organisms have been developed4   
,others1 again1 refer not only matter   
and life1 but mind also to the act of   
the ,creator2 but with creation his     
agency ceases4 ,he has no more to do    
with the world1 than a ship-builder has 
with the ship he has constructed1 when  
it is launched and far off upon the     
ocean4 ,according to all these views a  
creator is a mere ,deus ex machina1 an  
assumption to account for the origin of 
the universe4  ,another general view of 
,god's relation to the world goes to the
 opposite extreme4 ,instead of ,god     
doing nothing1 ,he does everything4     
,second causes have no efficiency4 ,the 
laws of nature are said to be the       
uniform modes of divine operation4      

,gravitation does not flow from the     
nature of matter1 but is a mode of      
,god's uniform efficiency4 ,what are    
called chemical affinities are not due  
to anything in different kinds of       
matter1 but ,god always acts in one way 
in connection with an acid1 and in      
another way in connection with an       
alkali4 ,if a man places a particle of  
salt or sugar on his tongue1 the        
sensation which he experiences is not to
 be referred to the salt or sugar1 but  
to ,god's agency4 ,when this theory is  
extended1 as it generally is by its     
advocates1 from the external to the     
internal world1 the universe of matter  
and mind1 with all their phenomena1 is a
 constant effect of the omnipresent     
activity of ,god4 ,the minds of some    
men1 as remarked above1 are so          
constituted that they can pass from the 
theory that ,god does nothing1 to the   
doctrine that ,he does everything1      
without seeing the difference4 ,mr4     
,russel ,wallace1 the companion and peer

 of ,mr4 ,darwin1 devotes a large part  
of his book on ,natural ,selection1 to  
prove that the organs of plants and     
animals are formed by blind physical    
causes4 ,toward the close of the volume 
he teaches that there are no such       
causes4 ,he asks the question1 ,what is 
,matter8 and answers1 ,nothing4 ,we     
know1 he says1 nothing but force2 and as
 the only force of which we have any    
immediate knowledge is mind-force1 the  
inference is that the whole universe is 
not merely dependent on1 but actually   
is1 the will of higher intelligences1 or
 of one ,supreme ,intelligence4#e ,this 
is a transition from virtual materialism
 to idealistic pantheism4 ,the effect of
 this admission on the part of ,mr4     
,wallace on the theory of natural       
selection1 is what an explosion of its  
boiler would be to a steamer in         
mid-ocean1 which should blow out its    
deck1 sides1 and bottom4 ,nothing would 
remain above water4  ,the ,duke of      
,argyll seems at times inclined to lapse

 into the same doctrine4 ,science1 he   
says1 in the modern doctrine of         
conservation of energy and the          
convertibility of forces1 is already    
getting a firm hold of the idea1 that   
all kinds of force are but forms of     
manifestations of one central force     
issuing from some one fountain-head of  
power4 ,sir ,john ,herschel has not     
hesitated to say1 'that it is but       
reasonable to regard the force of       
gravitation as the direct or indirect   
result of a consciousness or will       
existing somewhere4' ,and even if we    
cannot certainly identify force in all  
its forms with the direct energies of   
the one ,omnipresent and ,all-pervading 
,will1 it is at least in the highest    
degree unphilosophical to assert the    
contrary1--to think or to speak1 as if  
the forces of nature were either        
independent of1 or even separate from   
the ,creator's power4#f ,the ,duke1     
however1 in the general tenor of his    
book1 does not differ from the common   

doctrine1 except in one point4 ,he does 
not deny the efficiency of physical     
causes1 or resolve them all into the    
efficiency of ,god2 but he teaches that 
,god1 in this world at least1 never acts
 except through those causes4 ,he       
applies this doctrine even to miracles1 
which he regards as effects produced by 
second causes of which we are ignorant1 
that is1 by some higher law of nature4  
,the ,scriptures1 however1 teach that   
,god is not thus bound2 that ,he        
operates through second causes1 with    
them1 or without them1 as ,he sees fit4 
,it is a purely arbitrary assumption1   
that when ,christ raised the dead1      
healed the lepers1 or gave sight to the 
blind1 any second cause intervened      
between the effect and the efficiency of
 his will4 ,what physical law1 or       
uniformly acting force1 operated to make
 the axe float at the command of the    
prophet8 or1 in that greatest of all    
miracles1 the original creation of the  
world4  ,,footnotes3  #e ,the ,theory of

 ,natural ,selection4 ,by ,alfred       
,russel ,wallace4 ,london1 #ahgj1 p4    
#cfh4  #f ,reign of ,law4 ,by the ,duke 
of ,argyle4 ,fifth edition1 ,london1    
#ahfg1 p4 #abc4   ,mr4 ,darwin's        
,theory4  ,we have not forgotten ,mr4   
,darwin4 ,it seemed desirable1 in order 
to understand his theory1 to see its    
relation to other theories of the       
universe and its phenomena1 with which  
it is more or less connected4 ,his work 
on the ,origin of ,species does not     
purport to be philosophical4 ,in this   
aspect it is very different from the    
cognate works of ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,darwin 
does not speculate on the origin of the 
universe1 on the nature of matter1 or of
 force4 ,he is simply a naturalist1 a   
careful and laborious observer2 skillful
 in his descriptions1 and singularly    
candid in dealing with the difficulties 
in the way of his peculiar doctrine4 ,he
 set before himself a single problem1   
namely1 ,how are the fauna and flora of 
our earth to be accounted for8 ,in the  

solution of this problem1 he assumes3-- 
#a4 ,the existence of matter1 although  
he says little on the subject4 ,its     
existence however1 as a real entity1 is 
everywhere taken for granted4  #b4 ,he  
assumes the efficiency of physical      
causes1 showing no disposition to       
resolve them into mind-force1 or into   
the efficiency of the ,first ,cause4    
#c4 ,he assumes also the existence of   
life in the form of one or more         
primordial germs4 ,he does not adopt the
 theory of spontaneous generation4 ,what
 life is he does not attempt to explain1
 further than to quote 7p4 #cbf71 with  
approbation1 the definition of ,herbert 
,spencer1 who says1 ,life depends on1 or
 consists in1 the incessant action and  
reaction of various forces1--which      
conveys no very definite idea4  #d4 ,to 
account for the existence of matter and 
life1 ,mr4 ,darwin admits a ,creator4   
,this is done explicitly and repeatedly4
 ,nothing1 however1 is said of the      
nature of the ,creator and of his       

relation to the world1 further than is  
implied in the meaning of the word4  #e4
 ,from the primordial germ or germs     
7,mr4 ,darwin seems to have settled down
 to the assumption of only one          
primordial germ71 all living organisms1 
vegetable and animal1 including man1 on 
our globe1 through all the stages of its
 history1 have descended4  #f4 ,as      
growth1 organization1 and reproduction  
are the functions of physical life1 as  
soon as the primordial germ began to    
live1 it began to grow1 to fashion      
organs however simple1 for its          
nourishment and increase1 and for the   
reproduction1 in some way1 of living    
forms like itself4 ,how all living      
things on earth1 including the endless  
variety of plants1 and all the diversity
 of animals--insects1 fishes1 birds1 the
 ichthyosaurus1 the mastodon1 the       
mammoth1 and man--have descended from   
the primordial animalcule1 he thinks1   
may be accounted for by the operation of
 the following natural laws1 viz43--    

,first1 the law of ,heredity1 or that by
 which like begets like4 ,the offspring 
are like the parent4  ,second1 the law  
of ,variation1 that is1 while the       
offspring are1 in all essential         
characteristics1 like their immediate   
progenitor1 they nevertheless vary more 
or less within narrow limits1 from their
 parent and from each other4 ,some of   
these variations are indifferent1 some  
deteriorations1 some improvements1 that 
is1 they are such as enable the plant or
 animal to exercise its functions to    
greater advantage4  ,third1 the law of  
,over ,production4 ,all plants and      
animals tend to increase in a           
geometrical ratio2 and therefore tend to
 overrun enormously the means of        
support4 ,if all the seeds of a plant1  
all the spawn of a fish1 were to arrive 
at maturity1 in a very short time the   
world could not contain them4 ,hence of 
necessity arises a struggle for life4   
,only a few of the myriads born can     
possibly live4  ,fourth1 here comes in  

the law of ,natural ,selection1 or the  
,survival of the ,fittest4 ,that is1 if 
any individual of a given species of    
plant or animal happens to have a slight
 deviation from the normal type1        
favorable to its success in the struggle
 for life1 it will survive4 ,this       
variation1 by the law of heredity1 will 
be transmitted to its offspring1 and by 
them again to theirs4 ,soon these       
favored ones gain the ascendency1 and   
the less favored perish2 and the        
modification becomes established in the 
species4 ,after a time another and      
another of such favorable variations    
occur1 with like results4 ,thus very    
gradually1 great changes of structure   
are introduced1 and not only species1   
but genera1 families1 and orders in the 
vegetable and animal world1 are         
produced4 ,mr4 ,darwin says he can set  
no limit to the changes of structure1   
habits1 instincts1 and intelligence1    
which these simple laws in the course of
 millions or milliards of centuries may 

bring into existence4 ,he says1 we      
cannot comprehend what the figures      
#fj1jjj1jjj really imply1 and during    
this1 or perhaps a longer roll of years1
 the land and waters have everywhere    
teemed with living creatures1 all       
exposed to the struggle for life1 and   
undergoing change4 7p4 #ced74 ,mr4      
,croll1 he tells us1 estimates that     
about sixty millions of years have      
elapsed since the ,cambrian period1 but 
this1 judging from the small amount of  
organic change since the commencement of
 the glacial period1 seems a very short 
time for the many and the great         
mutations of life1 which have certainly 
occurred since the ,cambrian formation2 
and the previous one hundred and forty  
million years can hardly be considered  
as sufficient for the development of the
 varied forms of life which certainly   
existed toward the close of the         
,cambrian period4 7p4 #cgi74 ,years in  
this connection have no meaning4 ,we    
might as well try to give the distance  

of the fixed stars in inches4 ,as       
astronomers are obliged to take the     
diameter of the earth's orbit as the    
unit of space1 so ,darwinians are       
obliged to take a geological cycle as   
their unit of duration4   ,natural      
,selection4  ,as ,natural ,selection    
which works so slowly is a main element 
in ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 it is         
necessary to understand distinctly what 
he means by it4 ,on this point he leaves
 us no room for doubt4 ,on p4 #ib1 he   
says3 ,this preservation of favorable   
variations1 and the destruction of      
injurious variations1 ,i call ,natural  
,selection1 or1 the ,survival of the    
,fittest4 ,owing to the struggle 7for   
life7 variations1 however slight and    
from whatever cause proceeding1 if they 
be in any degree profitable to the      
individuals of a species1 in their      
infinitely complex relations to other   
organic beings and to their physical    
conditions of life1 will tend to the    
preservation of such individuals1 and   

will generally be inherited by their    
offspring4 ,the offspring also will thus
 have a better chance of surviving1 for1
 of the many individuals of any species 
which are periodically born1 but a small
 number can survive4 ,i have called this
 principle1 by which each slight        
variation1 if useful1 is preserved1 by  
the term ,natural ,selection1 in order  
to mark its relation to man's power of  
selection4 ,but the expression often    
used by ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer of the   
,survival of the ,fittest1 is more      
accurate1 and sometimes is equally      
convenient4 7p4 #gb74 ,slow though the  
progress of selection may be1 if feeble 
man can do so much by artificial        
selection1 ,i can see no limit to the   
amount of change1 to the beauty and     
infinite complexity of the              
co-adaptations between all organic      
beings1 one with another1 and with their
 physical conditions of life1 which may 
be effected in the long course of time  
by nature's power of selection1 or the  

survival of the fittest4 7p4 #abe74 ,it 
may be objected that if organic beings  
thus tend to rise in the scale1 how is  
it that throughout the world a multitude
 of the lowest forms still exist2 and   
how is it that in each great class some 
forms are far more highly developed than
 others8444 ,on our theory the          
continuous existence of lowly forms     
offers no difficulty2 for natural       
selection1 or the survival of the       
fittest1 does not necessarily include   
progressive development1 it only takes  
advantage of such variations as arise   
and are beneficial to each creature     
under its complex relations of life4444 
,geology tells us that some of the      
lowest forms1 the infusoria and         
rhizopods1 have remained for an enormous
 period in nearly their present state4  
7p4 #ade74 ,the fact of little or no    
modification having been effected since 
the glacial period would be of some     
avail against those who believe in an   
innate and necessary law of development1

 but is powerless against the doctrine  
of natural selection1 or the survival of
 the fittest1 which implies only that   
variations or individual differences of 
a favorable nature occasionally arise in
 a few species and are then preserved4  
7p4 #adi7  ,this process of improvement 
under the law of natural selection      
includes not only changes in the organic
 structure of animals1 but also in their
 instincts and intelligence4 ,on        
entering on this part of his subject1   
,mr4 ,darwin says1 ,i would premise that
 ,i have nothing to do with the origin  
of the primary mental powers1 any more  
than ,i have with that of life itself4  
,we are concerned only with the         
diversities of instinct and of other    
mental qualities within the same class4 
7p4 #bee7 ,he shows that even in a state
 of nature the instincts of animals of  
the same species do in some degree vary1
 and that they are transmitted by       
inheritance4 ,a mastiff has imparted    
courage to a greyhound1 and a greyhound 

has transmitted to a shepherd-dog a     
disposition to hunt hares4 ,among       
sporting dogs1 the young of the pointer 
or retriever have been known to point or
 to retrieve without instruction4 ,if1  
he says1 it can be shown that instincts 
do vary ever so little1 then ,i can see 
no difficulty in natural selection      
preserving and continually accumulating 
variations of instinct to any extent    
that was profitable4 ,it is thus1 as ,i 
believe1 that all the most complex and  
wonderful instincts have arisen4 7p4    
#beg7 ,he was rather unguarded in saying
 that he saw no difficulty in accounting
 for the most wonderful instincts of    
animals4 ,he admits that he has found   
very great difficulty4 ,he selects three
 cases which he found it specially hard 
to deal with3 that of the cuckoo1 that  
of the cell-building bee1 and of the    
slave-making ant4 ,he devotes much space
 and labor in endeavoring to show how   
the instinct of the bee1 for example1 in
 the construction of its cell1 might    

have been gradually acquired4 ,it is    
clear1 however1 that he was not able    
fully to satisfy even his own mind2 for 
he admits that it will be thought that  
,i have an over-weening confidence in   
the principle of natural selection1 when
 ,i do not admit that such wonderful and
 well established facts do not          
annihilate the theory4 7p4 #bij7 ,this  
remark was made with special reference  
to the instincts of the ant1 which he   
finds very hard to account for4 ,he     
adds1 ,no doubt many instincts of very  
difficult explanation could be opposed  
to the theory of natural selection3     
cases in which we cannot see how an     
instinct could possibly have originated2
 cases in which no intermediate         
gradations are known to exist2 cases of 
instinct of such trifling importance    
that they could hardly have been acted  
upon by natural selection2 cases of     
instincts almost identically the same in
 animals so remote in the scale of      
nature1 that we cannot account for their

 similarity by inheritance from a common
 progenitor1 and consequently cannot    
believe that they were independently    
acquired through natural selection4 ,i  
will not here enter on those cases1 but 
will confine myself to one special      
difficulty which at first appeared to me
 insuperable1 and actually fatal to the 
whole theory4 ,i allude to neuters1 or  
sterile females in insect communities2  
for these neuters often differ widely in
 instinct and structure from both the   
males and the fertile females1 and yet1 
from being sterile1 they cannot         
propagate their kind4 7p4 #bhi7 ,he is  
candid enough to say1 in conclusion1 ,i 
do not pretend that the facts given in  
this chapter 7on instinct7 strengthen in
 any great degree my theory2 but none of
 the cases of difficulty1 to the best of
 my judgment1 annihilate it4 7p4 #big7  
,when it is remembered that his theory  
is1 that slight variations occurring in 
an individual advantageous to it 7not to
 its associates71 in the struggle for   

life1 is perpetuated by inheritance1 it 
is no wonder that the case of sterile   
ants gave him so much trouble4          
,accidental sterility is not favorable  
to the individual1 and its being made   
permanent by inheritance1 is out of the 
question1 for the sterile have no       
descendants4 ,yet these sterile females 
are not degenerations1 they are in      
general larger and more robust than     
their associates4  ,we have thus seen   
that1 according to ,mr4 ,darwin1 all the
 infinite variety of structure in plants
 and animals is due to the law of       
natural selection4 ,on the principle of 
natural selection with divergence of    
character1 he says1 it does not seem    
incredible that1 from some such low and 
intermediate form1 both animals and     
plants have been developed1 and if we   
admit this1 we must likewise admit that 
all the organized beings which have ever
 lived on this earth may be descended   
from some one primordial form4 7p4 #egc7
 ,we have seen also that he does not    

confine his theory to organic structure1
 but applies it to all the instincts and
 all the forms of intelligence          
manifested by irrational creatures4 ,nor
 does he stop there2 he includes man    
within the sweep of the same law4 ,in   
the distant future ,i see open fields   
for far more important researches4      
,psychology will be based on a new      
foundation1 that of the necessary       
acquirement of each mental power and    
capacity by gradation4 ,light will be   
thrown on the origin of man and his     
history4 7p4 #egg7  ,the distant future 
was near at hand4 ,in his introduction  
to his work on the ,descent of ,man1 he 
says1 he had determined not to publish  
on that subject1 as ,i thought that ,i  
should thus only add to the prejudices  
against my views4 ,it seemed to me      
sufficient to indicate1 in the first    
edition of my ',origin of ,species1'    
that by this work 'light would be thrown
 on the origin of man and his history2' 
and this implies that man must be       

included with other organic beings in   
any general conclusion respecting his   
manner of appearance on this earth4 ,now
 the case wears a wholly different      
aspect4 ,when a naturalist like ,carl   
,vogt 7we shall see in what follows what
 kind of a witness he is7 ventures to   
say in his address as ,president of the 
,national ,institution of ,geneva       
7#ahfi71 ',personne1 en ,europe au      
moins1 n'ose plus soutenir la cration   
indpendante et de toutes pices1 des     
espces1'--it is manifest that at least a
 large number of naturalists must admit 
that species are the modified           
descendants of other species2 and this  
especially holds good of the younger and
 rising naturalists4444 ,of the older   
and honored chiefs in natural science1  
many unfortunately are still opposed to 
evolution in every form4 ,carl ,vogt    
would not write thus4 ,to him no man is 
honored who does agree with him1 and any
 man who believes in ,god he execrates4 
,in #ahga1 ,mr4 ,darwin ventured on the 

publication of his ,descent of ,man4 ,in
 that work1 he endeavors to show that   
the proximate progenitor of man is the  
ape4 ,he says there is less difference  
of structure between the two1 than      
between the higher and lower forms of   
apes themselves4 ,not only so1 but he   
attempts to show that the mental        
faculties of man are derived by slight  
variations1 long continued1 from the    
measure of intellect possessed by lower 
animals4 ,he even says1 that there is   
less difference in intelligence between 
man and the higher mammals1 than there  
is between the intelligence of the ant  
and that of the coccus1 insects of the  
same class4#g  ,in like manner he       
teaches that man's moral nature has been
 evolved by slow degrees from the social
 instincts common to many animals4 7pp4 
#fh1 #id7 ,the moral element1 thus      
derived1 he admits might lead to very   
different lines of conduct4 ,if men1 he 
says1 were reared under the same        
conditions as hives-bees1 there can     

hardly be a doubt1 that our unmarried   
females would1 like the worker-bees1    
think it a sacred duty to kill all their
 brothers1 and mothers would strive to  
kill their fertile daughters2 and no one
 would think of interfering4 7vol4 i4 p4
 #gj7  ,lower animals1 especially the   
dog1 manifest love1 reverence1 fidelity1
 and obedience2 and it is from these    
elements that the religious sentiment in
 man has been slowly evolved by a       
process of natural selection4 7vol4 i4  
p4 #fe7  ,the grand conclusion is1 man  
7body1 soul1 and spirit7 is descended   
from a hairy quadruped1 furnished with a
 tail and pointed ears1 probably        
arboreal in its habits1 and an          
inhabitant of the ,old ,world4 7vol4 ii4
 p4 #cgb7 ,mr4 ,darwin adds3 ,he who    
denounces these views 7as irreligious7  
is bound to explain why it is more      
irreligious to explain the origin of man
 as a distinct species by descent from  
some lower form1 through the laws of    
variation and natural selection1 than to

 explain the birth of the individual    
through the laws of ordinary            
reproduction4 7vol4 ii4 p4 #cgh7        
,,footnote3  #g ,descent of ,man1 etc4  
,by ,charles ,darwin1 ,m4 ,a41 ,f4 ,r4  
,s41 etc4 ,new ,york1 #ahga1 vol4 i4 p4 
#agi4   ,the ,sense in which ,mr4       
,darwin uses the ,word ,natural4  ,we   
have not yet reached the heart of ,mr4  
,darwin's theory4 ,the main idea of his 
system lies in the word natural4 ,he    
uses that word in two senses3 first1 as 
antithetical to the word artificial4    
,men can produce very marked varieties  
as to structure and habits of animals4  
,this is exemplified in the production  
of the different breeds of horses1      
cattle1 sheep1 and dogs2 and specially1 
as ,mr4 ,darwin seems to think1 in the  
case of pigeons4 ,of these1 he says1    
,the diversity of breeds is something   
astonishing4 ,some have long1 and some  
very short bills2 some have large feet1 
some small2 some long necks1 others long
 wings and tails1 while others have     

singularly short tails2 some have       
thirty1 and even forty1 tail-feathers1  
instead of the normal number of twelve  
or fourteen4 ,they differ as much in    
instinct as they do in form4 ,some are  
carriers1 some pouters1 some tumblers1  
some trumpeters2 and yet all are        
descendants of the ,rock ,pigeon which  
is still extant4 ,if1 then1 he argues1  
man1 in a comparatively short time1 has 
by artificial selection produced all    
these varieties1 what might be          
accomplished on the boundless scale of  
nature1 during the measureless ages of  
the geologic periods4  ,secondly1 he    
uses the word natural as antithetical to
 supernatural4 ,natural selection is a  
selection made by natural laws1 working 
without intention and design4 ,it is1   
therefore1 opposed not only to          
artificial selection1 which is made by  
the wisdom and skill of man to          
accomplish a given purpose1 but also to 
supernatural selection1 which means     
either a selection originally intended  

by a power higher than nature2 or which 
is carried out by such power4 ,in using 
the expression ,natural ,selection1 ,mr4
 ,darwin intends to exclude design1 or  
final causes4 ,all the changes in       
structure1 instinct1 or intelligence1 in
 the plants or animals1 including man1  
descended from the primordial germ1 or  
animalcule1 have been brought about by  
unintelligent physical causes4 ,on this 
point he leaves us in no doubt4 ,he     
defines nature to be the aggregate      
action and product of natural laws2 and 
laws are the sequence of events as      
ascertained by us4 ,it had been objected
 that he often uses teleological        
language1 speaking of purpose1          
intention1 contrivance1 adaptation1 etc4
 ,in answer to this objection1 he says3 
,it has been said1 that ,i speak of     
natural selection as a power or deity2  
but who objects to an author speaking of
 the attraction of gravity as ruling the
 movements of the planet8 ,he admits    
that in the literal sense of the words1 

natural selection is a false term2 but  
who ever objected to chemists1 speaking 
of the elective affinities of various   
elements8--and yet an acid cannot       
strictly be said to elect the base with 
which it in preference combines4 7p4    
#ic7 ,we have here an affirmation and a 
negation4 ,it is affirmed that natural  
selection is the operation of natural   
laws1 analogous to the action of        
gravitation and of chemical affinities4 
,it is denied that it is a process      
originally designed1 or guided by       
intelligence1 such as the activity which
 foresees an end and consciously selects
 and controls the means of its          
accomplishment4 ,artificial selection1  
then1 is an intelligent process2 natural
 selection is not4  ,there are in the   
animal and vegetable worlds innumerable 
instances of at least apparent          
contrivance1 which have excited the     
admiration of men in all ages4 ,there   
are three ways of accounting for them4  
,the first is the ,scriptural doctrine1 

namely1 that ,god is a ,spirit1 a       
personal1 self-conscious1 intelligent   
agent2 that ,he is infinite1 eternal1   
and unchangeable in his being and       
perfections2 that ,he is ever present2  
that this presence is a presence of     
knowledge and power4 ,in the external   
world there is always and everywhere    
indisputable evidence of the activity of
 two kinds of force3 the one physical1  
the other mental4 ,the physical belongs 
to matter1 and is due to the properties 
with which it has been endowed2 the     
other is the everywhere present and ever
 acting mind of ,god4 ,to the latter are
 to be referred all the manifestations  
of design in nature1 and the ordering of
 events in ,providence4 ,this doctrine  
does not ignore the efficiency of second
 causes2 it simply asserts that ,god    
over-rules and controls them4 ,thus the 
,psalmist says1 ,i am fearfully and     
wonderfully made4444 ,my substance was  
not hid from thee1 when ,i was made in  
secret1 and curiously wrought 7or       

embroidered7 in the lower parts of the  
earth4 ,thine eyes did see my substance 
yet being imperfect2 and in thy book all
 my members were written1 which in      
continuance were fashioned1 when as yet 
there were none of them4 ,he who        
fashioned the eye1 shall not ,he see8   
,he that formed the ear shall not ,he   
hear8 ,god makes the grass to grow1 and 
herbs for the children of men4 ,he sends
 rain1 frost1 and snow4 ,he controls the
 winds and the waves4 ,he determines the
 casting of the lot1 the flight of an   
arrow1 and the falling of a sparrow4    
,this universal and constant control of 
,god is not only one of the most patent 
and pervading doctrines of the ,bible1  
but it is one of the fundamental        
principles of even natural religion4    
,the second method of accounting for    
contrivances in nature admits that they 
were foreseen and purposed by ,god1 and 
that ,he endowed matter with forces     
which ,he foresaw and intended should   
produce such results4 ,but here his     

agency stops4 ,he never interferes to   
guide the operation of physical causes4 
,he does nothing to control the course  
of nature1 or the events of history4 ,on
 this theory it may be said1 7#a47 ,that
 it is utterly inconsistent with the    
,scriptures4 7#b47 ,it does not meet the
 religious and moral necessities of our 
nature4 ,it renders prayer irrational   
and inoperative4 ,it makes it vain for a
 man in any emergency to look to ,god   
for help4 7#c47 ,it is inconsistent with
 obvious facts4 ,we see around us       
innumerable evidences of the constant   
activity of mind4 ,this evidence of mind
 and of its operations1 according to    
,lord ,brougham and ,dr4 ,whewell1 is   
far more clear than that of the         
existence of matter and of its forces4  
,if one or the other is to be denied1 it
 is the latter rather than the former4  
,paley indeed says1 that if the         
construction of a watch be an undeniable
 evidence of design it would be a still 
more wonderful manifestation of skill1  

if a watch could be made to produce     
other watches2 and1 it may be added1 not
 only other watches1 but all kinds of   
time-pieces in endless variety4 ,so it  
has been asked1 if man can make a       
telescope1 why cannot ,god make a       
telescope which produces others like    
itself8 ,this is simply asking1 whether 
matter can be made to do the work of    
mind8 ,the idea involves a              
contradiction4 ,for a telescope to make 
a telescope1 supposes it to select      
copper and zinc in due proportions and  
fuse them into brass2 to fashion that   
brass into inter-entering tubes2 to     
collect and combine the requisite       
materials for the different kinds of    
glass needed2 to melt them1 grind1      
fashion1 and polish them2 adjust their  
densities and focal distances1 etc41    
etc4 ,a man who can believe that brass  
can do all this1 might as well believe  
in ,god4 ,the most credulous men in the 
world are unbelievers4 ,the great       
,napoleon could not believe in          

,providence2 but he believed in his     
star1 and in lucky and unlucky days4    
,this banishing ,god from the world is  
simply intolerable1 and1 blessed be his 
name1 impossible4 ,an absent ,god who   
does nothing is1 to us1 no ,god4 ,christ
 brings ,god constantly near to us4 ,he 
said to his disciples1 ,consider the    
ravens1 for they neither sow nor reap2  
which have neither store-house nor barn2
 and ,god feedeth them2 how much better 
are ye than the fowls4 ,and which of you
 by taking thought can add to his       
stature one cubit8 ,consider the lilies 
how they grow2 they toil not1 neither do
 they spin2 and yet ,i say unto you that
 ,solomon in all his glory was not      
arrayed like one of these4 ,if then ,god
 so clothe the grass1 which is to-day in
 the field1 and to-morrow is cast into  
the oven2 how much more will ,he clothe 
you1 ,o ye of little faith4 ,and seek ye
 not what ye shall eat1 or what ye shall
 drink1 neither be ye of doubtful mind4 
,for all these things do the nations of 

the world seek after2 and your ,father  
knoweth that ye have need of these      
things4 ,it may be said that ,christ did
 not teach science4 ,true1 but ,he      
taught truth2 and science1 so called1   
when it comes in conflict with truth1 is
 what man is when he comes in conflict  
with ,god4  ,the advocates of these     
extreme opinions protest against being  
considered irreligious4 ,herbert        
,spencer says1 that his doctrine of an  
inscrutable1 unintelligent1 unknown     
force1 as the cause of all things1 is a 
much more religious doctrine than that  
of a personal1 intelligent1 and         
voluntary ,being of infinite power and  
goodness4 ,matthew ,arnold holds that an
 unconscious power which makes for      
right1 is a higher idea of ,god than the
 ,jehovah of the ,bible4 ,christ says1  
,god is a ,spirit4 ,holbach thought that
 he made a great advance on that        
definition1 when he said1 ,god is       
motion4  ,the third method of accounting
 for the contrivances manifested in the 

organs of plants and animals1 is that   
which refers them to the blind operation
 of natural causes4 ,they are not due to
 the continued coperation and control of
 the divine mind1 nor to the original   
purpose of ,god in the constitution of  
the universe4 ,this is the doctrine of  
the ,materialists1 and to this doctrine1
 we are sorry to say1 ,mr4 ,darwin1     
although himself a theist1 has given in 
his adhesion4 ,it is on this account the
 ,materialists almost deify him4  ,from 
what has been said1 it appears that     
,darwinism includes three distinct      
elements4 ,first1 evolution2 or the     
assumption that all organic forms1      
vegetable and animal1 have been evolved 
or developed from one1 or a few1        
primordial living germs2 second1 that   
this evolution has been effected by     
natural selection1 or the survival of   
the fittest2 and third1 and by far the  
most important and only distinctive     
element of his theory1 that this natural
 selection is without design1 being     

conducted by unintelligent physical     
causes4 ,neither the first nor the      
second of these elements constitute     
,darwinism2 nor do the two combined4 ,as
 to the first1 namely1 evolution1 ,mr4  
,darwin himself1 in the historical      
sketch prefixed to the fifth edition of 
his ,origin of ,species1 says1 that     
,lamarck1 in #ahaa and more fully in    
#ahae1 taught that all species1         
including man1 are descended from other 
species4 ,he refers to some six or eight
 other scientists1 as teaching the same 
doctrine4 ,this idea of ,evolution was  
prominently presented and elaborated in 
the ,vestiges of ,creation1 first       
published in #ahdd4 ,ulrici1 ,professor 
in the ,university of ,halle1 ,germany1 
in his work ,gott und die ,natur1 says  
that the doctrine of evolution took no  
hold on the minds of scientific men1 but
 was positively rejected by the most    
eminent physiologists1 among whom he    
mentions ,j4 ,mller1 ,k4 ,wagner1       
,bischoff1 ,hoffmann1 and others4#h ,the

 ,rev4 ,george ,henslow1 ,lecturer on   
,botany at ,st4 ,bartholomew's          
,hospital1 ,london1 himself a pronounced
 evolutionist1 says the theories of     
,lamarck and of the ,vestiges of        
,creation have given place to that of   
,mr4 ,darwin2 and there are not wanting 
many symptoms of decay in the acceptance
 even of his4 ,not only has he          
considerably modified his views in later
 editions of the ',origin of ,species1' 
distinctly expressing the opinion that  
he attributed too great influence to    
natural selection1 but even men of      
science1 ,owen1 ,huxley1--and at least  
in its application to man1 ,wallace     
himself1--are either opposed to it in   
great measure1 or else give it but a    
qualified assent4 ,thus1 it has been the
 fate of all theories of the development
 of living things to lapse into         
oblivion4 ,evolution itself1 however1   
will stand the same4#i ,we find in the  
,transactions of the ,victoria          
,institute1 a still more decided        

repudiation of ,darwinism on the part of
 ,mr4 ,henslow4 ,he there says3 ,i do   
not believe in ,darwin's theory2 and    
have endeavored to refute it by showing 
its utter impossibility4#aj ,he defines 
,evolution by saying1 ,it supposes all  
animals and plants that exist now1 or   
have ever existed1 to have been produced
 through laws of generation from        
prexisting animals and plants           
respectively2 that affinity amongst     
organic beings implies1 or is due to    
community of descent2 and that the      
degree of affinity between organisms is 
in proportion to their nearness of      
generation1 or1 at least1 to the        
persistence of common characters1 they  
being the products of originally the    
same parentage4#aa ,a man1 therefore1   
may be an evolutionist1 without being a 
,darwinian4 ,it should be mentioned that
 ,mr4 ,henslow expressly excludes man1  
both as to body and soul1 from the law  
of evolution4  ,nor is the theory of    
natural selection the vital principle of

 ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 unless the word 
natural be taken in a sense antithetical
 to supernatural4 ,in the historical    
sketch just referred to1 ,mr4 ,darwin   
not only says that he had been          
anticipated in teaching the doctrine of 
,evolution by ,lamarck and the author of
 the ,vestiges of ,creation2 but that   
the theory of natural selection1 as the 
means of accounting for evolution1 was  
not original with him4 ,he tells us that
 as early as #ahac1 ,dr4 ,w4 ,c4 ,wells 
distinctly recognizes the principle of  
natural selection2 and that ,mr4        
,patrick ,matthew1 in #ahca1 gives      
precisely the same view of the origin of
 species as that propounded by ,mr4     
,wallace and myself4 ,ideas are like    
seed3 they are often cast forth1 and not
 finding a congenial soil produce no    
fruit4 ,to ,mr4 ,darwin is undoubtedly  
due the elaboration and thoroughly      
scientific defence of the theory of     
natural selection1 and to him is to be  
referred the deep and widespread        

interest which it has excited4          
,,footnotes3  #h ,gott und die ,natur4  
,von ,d4 ,hermann ,ulrici4 ,zweite      
,auflage4 ,leipzig1 #ahff1 p4 #cid4  #i 
,the ,theory of ,evolution of ,living   
,things and the ,application of the     
,principles of ,evolution to ,religion4 
,by ,rev4 ,george ,henslow1 ,m4 ,a41 ,f4
 ,l4 ,s41 ,f4 ,g4 ,s4 ,london1 #ahgc1   
pp4 #bg1 #bh4  #aj ,journal of the      
,transactions of the ,victoria          
,institute1 or ,philosophical ,society  
of ,great ,britain4 ,vol4 iv4 ,london1  
#ahgj1 p4 #bgh4  #aa ,evolution and     
,religion1 p4 #bi4   ,darwinism excludes
 ,teleology4  ,it is however neither    
evolution nor natural selection1 which  
give ,darwinism its peculiar character  
and importance4 ,it is that ,darwin     
rejects all teleology1 or the doctrine  
of final causes4 ,he denies design in   
any of the organisms in the vegetable or
 animal world4 ,he teaches that the eye 
was formed without any purpose of       
producing an organ of vision4  ,although

 evidence on this point has already been
 adduced1 yet as it is often overlooked1
 at least in this country1 so that many 
men speak favorably of ,mr4 ,darwin's   
theory1 who are no more ,darwinians than
 they are ,mussulmans2 and as it is this
 feature of his system which brings it  
into conflict not only with             
,christianity1 but with the fundamental 
principles of natural religion1 it      
should be clearly established4 ,the     
sources of proof on this point          
are1--#ast4 ,mr4 ,darwin's own writings4
 #b;d4 ,the expositions of his theory   
given by its advocates4 #c;d4 ,the      
character of the objections urged by its
 opponents4  ,the point to be proved is 
that it is the distinctive doctrine of  
,mr4 ,darwin1 that species owe their    
origin1 not to the original intention of
 the divine mind2 not to special acts of
 creation calling new forms into        
existence at certain epochs2 not to the 
constant and everywhere operative       
efficiency of ,god1 guiding physical    

causes in the production of intended    
effects2 but to the gradual accumulation
 of unintended variations of structure  
and instinct1 securing some advantage to
 their subjects4   ,darwin's own        
,testimony4  ,that such is ,mr4         
,darwin's doctrine we prove from his own
 writings4 ,and the first proof from    
that source is found in express         
declarations4 ,when an idea pervades a  
book and constitutes its character1     
detached passages constitute a very     
small part of the evidence of its being 
inculcated4 ,in the present case1       
however1 such passages are sufficient to
 satisfy even those who have not had    
occasion to read ,mr4 ,darwin's books4  
,in referring to the similarity of      
structure in animals of the same class1 
he says1 ,nothing can be more hopeless  
than to attempt to explain this         
similarity of pattern in members of the 
same class1 by utility or the doctrine  
of final causes4#ab  ,on the last page  
of his work1 he says3 ,it is interesting

 to contemplate a tangled bank1 clothed 
with many plants of many kinds1 with    
birds singing on the bushes1 with       
various insects flitting about1 and with
 worms crawling through the damp earth1 
and to reflect that these elaborately   
constructed forms1 so different from    
each other1 and dependent on each other 
in so complex a manner1 have all been   
produced by laws acting around us4      
,these laws1 taken in the largest sense1
 being growth with reproduction2        
variability from the indirect and direct
 action of the conditions of life1 and  
from use and disuse2 a ratio of increase
 so high as to lead to a struggle for   
life1 and as a consequence to natural   
selection1 entailing divergence of      
character and extinction of less        
improved forms4 ,thus from the war of   
nature1 from famine and death1 the most 
exalted object which we are capable of  
conceiving1 the production of the higher
 animals directly follows4 ,there is a  
grandeur in this view of life1 with its 

several powers1 having been originally  
breathed by the ,creator into a few     
forms or into one2 and that whilst this 
planet has gone cycling on according to 
the fixed law of gravity1 from so simple
 a beginning endless forms most         
beautiful and most wonderful have been1 
and are being evolved4 7p4 #egi7  ,in   
another of his works1 he asks1 ,did ,he 
7,god7 ordain that crop and             
tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary1
 in order that the fancier might make   
his grotesque pouter and fan-tail       
breeds8 ,did ,he cause the frame and    
mental qualities of the dog to vary1 in 
order that a breed might be formed of   
indomitable ferocity1 with jaws fitted  
to pin down the bull1 for man's brutal  
sport8 ,but if we give up the principle 
in one case2 if we do not admit that the
 variations of the primeval dog were    
intentionally guided in order1 for      
instance1 that the greyhound1 that      
perfect image of symmetry and vigor1    
might be formed2 no shadow of reason can

 be assigned for the belief that        
variations1 alike in nature and the     
results of the same general laws1 which 
have been the groundwork through natural
 selection of the most perfectly adapted
 animals in the world1 man included1    
were intentionally and specially guided4
 ,however much we may wish it1 we can   
hardly follow ,professor ,asa ,gray1 in 
his belief 'that variations have been   
led along certain beneficial lines1 as a
 stream is led along useful lines of    
irrigation4'#ac  ,variations1 which by  
their gradual accumulation give rise to 
new species1 genera1 families1 and      
orders1 are themselves1 step by step1   
accidental4 ,mr4 ,darwin sometimes says 
they happen by chance2 sometimes he says
 they happen of necessity2 at others he 
says1 ,we are profoundly ignorant of    
their causes4 ,these are only different 
ways of saying that they are not        
intentional4 ,when a man lets anything  
fall from his hands1 and says it was    
accidental1 he does not mean that it was

 causeless1 he only means that it was   
not intentional4 ,and that is precisely 
what ,darwin means when he says that    
species arise out of accidental         
variations4 ,his whole book is an       
argument against teleology4 ,the whole  
question is1 ,how are we to account for 
the innumerable varieties1 kinds1 and   
genera of plants and animals1 including 
man8 ,were they intended8 or1 ,did they 
arise from the gradual accumulations of 
unintentional variations8 ,his answer to
 these questions is plain4 ,on page     
#bde1 he says3 ,nothing at first can    
appear more difficult to believe than   
that the more complex organs and        
instincts have been perfected not by    
means superior to1 though analogous     
with1 human reason1 but by innumerable  
slight variations1 each good for the    
individual possessor4 ,nevertheless1    
this difficulty1 though appearing to our
 imagination#ad insuperably great1      
cannot be considered real1 if we admit  
the following propositions1 namely1 that

 all parts of the organizations and     
instincts offer1 at least1 individual   
differences2 that there is a struggle   
for existence1 which leads to the       
preservation of profitable deviations of
 structure or instinct2 and1 lastly1    
that gradations in the state of         
perfection of each organ may have       
existed1 each good of its kind4 ,he     
says1 over and over1 that if beauty or  
any variation of structure can be shown 
to be intended1 it would annihilate his 
theory4 ,his doctrine is that such      
unintended variations1 which happen to  
be useful in the struggle for life1 are 
preserved1 on the principle of the      
survival of the fittest4 ,he urges the  
usual objections to teleology derived   
from undeveloped or useless organs1 as  
web-feet in the upland goose and        
frigate-bird1 which never swim4  ,what1 
however1 perhaps more than anything1    
makes clear his rejection of design is  
the manner in which he deals with the   
complicated organs of plants and        

animals4 ,why don't he say1 they are the
 product of the divine intelligence8 ,if
 ,god made them1 it makes no difference1
 so far as the question of design is    
concerned1 how ,he made them3 whether at
 once or by a process of evolution4 ,but
 instead of referring them to the       
purpose of ,god1 he laboriously         
endeavors to prove that they may be     
accounted for without any design or     
purpose whatever4  ,to suppose1 he says1
 that the eye with all its inimitable   
contrivances for adjusting the focus to 
different distances1 for admitting      
different degrees of light1 and for the 
correction of spherical and chromatic   
aberration1 could have been formed by   
natural selection1 seems1 ,i freely     
confess1 absurd in the highest degree4  
7p4 #bbb7 ,nevertheless he attempts to  
explain the process4 ,it is scarcely    
possible1 he says1 to avoid comparing   
the eye with the telescope4 ,we know    
that this instrument has been perfected 
by the long continued efforts of the    

highest of human intellects2 and we     
naturally infer that the eye has been   
formed by a somewhat analogous process4 
,but may not this inference be          
presumptuous8 ,have we any right to     
assume that the ,creator works by       
intellectual powers like those of man8  
,if we must compare the eye to an       
optical instrument1 we ought in         
imagination to take a thick layer of    
transparent tissue1 with spaces filled  
with fluid1 and with a nerve sensitive  
to light beneath1 and then suppose every
 part of this layer to be continually   
changing slowly in density1 so as to    
separate into layers of different       
densities and thicknesses1 placed at    
different distances from each other1 and
 with the surfaces of each layer slowly 
changing in form4 ,further1 we must     
suppose that there is a power           
represented by natural selection1 or the
 survival of the fittest1 always        
intently watching each slight alteration
 in the transparent layers1 and         

carefully preserving each1 which1 under 
varied circumstances1 tends to produce a
 distinct image4 ,we must suppose each  
new state of the instrument to be       
multiplied by the million2 each to be   
preserved until a better is produced1   
and the old ones to be all destroyed4   
,in living bodies1 variations will cause
 the slight alterations1 generation will
 multiply them almost infinitely1 and   
natural selection will pick out with    
unerring skill each improvement4#ae 7p4 
#bbf7 ,let this process1 he says1 go on 
for millions of years1 and we shall at  
last have a perfect eye4  ,it would be  
absurd to say anything disrespectful of 
such a man as ,mr4 ,darwin1 and scarcely
 less absurd to indulge in any mere     
extravagance of language2 yet we are    
expressing our own experience1 when we  
say that we regard ,mr4 ,darwin's books 
the best refutation of ,mr4 ,darwin's   
theory4 ,he constantly shuts us up to   
the alternative of believing that the   
eye is a work of design or the product  

of the unintended action of blind       
physical causes4 ,to any ordinarily     
constituted mind1 it is absolutely      
impossible to believe that it is not a  
work of design4 ,darwin himself1 it is  
evident1 dear as his theory is1 can     
hardly believe it4 ,it is indispensable1
 he says1 to arrive at a just conclusion
 as to the formation of the eye1 that   
the reason should conquer the           
imagination2 but ,i have felt the       
difficulty far too keenly to be         
surprised at any degree of hesitation in
 extending the principle of natural     
selection to so startling an extent4 7p4
 #bbe7  ,it will be observed that every 
step in his account of the formation of 
the eye is an arbitrary assumption4 ,we 
must first assume a thick layer of      
tissue2 then that the tissue is         
transparent2 then that it has cavities  
filled with fluid2 that beneath the     
tissue is a nerve sensitive to light2   
then that the fluid is constantly       
varying in density and thickness2 that  

its surfaces are constantly changing    
their contour2 that its different       
portions are ever shifting their        
relative distances2 that every favorable
 change is seized upon and rendered     
permanent1--thus after millions of years
 we may get an eye as perfect as that of
 an eagle4 ,in like manner we may       
suppose a man to sit down to account for
 the origin and contents of the ,bible1 
assuming as his working hypothesis1 that
 it is not the product of mind either   
human or divine1 but that it was made by
 a type-setting machine worked by steam1
 and picking out type hap-hazard4 ,in   
this way in a thousand years one        
sentence might be produced1 in another  
thousand a second1 and in ten thousand  
more1 the two might get together in the 
right position4 ,thus in the course of  
millions of years the ,bible might have 
been produced1 with all its historical  
details1 all its elevated truths1 all   
its devout and sublime poetry1 and above
 all with the delineation of the        

character of ,christ1 the ,greek3 idea  
tn iden1 the ideal of majesty and       
loveliness1 before which the whole      
world1 believing and unbelieving1       
perforce bows down in reverence4 ,and   
when reason has sufficiently subdued the
 imagination to admit all this1 then by 
the same theory we may account for all  
the books in all languages in all the   
libraries in the world4 ,thus we should 
have ,darwinism applied in the sphere of
 literature4 ,this is the theory which  
we are told is to sweep away            
,christianity and the ,church6  ,mr4    
,darwin gives the same unsatisfactory   
account of the marvellous contrivances  
in the vegetable world4 ,in one species 
of ,orchids1 the labellum or lower lip  
is hollowed into a great bucket         
continually filled with water1 secreted 
from two horns which stand above it2    
when the bucket is sufficiently filled1 
the water flows out through a pipe or   
spout on one side4 ,the bees1 which     
crowd into the flower for sake of the   

nectar1 jostle each other1 so that some 
fall into the water2 and their wings    
becoming wet they are unable to fly1 and
 are obliged to crawl through the spout4
 ,in doing this they come in contact    
with the pollen1 which1 adhering to     
their backs1 is carried off to other    
flowers4 ,this complicated contrivance  
by which the female plants are          
fertilized has1 according to the theory1
 been brought about by the slow process 
of natural selection or survival of the 
fittest4  ,still more wonderful is the  
arrangement in another species of       
,orchids4 ,when the bee begins to gnaw  
the labellum1 he unavoidably touches a  
tapering projection1 which1 when        
touched1 transmits a vibration which    
ruptures a membrane1 which sets free a  
spring by which a mass of pollen is     
shot1 with unerring aim1 over the back  
of the bee1 who then departs on his     
errand of fertilization4  ,a very large 
class of plants are fertilized by means 
of insects4 ,these flowers are          

beautiful1 not for the sake of          
beauty1--for that ,mr4 ,darwin says     
would annihilate his theory1--but those 
which happen to be beautiful attract    
insects1 and thus become fertilized and 
perpetuated1 while the plainer ones are 
neglected and perish4 ,so with regard to
 birds4 ,the females are generally      
plain1 because those of bright colors   
are so exposed during the period of     
incubation that they are destroyed by   
their enemies4 ,in like manner male     
birds are usually adorned with brilliant
 plumage4 ,this is accounted for on the 
ground that they are more attractive1   
and thus they propagate their race1     
while the plainer ones have few or no   
descendants4 ,thus all design is        
studiously and laboriously excluded from
 every department of nature4  ,the      
preceding pages contain only a small    
part of the evidence furnished by ,mr4  
,darwin's own writings1 that his        
doctrine involves the denial of all     
final causes4 ,the whole drift of his   

books is to prove that all the organs of
 plants and animals1 all their instincts
 and mental endowments1 may be accounted
 for by the blind operation of natural  
causes1 without any intention1 purpose1 
or coperation of ,god4 ,this is what    
,professor ,huxley and others call the  
creative idea1 to which the widespread  
influence of his writings is to be      
referred4  ,,footnotes3  #ab ,origin of 
,species1 p4 #eag4  #ac ,the ,variations
 of ,animals and ,plants under          
,domestication4 ,by ,charles ,darwin1   
,f4 ,r4 ,s41 etc4 ,new ,york1 #ahfh1    
vol4 ii4 pp4 #eae1 #eaf4  #ad ,what can 
the word imagination mean in this       
sentence1 if it does not mean ,common   
,sense8  #ae ,mr4 ,darwin's habit of    
personifying nature has given1 as his   
friend ,mr4 ,wallace says1 his readers a
 good deal of trouble4 ,he defines      
nature to be the aggregate of physical  
forces2 and in the single passage       
quoted1 he speaks of ,natural ,selection
 as intently watching picking out with  

unerring skill1 and carefully           
preserving4 ,it is true1 he tells us    
this is all to be understood            
metaphorically4   ,testimony of the     
,advocates of the ,theory4  ,it is time 
to turn to the exposition of ,darwinism 
by its avowed advocates1 in proof of the
 assertion that it excludes all         
teleology4  ,the first of these         
witnesses is ,mr4 ,alfred ,russel       
,wallace1 himself a distinguished       
naturalist4 ,mr4 ,darwin informs his    
readers that as early as #ahdd1 he had  
collected his material and worked out   
his theory1 but had not published it to 
the world1 although it had been         
communicated to some of his friends4 ,in
 #aheh he received a memoir from ,mr4   
,wallace1 who was then studying the     
natural history of the ,malay           
,archipelago4 ,from that memoir he      
learnt that ,mr4 ,wallace had arrived at
 almost exactly the same conclusions as 
,i 7he himself7 have on the origin of   
species4 ,this led to the publishing his

 book on that subject contemporaneously 
with ,mr4 ,wallace's memoir4 ,there has 
been no jealousy or rivalry between     
these gentlemen4 ,mr4 ,wallace          
gracefully acknowledges the priority of 
,mr4 ,darwin's claim1 and attributes to 
him the credit of having elaborated and 
sustained it in a way to secure for it  
universal attention4 ,these facts are   
mentioned in order to show the          
competency of ,mr4 ,wallace as a witness
 as to the true character of ,darwinism4
  ,mr4 ,wallace1 in ,the ,theory of     
,natural ,selection1 devotes a chapter  
to the consideration of the objections  
urged by the ,duke of ,argyll1 in his   
work on the ,reign of ,law1 against that
 theory4 ,those objections are          
principally two3 first1 that design     
necessarily implies an intelligent      
designer2 and second1 that beauty not   
being an advantage to its possessor in  
the struggle for life1 cannot be        
accounted for on the principle of the   
survival of the fittest4 ,the ,duke1 he 

says1 maintains that contrivance and    
beauty indicate the constant supervision
 and interference of the ,creator1 and  
cannot possibly be explained by the     
unassisted action of any combination of 
laws4 ,now1 ,mr4 ,darwin's work1 he     
adds1 has for its main object to show   
that all the phenomena of living        
things--all their wonderful organs and  
complicated structures1 their infinite  
variety of form1 size1 and color1 their 
intricate and involved relations to each
 other--may have been produced by the   
action of a few general laws of the     
simplest kind1 laws which are in most   
cases mere statements of admitted facts4
 7p4 #bfe7 ,those laws are those with   
which we are familiar3 ,heredity1       
,variations1 ,over ,production1         
,struggle for ,life1 ,survival of the   
,fittest4 ,it is probable1 he says1 that
 these primary facts or laws are but    
results of the very nature of life1 and 
of the essential properties of organized
 and unorganized matter4 ,mr4 ,herbert  

,spencer1 in his ',first ,principles'   
and in his ',biology1' has1 ,i think1   
made us able to understand how this may 
be2 but at present we may accept these  
simple laws1 without going further back1
 and the question then is1 ,whether the 
variety1 the harmony1 the contrivance1  
and the beauty we perceive1 can have    
been produced by the action of these    
laws alone1 or whether we are required  
to believe in the incessant interference
 and direct action of the mind and will 
of the ,creator4 7p4 #bfg7af ,mr4       
,wallace says1 that the ,duke of ,argyll
 maintains that ,god has personally     
applied general laws to produce effects 
which those laws are not in themselves  
capable of producing2 that the universe 
alone with all its laws intact1 would be
 a sort of chaos1 without variety1      
without harmony1 without design1 without
 beauty2 that there is not 7and         
therefore we may presume that there     
could not be7 any self-developing power 
in the universe4 ,i believe1 on the     

contrary1 that the universe is so       
constituted as to be self-regulating2   
that as long it contains life1 the forms
 under which that life is manifested    
have an inherent power of adjustment to 
each other and to their surroundings2   
and that this adjustment necessarily    
leads to the greatest amount of variety 
and beauty and enjoyment1 because it    
does depend on general laws1 and not on 
a continual supervision and             
rearrangement of details4 7p4 #bfh7 ,the
 strange springs and traps and pitfalls 
found in the flowers of ,orchids1       
cannot1 he says1 be necessary per se1   
since exactly the same end is gained in 
ten thousand other flowers which do not 
possess them4 ,is it not then an        
extraordinary idea1 to imagine the      
,creator of the universe contriving the 
various complicated parts of these      
flowers1 as a mechanic might contrive an
 ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle8   
,is it not a more worthy conception1    
that they are the results of those      

general laws which were so cordinated at
 the first introduction of life upon the
 earth as to result necessarily in the  
utmost possible development of varied   
forms4 7p4 #bgj7 ,i for one1 he says1   
cannot believe that the world would come
 to chaos if left to law alone4444 ,if  
any modification of structure could be  
the result of law1 why not all8 ,if some
 self-adaptations should arise1 why not 
others8 ,if any varieties of color1 why 
not all the varieties we see8 ,no       
attempt is made to explain this except  
by reference to the fact that 'purpose' 
and 'contrivance' are everywhere        
visible1 and by an illogical deduction  
they could only have arisen by the      
direct action of some mind1 because the 
direct action of our minds produce      
similar 'contrivances2' but it is       
forgotten that adaptation1 however      
produced1 must have the appearance of   
design4 7p4 #bhj7ag ,after referring to 
the fact that florists and breeders can 
produce varieties in plants and animals1

 so that1 whether they wanted a bull-dog
 to torture another animal1 a greyhound 
to catch a hare1 or a bloodhound to hunt
 down their oppressed fellow-creatures1 
the required variations have always     
appeared1 he adds3 ,to be consistent1   
our opponents must maintain that every  
one of the variations that have rendered
 possible the changes produced by man1  
have been determined at the right time  
and place by the ,creator4 ,every race  
produced by the florist or breeder1 the 
dog or the pigeon fancier1 the          
rat-catcher1 the sporting man1 or the   
slave-hunter1 must have been provided   
for by varieties occurring when wanted2 
and as these variations were never      
withheld1 it would prove that the       
sanction of an all-wise and all powerful
 ,being has been given to that which the
 highest human minds consider to be     
trivial1 mean1 or debasing4 7p4 #bij7ah 
,the ,nebular ,hypothesis1 as propounded
 by ,la ,place1 proposed to account for 
the origin of the universe1 by a process

 of evolution under the control of mere 
physical forces4 ,that hypothesis has1  
so far as evolution is concerned1 been  
adopted by men who sincerely believe in 
,god and in the ,bible4 ,but they hold  
not only that ,god created matter and   
endowed it with its properties1 but that
 ,he designed the universe1 and so      
controlled the operation of physical    
laws that they accomplished his purpose4
 ,so there are ,christian men who       
believe in the evolution of one kind of 
plants and animals out of earlier and   
simpler forms2 but they believe that    
everything was designed by ,god1 and    
that it is due to his purpose and power 
that all the forms of vegetable and     
animal life are what they are4 ,but this
 is not the question4 ,what ,darwin and 
the advocates of his theory deny1 is all
 design4 ,the organs1 even the most     
complicated and wonderful1 were not     
intended4 ,they are said to be due to   
the undirected and unintended operation 
of physical laws4 ,this is ,mr4         

,wallace's argument4 ,he endeavors to   
show that it is unworthy of ,god that   
,he should be supposed to have contrived
 the mechanism of the orchids1 as a     
mechanist contrives a curious puzzle4   
,we recently heard ,prof4 ,joseph       
,henry1 in a brief address1 say         
substantially3 ,if ,i take brass1 glass1
 and other materials1 and fuse them1 the
 product is a slag4 ,this is what       
physical laws do4 ,if ,i take those same
 materials1 and form them into a        
telescope1 that is what mind does4 ,this
 is the whole question in a nutshell4   
,that design implies an intelligent     
designer1 is a self evident truth4      
,every man believes it2 and no man can  
practically disbelieve it4 ,even those  
naturalists who theoretically deny it1  
if they find in a cave so simple a thing
 as a flint arrow-head1 are as sure that
 it was made by a man as they are of    
their own existence4 ,and yet they want 
us to believe that an eagle's eye is the
 product of blind natural causes4 ,no   

combination of physical forces ever made
 a ship or a locomotive4 ,it may1       
indeed1 be said that they are dead      
matter1 whereas plants and animals live4
 ,but what is life but one form of the  
organizing efficiency of ,god8  ,mr4    
,wallace does not go as far as ,mr4     
,darwin4 ,he recoils from regarding man 
either as to body or soul as the product
 of mere natural causes4 ,he insists    
that a superior intelligence is         
necessary to account for man4 7p4 #cei7 
,this of course implies that the agency 
of no such higher intelligence is       
admitted in the production of plants or 
of animals lower than man4  ,,footnotes3
  #af ,the question is not1 as ,mr4     
,wallace says1 ,how has the ,creator    
worked8 but it is1 as he himself states1
 whether the essential properties of    
matter have alone worked out all the    
wonders of creation2 or1 whether they   
are to be referred to the mind and will 
of ,god4 ,it is worthy of remark how    
,messrs4 ,darwin and ,wallace refer to  

,mr4 ,spencer as their philosopher4 ,we 
have seen what ,spencer's philosophy is4
  #ag ,it is1 therefore1 clear that     
design is what ,mr4 ,darwin and ,mr4    
,wallace repudiate4  #ah ,that ,god     
permits men in the use of the laws of   
nature to distil alcohol and brew       
poisons1 does not prove that ,he        
approves of drunkenness or murder4      
,professor ,huxley4  ,the second witness
 as to the character of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
theory is ,professor ,huxley4 ,we have  
some hesitation in including the name of
 this distinguished naturalist among the
 advocates of ,darwinism4#ai ,on the one
 hand1 in his ,essay on the ,origin of  
,species1 printed in the ,westminster   
,review1 in #ahfj1 and reprinted in his 
,lay ,sermons1 etc41 in #ahgj1 he says3 
,there is no fault to be found with ,mr4
 ,darwin's method1 but it is another    
thing whether he has fulfilled all the  
conditions imposed by that method4 ,is  
it satisfactorily proved that species   
may#bj be originated by selection8 that 

none of the phenomena exhibited by      
species are inconsistent with the origin
 of species in this way8 ,if these      
questions can be answered in the        
affirmative1 ,mr4 ,darwin's view steps  
out of the rank of hypotheses into that 
of theories2 but so long as the evidence
 at present adduced falls short of      
enforcing that affirmative1 so long1 to 
our minds1 the new doctrine must be     
content to remain among the former1--an 
extremely valuable1 and in the highest  
degree probable1 doctrine2 indeed1 the  
only extant hypothesis which is worth   
anything in a scientific point of view2 
but still a hypothesis1 and not yet a   
theory of species4 ,after much          
consideration1 he adds1 and assuredly   
with no bias against ,mr4 ,darwin's     
views1 it is our clear conviction that1 
as the evidence now stands1 it is not   
absolutely proven that a group of       
animals1 having all the characters      
exhibited by species in ,nature1 has    
ever been originated by selection1      

whether artificial or natural4#ba       
,again1 in his work on ,man's ,place in 
,nature1 he expresses himself much to   
the same effect3 ,a true physical cause 
is admitted to be such only on one      
condition1 that it shall account for all
 the phenomena which come within the    
range of its operation4 ,if it is       
inconsistent with any one phenomenon it 
must be rejected2 if it fails to explain
 any one phenomenon it is so far to be  
suspected1 though it may have a perfect 
right to provisional acceptance4444 ,our
 acceptance1 therefore1 of the          
,darwinian hypothesis must be           
provisional so long as one link in the  
chain of evidence is wanting2 and so    
long as all the animals and plants      
certainly produced by selective breeding
 from a common stock are fertile1 and   
their progeny are fertile one with      
another1 that link will be wanting4 ,for
 so long selective breeding will not be 
proved to be competent to all that is   
required if it produce natural          

species4#bb ,in immediate connection    
with the above passage1 there is another
 which throws a clear light on          
,professor ,huxley's cosmical views4    
,the whole analogy of natural operations
 furnish so complete and crushing an    
argument against the intervention of any
 but what are called secondary causes1  
in the production of all the phenomena  
of the universe2 that1 in view of the   
intimate relations of man and the rest  
of the living world1 and between the    
forces exerted by the latter and all    
other forces1 ,i can see no reason for  
doubting that all are cordinate terms of
 nature's great progression1 from       
formless to formed1 from the inorganic  
to the organic1 from blind force to     
conscious intellect and will4#bc  ,ought
 not this to settle the matter8 ,are we 
to give up the ,bible and all our hopes 
for the sake of an hypothesis that all  
living things1 including man1 on the    
face of the earth1 are descended from a 
primordial animalcule1 by natural       

selection1 when such a man as ,huxley1  
who 7as ,voltaire said of the prophet   
,habbakuk7 is capable de tout1 says that
 it has not been proved that any one    
species has thus originated8  ,but on   
the other hand1 while he honestly admits
 that ,darwin's doctrine is a mere      
hypothesis and not a theory1 he has     
nevertheless written at least three     
essays or reviews in its exposition and 
vindication4 ,he is freely referred to  
on the continent of ,europe1 at least1  
as an ardent advocate of the doctrine2  
and he quotes without protest such      
designations of himself4 ,at any rate1  
as he assures his readers that he has no
 bias against ,mr4 ,darwin's views1 as  
he has devoted much time and attention  
to the subject1 and as he is one of the 
most prominent naturalists of the age1  
there can be no question as to his      
competency as a witness as to what      
,darwinism is4  ,his testimony that ,mr4
 ,darwin's doctrine excludes all        
teleology1 or final causes1 is explicit4

 ,in his review of the ,criticisms on   
the ,origin of ,species1 he says1 that  
when he first read ,mr4 ,darwin's book1 
that which struck him most forcibly was 
the conviction that teleology1 as       
commonly understood1 had received its   
death-blow at ,mr4 ,darwin's hands4 ,for
 the teleological argument runs thus3   
,an organ is precisely fitted to perform
 a function or purpose2 therefore1 it   
was specially constructed to perform    
that function4 ,in ,paley's famous      
illustration1 the adaptation of all the 
parts of a watch to the function or     
purpose of showing the time1 is held to 
be evidence that the watch was specially
 contrived to that end2 on the ground   
that the only cause we know of competent
 to produce such an effect as a watch   
which shall keep time1 is a contriving  
intelligence adapting the means directly
 to that end4#bd ,this1 ,mr4 ,huxley    
tells us1 is precisely what ,darwin     
denies with reference to the organs of  
plants and animals4 ,the eye was not    

formed for the purpose of seeing1 or the
 ear for hearing4 ,it so happened that a
 nerve became sensitive to light2 then  
in course of time1 it happened that a   
transparent tissue came over it2 and    
thus in millions of years an eye1 as we 
have seen above1 happened to be formed4 
,no such organ was ever intended or     
designed by ,god or man4 ,an apparatus1 
says ,professor ,huxley1 thoroughly     
adapted to a particular purpose1 might  
be the result of a method of trial and  
error worked by unintelligent agents1 as
 well as by the application of means    
appropriate to the end by an intelligent
 agent4 ,for the notion that every      
organism has been created as it is and  
launched straight at a purpose1 ,mr4    
,darwin substitutes the conception of   
something1 which may fairly be termed a 
method of trial and error4 ,organisms   
vary incessantly2 of these variations   
the few meet with surrounding conditions
 which suit them1 and thrive2 the many  
are unsuited1 and become extinguished4  

,for the teleologist an organism exists1
 because it was made for the conditions 
in which it is found2 for the ,darwinian
 an organism exists1 because1 out of    
many of its kind1 it is the only one    
which has been able to persist in the   
conditions in which it is found4 ,if we 
apprehend1 ,huxley further says1 the    
spirit of the ',origin of ,species'     
rightly1 then1 nothing can be more      
entirely and absolutely opposed to      
teleology1 as it is commonly understood1
 than the ,darwinian theory4 7p4 #cjc7  
,it has already been stated that ,mr4   
,wallace does not apply the doctrine of 
evolution to man2 neither does ,mr4     
,mivart1 a distinguished naturalist1 who
 is a member of the ,latin ,church4 ,the
 manner in which ,professor ,huxley     
speaks of these gentlemen shows how     
thoroughly1 in his judgment1 ,mr4       
,darwin banishes ,god from his works3   
,mr4 ,wallace and ,mr4 ,mivart are as   
stout evolutionists as ,mr4 ,darwin     
himself2 but ,mr4 ,wallace denies that  

man can have been evolved from a lower  
animal by that process of natural       
selection1 which he1 with ,mr4 ,darwin1 
holds to be sufficient for the evolution
 of all animals below man2 while ,mr4   
,mivart1 admitting that natural         
selection has been one of the conditions
 of the animals below man1 maintains    
that natural selection must1 even in    
their case1 have been supplemented by   
some other cause1--of the nature of     
which1 unfortunately1 he does not give  
us any idea4 ,thus ,mr4 ,mivart is less 
of a ,darwinian than ,mr4 ,wallace1 for 
he has faith in the power of natural    
selection4 ,but he is more of an        
evolutionist than ,mr4 ,wallace1 because
 ,mr4 ,wallace thinks it necessary to   
call in an intelligent agent1 a sort of 
supernatural ,sir ,john ,sebright1 to   
produce even the animal frame of man2   
while ,mr4 ,mivart requires no ,divine  
assistance till he comes to man's       
soul4#be  ,in the ,academy for ,october1
 #ahfi1 there is a review by ,professor 

,huxley of ,dr4 ,haeckel's ,natrlische  
,schpfungsgeschichte1 in which he says3 
,professor ,haeckel enlarges on the     
service which the ',origin of ,species' 
has done in favoring what he terms 'the 
causal or mechanical' view of living    
nature as opposed to the 'teleological  
or vitalistic' view4 ,and no doubt it is
 quite true the doctrine of evolution is
 the most formidable of all the commoner
 and coarser forms of teleology4        
,perhaps the most remarkable service to 
the philosophy of ,biology rendered by  
,mr4 ,darwin is the reconciliation of   
,teleology and ,morphology1 and the     
explanation of the facts of both which  
his view offers4  ,the teleology which  
supposes that the eye1 such as we see it
 in man or in the higher vertebrata1 was
 made with the precise structure which  
it exhibits1 to make the animal which   
possesses it to see1 has undoubtedly    
received its death-blow4 ,but it is     
necessary to remember that there is a   
higher teleology1 which is not touched  

by the doctrine of evolution1 but is    
actually based on the fundamental       
proposition of evolution4 ,that         
proposition is1 that the whole world1   
living and not living1 is the result of 
the mutual interaction1 according to    
definite laws1 of forces possessed by   
the molecules of which the primitive    
nebulosity of the universe was composed4
 ,if this be true1 it is no less certain
 that the existing world lay potentially
 in the cosmic vapor2 and that a        
sufficient intelligence could1 from a   
knowledge of the properties of that     
vapor1 have predicted1 say1 the state of
 fauna of ,great ,britain in #ahfi1 with
 as much certainty as one can say what  
will happen to the vapor of the breath  
on a cold winter's day4 ,this is the    
doctrine of the self-evolution of the   
universe4 ,we know not what may lie     
behind this in ,mr4 ,huxley's mind2 but 
we are very sure that there is not an   
idea in the above paragraph which       
,epicurus of old1 and ,bchner1 ,vogt1   

,haeckel1 and other ,materialisten von  
,profession1 would not cheerfully adopt4
 ,his distinction between a higher and  
lower teleology is of no account in this
 discussion4 ,what is the teleology to  
which1 he says1 ,mr4 ,darwin has given  
the death-blow1 the extracts given above
 clearly show4 ,the eye1 ,huxley says1  
was not made for the purpose of seeing1 
or the ear for the purpose of hearing4  
,according to teleology1 he says1 each  
organism is like a rifle bullet fired   
straight at a mark2 according to        
,darwin1 organisms are like grapeshot1  
of which one hits something and the rest
 fall wide4#bf  ,,footnotes3  #ai ,mr4  
,huxley1 if we may judge from what he   
says of himself1 is somewhat liable to  
be misunderstood4 ,he says he was       
fourteen years laboring to resist the   
charge of ,positivism made against the  
class of scientific men to which he     
belongs4 ,he also tells us in his letter
 to ,professor ,tyndall1 prefixed to his
 volume of ,lay ,sermons and ,addresses1

 that the ,essay on the ,physical ,basis
 of ,life1 included in that volume1 was 
intended as a protest1 from the         
philosophical side1 against what is     
commonly called ,materialism4 ,it turned
 out1 however1 that the public regarded 
it as an argument in favor of           
,materialism4 ,this we think was a very 
natural1 if not an unavoidable mistake1 
on the part of the public4 ,for in that 
,essay1 he says that ,protoplasm1 or the
 physical basis of life1 is a kind of   
matter common to all living beings1 that
 the powers or faculties of all kinds of
 living matter1 diverse as they may be  
in degree1 are substantially of the same
 kind4 ,protoplasm as far as examined   
contains the four elements1--carbon1    
hydrogen1 oxygen1 and nitrogen4 ,these  
are lifeless bodies1 but when brought   
together under certain conditions1 they 
give rise to the still more complex body
 ,protoplasm2 and this protoplasm       
exhibits the phenomena of life4 ,there  
is no more reason1 he teaches1 for      

assuming the existence of a mysterious  
something called vitality to account for
 vital phenomena1 than there is for the 
assumption of something called ,aquasity
 to account for the phenomena of water4 
,life is said to be the product of a    
certain disposition of material         
molecules4 ,the matter of life is       
composed of ordinary matter1 differing  
from it only in the manner in which its 
atoms are aggregated4 ,i take it1 he    
says1 to be demonstrable that it is     
utterly impossible to prove that        
anything whatever may not be the effect 
of a material and necessary cause1 and  
that human logic is equally incompetent 
to prove that any act is really         
spontaneous4 ,a really spontaneous act  
is one1 which1 by the assumption1 has no
 cause2 and the attempt to prove such a 
negative as this1 is on the face of the 
matter absurd4 ,and while it is thus a  
philosophical impossibility to          
demonstrate that any given phenomenon is
 not the effect of a material cause1 any

 one who is acquainted with the history 
of science will admit that its progress 
has1 in all ages1 meant1 and now more   
than ever means1 the extension of what  
we call matter and causation1 and the   
concomitant gradual banishment from all 
regions of human thought of what we call
 spirit and spontaneity4  #bj ,it cannot
 escape the attention of any one that   
,mr4 ,darwin1 ,mr4 ,wallace1 ,professor 
,huxley1 and all the other advocates or 
defenders of ,darwinism1 do not pretend 
to prove anything more than that species
 may be originated by selection1 not    
that there is no other satisfactory     
account of their origin4 ,mr4 ,darwin   
admits that referring them to the       
intention and efficiency of ,god1       
accounts for everything1 but1 he says1  
that is not science4  #ba ,lay ,sermons1
 ,addresses1 and ,reviews4 ,by ,thomas  
,henry ,huxley1 ,,ll4 ,d41 ,f4 ,r4 ,s4  
,london1 #ahgj1 p4 #cbc4  #bb ,evidence 
of ,man's ,place in ,nature4 ,london1   
#ahfd1 p4 #ajg4  #bc ,since writing the 

above paragraph our eye fell on the     
following note on the #hith page of the 
,duke of ,argyle's ,reign of ,law1 which
 it gives us pleasure to quote4 ,it     
seems that a writer in the ,spectator   
had charged ,professor ,huxley with     
,atheism4 ,in the number of that paper  
for ,february #aj1 #ahff1 the ,professor
 replies3 ,i do not know that ,i care   
very much about popular odium1 so there 
is no great merit in saying that if ,i  
really saw fit to deny the existence of 
a ,god ,i should certainly do so1 for   
the sake of my own intellectual freedom1
 and be the honest atheist you are      
pleased to say ,i am4 ,as it happens1   
however1 ,i cannot take this position   
with honesty1 inasmuch as it is1 and    
always has been1 a favorite tenet1 that 
,atheism is as absurd1 logically        
speaking1 as ,polytheism4 ,in the same  
paper he says1 ,the denying the         
possibility of miracles seems to me     
quite as unjustifiable as speculative   
,atheism4 ,how this can be reconciled   

with the passages quoted above1 we are  
unable to see4  #bd ,lay ,sermons1 etc41
 p4 #ccj4  #be ,contemporary ,review1   
vol4 xviii4 #ahga1 p4 #ddd4 ,in this    
same article ,mr4 ,huxley says3         
,elijah's great question1 ,will ye serve
 ,god or ,baal8 ,choose ye1 is uttered  
audibly enough in the ears of every one 
of us as we come to manhood4 ,let every 
man who tries to answer it seriously ask
 himself whether he can be satisfied    
with the ,baal of authority1 and with   
all the good things his worshippers are 
promised in this world and the next4 ,if
 he can1 let him1 if he be so inclined1 
amuse himself with such scientific      
implements as authority tells him are   
safe and will not cut his fingers2 but  
let him not imagine that he is1 or can  
be1 both a true son of the ,church and a
 loyal soldier of science4 ,and1 on the 
other hand1 if the blind acceptance of  
authority appear to him in its true     
colors1 as mere private judgment in     
excelsis1 and if he have courage to     

stand alone face to face with the abyss 
of the ,eternal and ,unknowable1 let him
 be content1 once for all1 not only to  
renounce the good things promised by    
',infallibility1' but even to bear the  
bad things which it prophesies2 content 
to follow reason and fact in singleness 
and honesty of purpose1 wherever they   
may lead1 in the sure faith that a hell 
of honest men will to him be more       
endurable than a paradise full of       
angelic shams4 ,there can be no doubt   
that the ,apostle ,paul believed in the 
infallibility of the ,scriptures4       
,imagine ,professor ,huxley calling ,st4
 ,paul to his face1 a sham6 ,what are   
all the ,huxleys who have ever lived or 
ever can live1 to that one ,paul in     
power for good over human thought1      
character1 and destiny6  ,professor     
,huxley goes on in the next paragraph to
 say3 ,mr4 ,mivart asserts that 'without
 belief in a personal ,god there is no  
religion worthy of the name4' ,this is a
 matter of opinion4 ,but it may be      

asserted1 with less reason to fear      
contradiction1 that the worship of a    
personal ,god1 who1 on ,mr4 ,mivart's   
hypothesis1 must have used words        
studiously calculated to deceive his    
creatures and worshippers1 is 'no       
religion worthy of the name4'           
',incredibile est1 ,deum illis verbis ad
 populum fuisse locutum quibis          
deciperetur1' is a verdict in which for 
once ,jesuit casuistry concurs with the 
healthy moral sense of all mankind4 7p4 
#deh74 ,mr4 ,huxley calls believers in  
the ,scriptures1 and 7apparently7       
believers in a personal ,god1 bigots1   
old ladies of both sexes1 bibliolators1 
fools1 etc41 etc4  #bf ,lay ,sermons1   
etc4 p4 #cca4   ,bchner4  ,dr4 ,louis   
,bchner1 president of the medical       
association of ,hessen-,darmstadt1 etc41
 etc41 is not only a man of science but 
a popular writer4 ,perhaps no book of   
its class1 in our day1 has been so      
widely circulated as his volume on      
,kraft und ,stoff1 ,matter and ,force4  

,it has been translated into all the    
languages of ,europe4 ,he holds that    
matter and force are inseparable2 there 
cannot be the one without the other2    
both are eternal and imperishable2      
neither can be either increased or      
diminished2 life originated             
spontaneously by the combination of     
molecules of matter under favorable     
conditions2 all the phenomena of the    
universe1 inorganic and organic1 whether
 physical1 vital1 or mental1 are due to 
matter and its forces4 ,consequently    
there is no ,god1 no creation1 no mind  
distinct from matter1 no conscious      
existence of man after death4 ,all this 
is asserted in the most explicit terms4 
,dr4 ,bchner has published a work on    
,darwinism in two volumes4 ,darwin's    
theory1 he says1 is the most thoroughly 
naturalistic that can be imagined1 and  
far more atheistic than that of his     
decried predecessor ,lamarck1 who       
admitted at least a general law of      
progress and development2 whereas1      

according to ,darwin1 the whole         
development is due to the gradual       
summation of innumerable minute and     
accidental operations4#bg  ,,footnote3  
#bg ,sechs ,vorlesungen ber die         
,darwinische ,theorie4 ,von ,ludwig     
,bchner4 ,zweite ,auflage1 ,leipzig1    
#ahdh1 vol4 i4 p4 #abe4   ,carl ,vogt4  
,in his preface to his work on the      
,descent of ,man1 ,mr4 ,darwin quotes   
this author as a high authority4 ,we see
 him elsewhere referred to as one of the
 first physiologists of ,germany4 ,vogt 
devotes the concluding lecture of the   
second volume of his work on ,man1 to   
the consideration of ,darwinism4 ,he    
expresses his opinion of it1 after high 
commendation1 in the following terms4   
,he says that it cannot be doubted that 
,darwin's theory turns the ,creator--and
 his occasional intervention in the     
revolutions of the earth and in the     
production of species--without any      
hesitation out of doors1 inasmuch as it 
does not leave the smallest room for the

 agency of such a ,being4 ,the first    
living germ being granted1 out of it the
 creation develops itself progressively 
by natural selection1 through all the   
geological periods of our planets1 by   
the simple law of descent--no new       
species arises by creation and none     
perishes by divine annihilation--the    
natural course of things1 the process of
 evolution of all organisms and of the  
earth itself1 is of itself sufficient   
for the production of all we see4 ,thus 
,man is not a special creation1 produced
 in a different way1 and distinct from  
other animals1 endowed with an          
individual soul and animated by the     
breath of ,god2 on the contrary1 ,man is
 only the highest product of the        
progressive evolution of animal life    
springing from the group of apes next   
below him4#bh  ,after this no one can be
 surprised to hear him say1 that the    
pulpits of the orthodox1 the            
confessionals of the priests1 the       
platforms of the interior missions1 the 

presidential chairs of the consistories1
 resound with protestations against the 
assaults made by ,materialism and       
,darwinism against the very foundations 
of society4 7p4 #bhf7 ,this he calls    
,das ,wehgeschrei der ,moralisten 7the  
,wail of the ,moralists74 ,the          
designation ,moralists is a felicitous  
one1 as applied to the opponents of     
,vogt and his associates4 ,it           
distinguishes them as men who have not  
lost their moral sense2 who refuse to   
limit their faith to what can be proved 
by the five senses2 who bow to the      
authority of the law written by the     
finger of ,god1 on the hearts of men1   
which neither sophistry nor wickedness  
can effectually erase4 ,all ,vogt thinks
 it necessary to reply to these         
,moralists is1 ,lasst sie bellen1 bis   
sie ausgebellt haben 7,let them bark    
till they are tired74 ,ende4            
,,footnote3  #bh ,vorlesungen ber den   
,menschen1 seine ,stellung in der       
,schoepfung und in der ,geschichte der  

,erde4 ,von ,carl ,vogt4 ,giessen1      
#ahfc1 vol4 ii4 p4 #bfj4   ,haeckel4    
,dr4 ,ernst ,haeckel1 ,professor in the 
,university of ,jena1 is said to stand  
at the head of the living naturalists of
 ,germany4 ,his work on ,natural        
,history of ,creation contains a course 
of lectures delivered to the professors1
 students1 and citizens of ,jena4 ,it   
is1 therefore1 somewhat popular in its  
character4 ,the ability of the writer is
 manifest on every page4 ,the           
distinctness of his perceptions1        
precision of language1 perspicuity of   
style1 and the strength of his          
convictions1 give the impression of a   
man fully master of his subject1 who has
 thought himself through1 and is        
perfectly satisfied with the conclusions
 at which he has arrived4 ,at the same  
time it is the impression of a man who  
is developed only on one side2 who never
 looks within2 who takes no cognizance  
of the wonders revealed in              
consciousness2 to whom the intuitions of

 reason and of the conscience1 the sense
 of dependence on a will higher than our
 own--the sense of obligation and       
responsibility are of no account1--in   
short a man to whom the image of ,god   
enstamped on the soul of man is         
invisible4 ,this being the case1 he that
 is least in the kingdom of heaven is   
greater than he4  ,haeckel admits that  
the title of his book1 ,natural         
,creation1 i4 e4 creation by natural    
laws1 is a contradiction4 ,he           
distinguishes1 however1 between the     
creation of substance and the creation  
of form4 ,of the former he says science 
knows nothing4 ,to the scientist matter 
is eternal4 ,if any one chooses to      
assume that it was created by an        
extramundane power1 ,haeckel says he    
will not object4 ,but that is a matter  
of faith2 and where faith begins1       
science ends4 ,the very reverse of this 
is true4 ,science must begin with faith4
 ,it cannot take a single step without  
it4 ,how does ,haeckel know that his    

senses do not deceive him8 ,how does he 
know that he can trust to the operations
 of his intellect8 ,how does he know    
that things are as they appear8 ,how    
does he know that the universe is not a 
great phantasmagoria1 as so many men    
have regarded it1 and man the mere sport
 of chimeras8 ,he must believe in the   
laws of belief impressed on his nature4 
,knowledge implies a mind that knows1   
and confidence in the act of knowing    
implies belief in the laws of mind4 ,an 
inductive science of nature1 says       
,president ,porter1 presupposes a       
science of induction1 and a science of  
induction presupposes a science of      
man4#bi ,haeckel1 however1 says faith is
 the mere product of the poetic         
imagination2 science1 of the            
understanding2 if its conclusions come  
into conflict with the creations of the 
imagination1 the latter1 of course1 must
 give way4#cj  ,he says1 there have ever
 been two conflicting theories of the   
universe3 the one1 monistic2 the other1 

dualistic4 ,the one admits of only one  
substance1 matter2 the other of two1    
matter and mind4 ,he prefers to call the
 former monism rather than materialism1 
because the latter term often includes  
the idea of moral materialism1 i4 e4 the
 doctrine that sensual pleasure is the  
end of life2 a doctrine1 he says1 much  
more frequently held by princely        
church-men than by men of science4 ,he  
maintains1 however1 that all knowable   
nature is one2 that the same eternal1   
immutable 7ehernen1 brazen7 laws are    
active in the life of animals and       
plants1 in the formation of crystals1   
and the power of steam2 in the whole    
sphere of biology1 zology1 and botany4  
,we have1 therefore1 the right to hold  
fast the monistic and mechanical view1  
whether men choose to brand the system  
as ,materialism or not4 ,in this sense1 
all natural science1 with the law of    
causation at its head1 is thoroughly    
materialistic4 7p4 #cb7  ,the monistic  
theory he calls mechanical or causal1 as

 distinguished from the dualistic       
theory1 which he calls teleological or  
vitalistic4 ,according to the latter1   
the vegetable and animal kingdoms are   
considered as the products of a creative
 agency1 working with a definite design4
 ,in looking on an organism1 the        
conviction seems unavoidable that so    
skilfully constructed a machine1 such a 
complicated working apparatus1 as an    
organism is1 could be produced only by  
an agency analogous to1 although far    
more perfect than the agency of man4    
,this1 he says1 supposes the ,creator to
 be an organism analogous to man1       
although infinitely more perfect2 who   
contemplates his formative powers1 lays 
the plan of the machine1 and then1 by   
the use of appropriate means1 produces  
an effect answering to the preconceived 
plan4444 ,however highly the ,creator   
may be exalted1 this view involves the  
ascription to ,him of human attributes1 
in virtue of which he can form a plan1  
and construct organisms to correspond   

with it4 ,that is the view to which     
,darwin's doctrine is directly opposed1 
and of which ,agassiz is1 among         
naturalists1 the most important         
advocate4 ,the famous work of ,agassiz1 
',essay on ,classification1' which is in
 direct opposition to ,darwin's1 and    
appeared about the same time1 has       
carried out logically to the utmost the 
absurd anthropomorphic doctrine of a    
,creator4 7p4 #ag7  ,the monistic theory
 is called mechanical and causal1       
because it supposes that all the        
phenomena of the universe1 organic and  
inorganic1 vegetable and animal1 vital  
and mental1 are due to mechanical or    
necessarily operating causes 7caus      
efficientes72 just as the dualistic     
theory is called teleological or        
vitalistic1 because it refers natural   
organisms to causes working for the     
accomplishment of a given end 7caus     
finales74 7p4 #fg7  ,the grand          
difficulty in the way of the mechanical 
or monistic theory was the occurrence of

 innumerable organisms1 apparently at   
least1 indicative of design4 ,to get    
over this difficulty1 ,haeckel says1    
some who could not believe in a creative
 and controlling mind adopted the idea  
of a metaphysical ghost called vitality4
 ,the grand service rendered by ,darwin 
to science is1 that his theory enables  
us to account for the appearances of    
design in nature without assuming final 
causes1 or1 a mind working for a        
foreseen and intended end4 ,all that had
 appeared before ,darwin1 he says1      
failed to secure success1 and to meet   
with general acceptance of the doctrine 
of the mechanical production of         
vegetable and animal organisms4 ,this   
was accomplished by ,darwin's theory4   
7p4 #bj7  ,the precise difficulty which 
,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine has1 according  
to ,haeckel1 enabled men of science to  
surmount1 is thus clearly stated on p4  
#fcc4 ,it is1 that organs for a definite
 end should be produced by undesigning  
or mechanical causes4 ,this difficulty  

is overcome by the doctrine of          
evolution4 ,through the theory of       
descent1 we are for the first time able 
to establish the monistic doctrine of   
the unity of nature1 that a             
mechanic-causal explanation of the most 
complicated organisms1 e4 g4 the        
formation and constitution of the organs
 of sense1 have no more difficulty for  
the common understanding1 than the      
mechanical explanation of any physical  
process1 as1 for example1 earthquakes1  
the direction of the winds1 or the      
currents of the sea4 ,we thus arrive at 
the conviction of the last importance1  
that all natural bodies with which we   
are acquainted are equally endowed with 
life 7gleichmssig belebt sind72 that the
 distinction between living and dead    
matter does not exist4 ,when a stone is 
thrown into the air and falls by certain
 laws to the ground1 or when a solution 
of salt forms a crystal1 the result is  
neither more nor less a mechanical      
manifestation of life1 than the         

flowering of a plant1 the generation or 
sensibility of animals1 or the feelings 
or the mental activity of man4 ,in thus 
establishing the monistic theory of     
nature lies the highest and most        
comprehensive merit of the doctrine of  
descent1 as reformed by ,darwin4 7p4    
#ba7 ,as to the much vaunted design in  
nature1 it is a reality only for those  
whose views of animal and vegetable life
 are to the last degree superficial4    
,any one who has gone deeper into the   
organization and vital activity of      
animals and plants1 who has made himself
 familiar with the action and reaction  
of vital phenomena1 and the so-called   
economy of nature1 comes of necessity to
 the conclusion1 that design does not   
exist1 any more than the vaunted        
goodness of the ,creator 7die           
vielgerhmte ,allgte des ,schpfers74 7p4 
#ag7  ,professor ,huxley1 in his review 
of this work of ,haeckel1 already       
quoted1 says3 ,i do not like to conclude
 without reminding the reader of my     

entire concurrence with the general     
tenor and spirit of the work1 and of my 
high estimate of its value4 ,if you take
 out of ,haeckel's book its doctrine of 
,monism1 which he himself says means    
,materialism1 it has no tenor or spirit 
in it4 ,it is not1 however1 for us to   
say how far ,professor ,huxley intended 
his indorsement to go4  ,haeckel says   
that ,darwin's theory of evolution leads
 inevitably to ,atheism and             
,materialism4 ,in this we think he is   
correct4 ,but we have nothing to do with
 ,haeckel's logic or with our own4 ,we  
make no charge against ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,we
 cite ,haeckel merely as a witness to   
the fact that ,darwinism involves the   
denial of final causes2 that it excludes
 all intelligent design in the          
production of the organs of plants and  
animals1 and even in the production of  
the soul and body of man4 ,this first of
 ,german naturalists would occupy a     
strange position in the sight of all    
,europe1 if1 after lauding a book to the

 skies because it teaches a certain     
doctrine1 it should turn out that the   
book taught no such doctrine at all4    
,,footnotes3  #bi ,the ,science of      
,nature versus the ,science of ,man4 ,by
 ,noah ,porter1 ,president of ,yale     
,college4 ,new ,york1 #ahga1 p4 #bi4    
#cj ,natrlische ,schpfungsgeschichte4   
,von ,dr4 ,ernst ,haeckel1 ,professor in
 der ,universitt ,jena4 ,zweite         
,auflage1 ,berlin1 #ahgc1 pp4 #h1 and   
#i4   ,the ,opponents of ,darwinism4    
,the ,duke of ,argyll4  ,when cultivated
 men undertake to refute a certain      
system1 it is to be presumed that they  
give themselves the trouble to ascertain
 what that system is4 ,as the advocates 
of ,mr4 ,darwin's theory defend and     
applaud it because it excludes design1  
and as its opponents make that the main 
ground of their objection to it1 there  
can be no reasonable doubt as to its    
real character4 ,the question is1 ,how  
are the contrivances in nature to be    
accounted for8 ,one answer is1 ,they are

 due to the purpose of ,god4 ,mr4       
,darwin says1 ,they are due to the      
gradual and undesigned accumulation of  
slight variations4 ,the ,duke's first   
objection to that doctrine is1 that the 
evidence of design in the organs of     
plants and animals is so clear that ,mr4
 ,darwin himself cannot avoid using     
teleological language4 ,he exhausts1 he 
says1 every form of words and of        
illustration by which intention or      
mental purpose can be described4        
',contrivance1' 'beautiful contrivance1'
 'curious contrivance1' are expressions 
which occur over and over again4 ,here  
is one sentence describing a particular 
species 7of orchids73 ',the labellum is 
developed in order to attract the       
,lepidoptera2 and we shall soon see     
reason for supposing that the nectar is 
purposely so lodged1 that it can be     
sucked only slowly in order to give time
 for the curious chemical quality of the
 matter setting hard and dry4'#ca ,we   
have already seen that ,mr4 ,darwin's   

answer to this objection is1 that it is 
hard to keep from personifying nature1  
and that these expressions as used by   
him mean no more than chemists mean when
 they speak of affinities1 and one      
element preferring another4  ,a second  
objection is1 that a variation would not
 be useful to the individual in which it
 happens to occur1 unless other         
variations should occur at the right    
time and in the right order2 and that   
the concurrence of so many accidents as 
are required to account for the infinite
 diversity of forms in plants and       
animals1 is altogether inconceivable4   
,a third objection is1 that the         
variations often have no reference to   
the organism of the animal itself but to
 other organisms4 ,take one instance1 he
 says1 out of millions4 ,the poison of a
 deadly snake1--let us for a moment     
consider what that is4 ,it is a         
secretion of definite chemical          
properties with reference not only--not 
even mainly--to the organism of the     

animal in which it is developed1 but    
specially to another animal which it is 
intended to destroy4 ,how1 he asks1 will
 the law of growth adjust a poison in   
one animal with such subtle knowledge of
 the organization of the other1 that the
 deadly virus shall in a few minutes    
curdle the blood1 benumb the nerves1 and
 rush in upon the citadel of life8      
,there is but one explanation3 a ,mind  
having minute and perfect knowledge of  
the structure of both has designed the  
one to be capable of inflicting death   
upon the other4 ,this mental purpose and
 resolve is the one thing which our     
intelligence perceives with direct and  
intuitive recognition4 ,the method of   
creation by which this purpose has been 
carried into effect is utterly          
unknown4#cb  ,a fourth objection has    
reference to beauty4 ,according to ,mr4 
,darwin1 flowers are not intentionally  
made beautiful1 but those which happen  
to be beautiful attract insects1 and by 
their agency are fertilized and survive4

 ,male birds are not intentionally      
arrayed in bright colors1 but those     
which happen to be so arrayed are       
attractive1 and thus become the         
progenitors of their race4 ,against this
 explanation the ,duke earnestly        
protests4 ,he refers to the gorgeous    
adorned class of ,hummingbirds1 of which
 naturalists enumerate no less than four
 hundred and thirty different species1  
distinguished one from the other1 in    
general1 only by their plumage4 ,now1 he
 asks1 what explanation does the law of 
natural selection give1--,i will not say
 of the origin1 but even of the         
continuance of such specific varieties  
as these8 ,none whatever4 ,a crest of   
topaz is no better in the struggle of   
existence than a crest of sapphire4 ,a  
frill ending in spangles of the emerald 
is no better in the battle of life than 
a frill ending in spangles of the ruby4 
,a tail is not affected for the purposes
 of flight1 whether its marginal1 or its
 central feathers are decorated with    

white4 ,it is impossible to bring such  
varieties into any physical law known to
 us4 ,it has relation however to a      
,purpose1 which stands in close analogy 
with our knowledge of purpose in the    
works of men4 ,mere beauty and mere     
variety1 for their own sake1 are objects
 which we ourselves seek1 when we can   
make the forces of nature subordinate to
 the attainment of them4 ,there seems to
 be no conceivable reason why we should 
doubt or question that these are ends   
and aims also in the forms given to     
living organisms1 when the facts        
correspond with this view and with no   
other4#cc  ,it will be observed that all
 these objections have reference to the 
denial of teleology on the part of ,mr4 
,darwin4 ,if his theory admitted that   
the organisms in nature were due to a   
divine purpose1 the objections would be 
void of all meaning4  ,there is a fifth 
objection4 ,according to ,darwin's      
theory organs are formed by the slow    
accumulation of unintended variations1  

which happen to be favorable to the     
subject of them in the struggle for     
life4 ,but in many cases these organs1  
instead of being favorable1 are         
injurious or cumbersome until fully     
developed4 ,take the wing of a bird1 for
 example4 ,in its rudimental state1 it  
is useful neither for swimming1 walking1
 nor flying4 ,now1 as ,darwin says it   
took millions of years to bring the eye 
to perfection1 how long did it take to  
render a rudimental wing useful8 ,it is 
no sufficient answer to say that these  
rudimental organs might have been suited
 to the condition in which the animal   
existed1 during the formative process4  
,this is perfectly arbitrary4 ,it has no
 basis of fact4 ,there are but three    
kinds of locomotion that we know of3 in 
the water1 on the ground1 and through   
the air2 for all these purposes a       
half-formed wing would be an impediment4
  ,the ,duke devotes almost a whole     
chapter of his interesting book to the  
consideration of contrivance in the     

machinery for flight4 ,the conditions to
 secure regulated movement through the  
atmosphere are so numerous1 so          
complicated1 and so conflicting1 that   
the problem never has been solved by    
human ingenuity4 ,in the structure of   
the bird it is solved to perfection4 ,as
 we are not writing a teleological      
argument1 but only producing evidence   
that ,darwinism excludes teleology1 we  
cannot follow the details which prove   
that the wing of the gannet or swift is 
almost as wonderful and beautiful a     
specimen of contrivance as the eye of   
the eagle4  ,,footnotes3  #ca ,reign of 
,law4 ,london1 #ahfg1 p4 #dj4  #cb      
,reign of ,law4 ,london1 #ahfg1 p4 #cg4 
#cc ,reign of ,law1 pp4 #bdg1 #bdh4     
,agassiz4  ,every one knows that the    
illustrious ,agassiz1 over whose recent 
grave the world stands weeping1 was from
 the beginning a pronounced and earnest 
opponent of ,mr4 ,darwin's theory4 ,he  
wrote as a naturalist1 and therefore his
 objections are principally directed    

against the theory of evolution1 which  
he regarded as not only destitute of any
 scientific basis1 but as subversive of 
the best established facts in zology4   
,nevertheless it is evident that his    
zeal was greatly intensified by his     
apprehension that a theory which        
obliterates all evidence of the being of
 ,god from the works of nature1         
endangered faith in that great doctrine 
itself4 ,the ,rev4 ,dr4 ,peabody1 in the
 discourse delivered on the occasion of 
,professor ,agassiz's funeral1 said3 ,i 
cannot close this hasty and inadequate1 
yet fervent and hearty tribute1 without 
recalling to your memory the reverent   
spirit in which he pursued his          
scientific labors4 ,nearly forty years  
ago1 in his first great work on fossil  
fishes1 in developing principles of     
classification1 he wrote in quotations1 
',an invisible thread in all ages runs  
through this immense diversity1         
exhibiting as a general result that     
there is a continual progress in        

development ending in man1 the four     
classes of vertebrates presenting the   
intermediate steps1 and the             
invertebrates the constant accessory    
accompaniment4 ,have we not here the    
manifestation of a mind as powerful as  
prolific8 an act of intelligence as     
sublime as provident8 the marks of      
goodness as infinite as wise8 the most  
palpable demonstration of the existence 
of a personal ,god1 author of all this2 
ruler of the universe1 and the dispenser
 of all good8 ,this at least is what ,i 
read in the works of creation4' ,and it 
was what he ever read1 and with profound
 awe and adoration4 ,to this exalted    
faith he was inflexibly loyal4 ,the laws
 of nature were to him the eternal ,word
 of ,god4  ,his repugnance to ,darwinism
 grew in great part from his            
apprehension of its atheistical         
tendency1--an apprehension which ,i     
confess ,i cannot share2 for ,i forget  
not that these theories1 now in the     
ascendent1 are maintained by not a few  

devout ,christian men1 and while they   
appear to me unproved and incapable of  
demonstration1 ,i could admit them      
without parting with one iota of my     
faith in ,god and ,christ4 ,yet ,i      
cannot but sympathize most strongly with
 him in the spirit in which he resisted 
what seemed to him lese-majesty against 
the sovereign of the universe4 ,nor was 
his a theoretical faith4 ,his whole     
life1 in its broad philanthropy1 in its 
pervading spirit of service1 in its     
fidelity to arduous trusts and duties1  
and in its simplicity and truthfulness1 
bespoke one who was consciously         
fulfilling a mission from ,god to his   
fellow-men4  ,the words evolution and   
,darwinism are so often in this country1
 but not in ,europe1 used               
interchangeably1 that it is conceivable 
that ,dr4 ,peabody could retain his     
faith in ,god1 and yet admit the        
doctrine of evolution4 ,but it is not   
conceivable that any man should adopt   
the main element of ,mr4 ,darwin's      

theory1 viz41 the denial of all final   
causes1 and the assertion1 that since   
the first creation of matter and life1  
,god has left the universe to the       
control of unintelligent physical       
causes1 so that all the phenomena of the
 plants and animals1 all that is in man1
 and all that has ever happened on the  
earth1 is due to physical force1 and yet
 retain his faith in ,christ4 ,on that  
theory1 there have been no supernatural 
revelation1 no miracles2 ,christ is not 
risen1 and we are yet in our sins4 ,it  
is not thus that this matter is regarded
 abroad4 ,the ,christians of ,germany   
say that the only alternative these     
theories leave us1 is ,heathenism or    
,christianity2 ,heidenthum oder         
,christenthum1 ,die ,frage der ,zeit4   
,janet4  ,janet1 a professor of         
philosophy1 is the author of a book on  
the ,materialism of ,bchner4#cd ,the    
greater part of the last chapter of his 
work is devoted to ,darwinism4 ,he says1
 ,dr4 ,bchner invoked 7,darwin's book7  

as a striking confirmation of his       
doctrine4 7p4 #aed7 ,what ,bchner's     
doctrine is has been shown on a previous
 page4 ,the points of coincidence       
between ,darwin's system and his are1   
that both regard mind as a mere function
 of living matter2 and both refer all   
the organs and organisms of living      
things to the unconscious1 unintelligent
 operation of physical causes4 ,bchner's
 way of accounting for complicated      
organs was1 that the energy of the      
elements and forces of matter1 which in 
their fated and accidental occurrence   
must have produced innumerable forms1   
which must needs limit each other       
mutually1 and correspond1 apparently1   
the one with the other1 as if they were 
made for that purpose4 ,out of all those
 forms1 they only have survived which   
were adapted1 in some manner1 to the    
conditions of the medium in which they  
were placed4 7p4 #cj7 ,this is very     
clumsy4 ,no wonder ,bchner preferred    
,darwin's method4 ,the two systems are1 

indeed1 exactly the same1 but ,mr4      
,darwin has a much more winning way of  
presenting it4  ,professor ,janet does  
not seem to have much objection to the  
doctrine of evolution in itself2 it is  
the denial of teleology that he regards 
as the fatal element of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
theory4 ,according to us1 he says1 the  
true stumbling-block of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
theory1 the perilous and slippery point1
 is the passage from artificial to      
natural selection2 it is when he wants  
to establish that a blind and designless
 nature has been able to obtain1 by the 
occurrence of circumstances1 the same   
results which man obtains by thoughtful 
and well calculated industry4 7p4 #agd7 
,towards the end of his volume he says3 
,we shall conclude by a general         
observation4 ,notwithstanding the       
numerous objections we have raised      
against ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 we do not
 declare ourselves hostile to a system  
of which zologists are the only         
competent judges4 ,we are neither for   

nor against the transmutation of        
species1 neither for nor against the    
principle of natural selection4 ,the    
only positive conclusion of our debate  
is this3 no principle hitherto known1   
neither the action of media1 nor habit1 
nor natural selection1 can account for  
organic adaptations without the         
intervention of the principle of        
finality4 ,natural selection1 unguided1 
submitted to the laws of a pure         
mechanism1 and exclusively determined by
 accidents1 seems to me1 under another  
name1 the chance proclaimed by          
,epicurus1 equally barren1 equally      
incomprehensible2 on the other hand1    
natural selection guided beforehand by a
 provident will1 directed towards a     
precise end by intentional laws1 might  
be the means which nature has selected  
to pass from one stage of being to      
another1 from one form to another1 to   
bring to perfection life throughout the 
universe1 and to rise by a continuous   
process from the monad to man4 ,now1 ,i 

ask ,mr4 ,darwin himself1 what interest 
has he in maintaining that natural      
selection is not guided--not directed8  
,what interest has he in substituting   
accidental causes for every final cause8
 ,i cannot see4 ,let him admit that in  
natural1 as well as in artificial       
selection1 there may be a choice and    
direction2 his principle immediately    
becomes much more fruitful than it was  
before4 ,his hypothesis1 then1 whilst   
having the advantage of exempting       
science from the necessity of           
introducing the personal and miraculous 
intervention of ,god in the creation of 
each species1 yet would be free from the
 banishing out of the universe an       
all-provident thought1 and of submitting
 everything to blind and brute chance4  
7pp4 #aih1 #aii7 ,professor ,janet asks 
far too much of ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,to ask   
him to give up his denial of final      
causes is like asking the ,romanists to 
give up the ,pope4 ,that principle is   
the life and soul of his system4        

,,footnote3  #cd ,the ,materialism of   
the ,present ,day3 a ,critique of ,dr4  
,bchner's ,system4 ,by ,paul ,janet1    
,member of the ,institute of ,france1   
,professor of ,philosophy at the ,paris 
,facult des ,lettres4 ,translated from  
the ,french1 by ,gustave ,masson1 ,b4   
,a4 ,london and ,paris1 #ahfg4   ,m4    
,flourens4  ,m4 ,flourens1 recently     
dead1 was one of the earliest and most  
pronounced opponents of ,darwinism4 ,he 
published in #ahfd his ,examen du ,livre
 de ,m4 ,darwin sur l',origine des      
,espces4 ,his position as ,member of the
 ,acadmie ,franaise1 and ,perpetual     
,secretary of the ,acadmie des          
,sciences1 or ,institut de ,france1     
vouch for his high rank among the       
,french naturalists4 ,his connection    
with the ,jardin des ,plantes gave him  
enlarged opportunities for biological   
experiments4 ,the result of his own     
experience1 as well as the experience of
 other observers1 was1 as he expresses  
it1 his solemn conviction that species  

are fixed and not transmutable4 ,no     
ingenuity of device could render hybrids
 fertile4 ,they never establish an      
intermediate species4 ,it is1 therefore1
 to the doctrine of evolution his       
attention is principally directed4      
,nevertheless1 he is no less struck by  
,darwin's way of excluding all          
intelligence and design in his manner of
 speaking of nature4 ,on this point he  
quotes the language of ,cuvier1 who     
says3 ,nature has been personified4     
,living beings have been called the     
works of nature4 ,the general bearing of
 these creatures to each other has      
become the laws of nature4 ,it is thus  
while considering ,nature as a being    
endowed with intelligence and will1 but 
in its power limited and secondary1 that
 it may be said that she watches        
incessantly over the maintenance of her 
work2 that she does nothing in vain1 and
 always acts by the most simple         
means4444 ,it is easy to see how puerile
 are those who give nature a species of 

individual existence distinct from the  
,creator1 and from the law which ,he has
 impressed upon the movements and       
peculiarities of the forms given by ,him
 to living things1 and which ,he makes  
to act upon their bodies with a peculiar
 force and reason4 ,older writers1 says 
,flourens1 in speaking of ,nature1 gave 
to her inclinations1 intentions1 and    
views1 and horrors 7of a vacuum71 and   
sports1 etc4 ,he says that one of the   
principal objects of his book is to show
 how ,mr4 ,darwin has deluded himself1  
and perhaps others1 by a constant abuse 
of figurative language4 ,he plays with  
,nature as he pleases1 and makes her do 
whatsoever he wishes4 ,when we remember 
that ,mr4 ,darwin defines ,nature to be 
the aggregate of physical forces1 we see
 how1 in attributing everything to      
,nature1 he effectually excludes the    
supernatural4  ,in his volume of ,lay   
,sermons1 ,reviews1 etc41 ,professor    
,huxley has a very severe critique on   
,m4 ,flourens's book4 ,he says little1  

however1 in reference to teleology1     
except in one paragraph1 in which we    
read3 ,m4 ,flourens cannot imagine an   
unconscious selection2 it is for him a  
contradiction in terms4 ,huxley's answer
 is1 ,the winds and waves of the ,bay of
 ,biscay have not much consciousness1   
and yet they have with great care       
'selected1' from an infinity of masses  
of silex1 all grains of sand below a    
certain size and have heaped them by    
themselves over a great area4444 ,a     
frosty night selects the hardy plants in
 a plantation from among the tender ones
 as effectually as if the intelligence  
of the gardener had been operative in   
cutting the weaker ones down4#ce ,if    
this means anything1 it means that as   
the winds and waves of the ,bay of      
,biscay can make heaps of sand1 so      
similar unconscious agencies can1 if you
 only give them time enough1 make an    
elephant or a man2 for this is what ,mr4
 ,darwin says natural selection has     
done4  ,,footnote3  #ce ,lay ,sermons1  

p4 #cdg4   ,rev4 ,walter ,mitchell1 ,m4 
,a41 ,vice-,president of the ,victoria  
,institute4  ,the ,victoria ,institute1 
or ,philosophical ,society of ,great    
,britain1 under the presidency of the   
,earl of ,shaftesbury1 includes among   
its members many of the dignitaries of  
the ,church of ,england1 and a large    
number of distinguished men of different
 professions and denominations4 ,its    
principal object is1 ,to investigate    
fully and impartially the most important
 questions of philosophy and science1   
but more especially those that bear on  
the great truths revealed in ,holy      
,scripture1 with the view of defending  
these truths against the opposition of  
,science1 falsely so called4 ,the       
,institute holds bi-monthly meetings1 at
 which papers are read on some important
 topic1 and then submitted to criticism 
and discussion4 ,these papers1 many of  
which are very elaborate1 are published 
in the ,transactions of the ,institute1 
together with a full report of the      

discussions to which they gave rise4    
,six volumes1 replete with valuable and 
varied information1 have already been   
published4  ,very considerable latitude 
of opinion is allowed4 ,hence we find in
 the ,transactions1 papers for and      
against evolution1--for and against     
,darwinism4 ,it would be easy to quote  
extracts1 pertinent to our subject1 more
 than enough to fill a volume much      
larger than the present4 ,we must       
content ourselves with a few citations  
from the discussion on a paper in favor 
of the credibility of ,darwinism1#cf and
 another in favor of the doctrine of    
evolution4#cg ,in summing up the debates
 on these two topics1 the chairman1     
,rev4 ,walter ,mitchell1 presented with 
great clearness and force his reasons   
for regarding ,darwinism as incredible  
and impossible4 ,in his protracted      
remarks he contrasts the ,scriptural    
doctrine1 that of the ,vestiges of      
,creation1 and that of ,darwin on the   
origin of species4 ,he thus states the  

doctrine of the ,bible on the subject3  
,if1 he says1 science be another name   
for real knowledge2 if science be the   
pursuit of sound wisdom2 if science be  
the pursuit of truth itself2 ,i say that
 man has no right to reject anything    
that is true because it savors of ,god4 
,well1 what is this hypothesis--older   
than that of ,darwin--which does1 and   
does alone1 account for all the observed
 facts1 or all that which we can read1  
recorded in the book of ,nature8 ,it is1
 that ,god created all things very good2
 that ,he made every vegetable after its
 own kind2 that ,he made every animal   
after its own kind2 that ,he allowed    
certain laws of variation1 but that ,he 
has ordained strict1 though invisible   
and invincible barriers1 which prevent  
that variation from running riot1 and   
which includes it within strict and well
 defined limits4 ,this is a hypothesis  
which will account for all that we have 
learnt from the works of ,nature4 ,it   
admits an intelligent ,being as the     

,author of all the works of creation1   
animate as well as inanimate2 it leaves 
no mysteries in the animate world       
unaccounted for4 ,there is one thing    
which the animate1 as well as the       
inanimate world declares to man1 one    
thing everywhere plainly recorded1 if we
 will only read it1 and that is the     
impress of design1 the design of        
infinite wisdom4 ,any theory which comes
 in with an attempt to ignore design as 
manifested in ,god's creation1 is a     
theory1 ,i say1 which attempts to       
dethrone ,god4 ,this the theory of      
,darwin does endeavor to do4 ,if asked  
how our old theory accounts for such    
uniformity of design in the midst of    
such perplexing variety as we find in   
nature1 we reply1 that this can only be 
accounted for on one admission1 that the
 whole is the work of one ,author1 built
 according1 as it were1 to one style2   
that it represents the unity of one mind
 with the infinite power of adapting all
 its works in the most perfect manner   

for the uses for which they were        
created4 ,whewell has boldly maintained1
 and he has never been controverted1    
that all real advances in the sciences  
of physiology and comparative           
anatomy1--such as that made by ,harvey  
in discovering the circulation of the   
blood1--have been made by those who not 
only believed in the existence of design
 everywhere manifested in the animate   
world1 but were led by that belief to   
make their discoveries4  ,when          
discussing the paper of ,mr4 ,henslow on
 evolution1 he says3 ,in speaking of    
this paper ,i must commend the exceeding
 reverent tone in which the author has  
discussed the subject1 and ,i should    
like to see all such subjects discussed 
in a similar tone4 ,the view which ,mr4 
,henslow brings forward1 however1 does  
not appear to be a very original one4   
,it was the first view ever brought     
forward on the doctrine of evolution1   
and ,i was the first one to point out   
that the whole doctrine was one of      

retrograde character4 ,the whole tone   
and character of this paper1 except that
 which relates to the attributes and    
moral government of ,god1#ch is nothing 
more or less than the same view of the  
doctrine of evolution which created such
 a sensation in this country when that  
famous book came out1 ',the ,vestiges of
 ,creation4' ,so far as ,i can          
understand the arguments of ,mr4        
,darwin1 they have simply been an       
endeavor to eject out of the idea of    
evolution the personal work of the      
,deity4 ,his whole endeavor has been to 
push the ,creator farther and farther   
back out of view4 ,the most laborious   
part of ,darwin's attempt at            
reasoning1--for it is not true          
reasoning1--the most laborious part of  
his logic and reasoning1 is intended to 
eliminate1 as perfectly as any of the   
atheistical authors have endeavored to  
do1 the idea of design4 ,now1 setting   
revelation aside1 the manner in which   
the unknown author of the ',vestiges of 

,creation' treated this subject1        
satisfactorily showed that the doctrine 
of evolution was not in itself an       
atheistical doctrine1 nor did it deny   
the existence of design4 ,so far as ,i  
could understand and make out1 having   
carefully read the book at the time it  
came out and afterwards1 and having     
carefully analyzed and compared it and  
,mr4 ,darwin's book with each other1 so 
far as ,i could understand it1 the      
doctrine of the author of the ',vestiges
 of ,creation' was simply1 that ,god    
created all things1 and that when ,he   
created matter ,he impressed on it      
certain laws2 that matter1 being evolved
 according to those laws1 should produce
 beings and organs mutually adapted to  
one another and to the world2 and that  
every successive development which      
should be produced was essentially      
foreseen1 foreknown1 and predetermined  
by the ,deity4 ,his idea1 for instance1 
of the evolution of an eye from a more  
simple organ was that the ultimate      

eye--man's eye1 for instance--was to be 
a perfect optical instrument1 and that  
its perfection depended on the previous 
design by the ,creator1 that at a       
certain period it should appear in a    
body quite adapted for its purposes4    
,there is one question1--and not the    
only one1 but we must consider it as an 
important question1--whether you can    
maintain a doctrine of evolution which  
shall not be atheistical1 and which     
shall admit the great argument of       
design8 ,that is one thing2 but the next
 thing is1 does such a doctrine as that 
accord either with revelation or with   
the facts of science8 ,i do not believe 
that it can be made to agree with what  
we believe to be the revealed ,word of  
,god1 and ,i do not believe that it has 
in the least degree been proved that the
 doctrine is consistent with sound      
science4  ,as to ,mr4 ,darwin's theory1 
it is obvious from the passages already 
quoted that he considers its            
characteristic feature is not evolution1

 nor even natural selection1 but the    
denial of teleology1 or of intelligent  
control4 ,mr4 ,darwin admits the        
original creation of one or a few forms 
of life2 and ,mr4 ,mitchell1 in his     
comments on ,mr4 ,warington's defence of
 his theory1 asks1 ,why am ,i to limit  
the work of the ,creator to the         
simultaneous or successive creations of 
ten or twelve commencements of the      
animate creation8 ,why1 simply for the  
purpose of evading the evidence of      
design as manifested in the adaptation  
of all the organs of every animate      
creature to its wants1 which can only be
 done by so incredible an hypothesis as 
that of ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,i say fearlessly1
 that any hypothesis which requires us  
to admit that the formation of such     
complex organs as the eye1 the ear1 the 
heart1 the brain1 with all their        
marvellous structures and mechanical    
adaptations to the wants of the         
creatures possessing them1 so perfectly 
in harmony1 too1 with the laws of       

inorganic matter1 affords no evidence of
 design2 that such structures could be  
built up by gradual chance improvements1
 perpetuated by the law of transmission1
 and perfected by the destruction of    
creatures less favorably endowed1 is so 
incredible1 that ,i marvel to find any  
thinking man capable of adopting it for 
a single moment4 ,it is useless to      
multiply quotations4 ,darwinism is never
 brought up either formally or          
incidentally1 that its exclusion of     
design in the formation of living       
organisms is not urged as the main      
objection against the whole theory4     
,,footnotes3  #cf ,the ,credibility of  
,darwinism4 ,by ,george ,warington1     
,esq41 ,f4 ,c4 ,s41 ,m4 ,v4 ,i4  #cg ,on
 certain ,analogies between the ,methods
 of ,deity in ,nature and ,revelation4  
,by ,rev4 ,g4 ,e4 ,henslow1 ,m4 ,a41 ,f4
 ,l4 ,s41 ,m4 ,v4 ,i4  #ch ,the second  
part of ,mr4 ,henslow's paper concerns  
the methods of the ,deity as revealed to
 us in the ,bible4 ,the same is         

substantially true of his work1 ,the    
,theory of ,evolution4   ,principal     
,dawson4  ,dr4 ,dawson1 as we are       
informed1 is regarded as the first      
palontologist1 and among the first      
geologists1 in ,america4 ,in his ,story 
of ,earth and ,man1#ci he passes in     
review the several geological periods   
recognized by geologists2 describes as  
far as knowable the distribution of land
 and water during each period1 and the  
vegetable and animal productions by     
which they were distinguished4 ,his book
 from beginning to end is               
anti-,darwinian4 ,in common with other  
naturalists1 his attention is directed  
principally to the doctrine of          
evolution1 which he endeavors to prove  
is utterly untenable4 ,that ,mr4        
,darwin's theory excludes teleology is  
everywhere assumed as an uncontroverted 
and uncontrovertible fact4 ,the         
evolutionist doctrine1 he says1 is      
itself one of the strangest phenomena of
 humanity4 ,it existed1 and most        

naturally1 in the oldest philosophy and 
poetry1 in connection with the crudest  
and most uncritical attempts of the     
human mind to grasp the system of       
nature2 but that in our day a system    
destitute of any shadow of proof1 and   
supported merely by vague analogies and 
figures of speech1 and by the arbitrary 
and artificial coherence of its own     
parts1 should be accepted as philosophy1
 and should find able adherents to      
string on its thread of hypotheses our  
vast and weighty stores of knowledge1 is
 surpassingly strange4444 ,in many      
respects these speculations are         
important1 and worthy the attention of  
thinking men4 ,they seek to             
revolutionize the religious belief of   
the world1 and if accepted would destroy
 most of the existing theology and      
philosophy4 ,they indicate tendencies   
among scientific thinkers1 which1 though
 probably temporary1 must1 before they  
disappear1 descend to lower strata1 and 
reproduce themselves in grosser forms1  

and with most serious effects on the    
whole structure of society4 ,with one   
class of minds they constitute a sort of
 religion1 which so far satisfies the   
craving for truth higher than those     
which relate to immediate wants and     
pleasures4 ,with another and perhaps    
larger class1 they are accepted as      
affording a welcome deliverance from all
 scruples of conscience and fears of a  
hereafter4 ,in the domain of science    
evolutionism has like tendencies4 ,it   
reduces the position of man1 who becomes
 a descendant of inferior animals1 and a
 mere term in a series whose end is     
unknown4 ,it removes from the study of  
nature the ideas of final cause and     
purpose2 and the evolutionist1 instead  
of regarding the world as a work of     
consummate plan1 skill1 and adjustment1 
approaches nature as he would a chaos of
 fallen rocks1 which may present forms  
of castles1 and grotesque profiles of   
men and animals1 but they are all       
fortuitous and without significance4    

7pp4 #cag1 #cah7  ,taking1 then1 this   
broad view of the subject1 two great    
leading alternatives are presented to   
us4 ,either man is an independent       
product of the will of a ,higher        
,intelligence1 acting directly or       
through the laws and materials of his   
own institution and production1 or he   
has been produced by an unconscious     
evolution from lower things4 ,it is true
 that many evolutionists1 either        
unwilling to offend1 or not perceiving  
the logical consequences of their own   
hypothesis1 endeavor to steer a middle  
course1 and to maintain that the        
,creator has proceeded by way of        
evolution4 ,but the bare1 hard logic of 
,spencer1 the greatest ,english         
authority on evolution1 leaves no place 
for this compromise1 and shows that the 
theory1 carried out to its legitimate   
consequences1 excludes the knowledge of 
a ,creator and the possibility of his   
work4 ,we have1 therefore1 to choose    
between evolution and creation1 bearing 

in mind1 however1 that there may be a   
place in nature for evolution1 properly 
limited1 as well as for other things1   
and that the idea of creation by no     
means excludes law and second causes4   
7p4 #cba7  ,it may be said1 that        
evolution may be held as a scientific   
doctrine in connection with a modified  
belief in creation4 ,the work of actual 
creation may have been limited to a few 
elementary types1 and evolution may have
 done the rest4 ,evolutionists may still
 be theists4 ,we have already seen that 
the doctrine1 as carried out to its     
logical consequences1 excludes creation 
and theism4 ,it may1 however1 be shown  
that even in its more modified form1 and
 when held by men who maintain that they
 are not atheists1 it is practically    
atheistic1 because excluding the idea of
 plan and design1 and resolving all     
things into the action of unintelligent 
forces4 ,it is necessary to observe     
this1 because it is the                 
half-way-evolutionism1 which professes  

to have a creator somewhere behind it1  
that is most popular2 though it is1 if  
possible1 more unphilosophical than that
 which professes to set out with        
absolute and determined nonentity1 or   
from self-existing stardust containing  
all the possibilities of the universe4  
,in reference to the objection of       
evolutionists1 that the origin of every 
new species1 on the theistic doctrine1  
supposes a miracle1 an intervention of  
the divine efficiency without the agency
 of second causes1 ,principal ,dawson   
asks1 ,what is the actual statement of  
the theory of creation as it may be held
 by a modern man of science8 ,simply    
this3 that all things have been produced
 by the ,supreme ,creative will1 acting 
either directly1 or through the agency  
of the forces and material of his own   
production4 7p4 #cdj7  ,he thus sums up 
his argument against the doctrine of    
evolution1 specially in its application 
to man3 ,finally1 the evolutionist      
picture wants some of the fairest       

lineaments of humanity1 and cheats us   
with the semblance of man without the   
reality4 ,shave and paint your ape as   
you may1 clothe him and set him up upon 
his feet1 still he fails greatly of the 
'human form divine2' and so it is with  
him morally and spiritually as well4 ,we
 have seen that he wants the instinct of
 immortality1 the love of ,god1 the     
mental and spiritual power of exercising
 dominion over the earth4 ,the very     
agency by which he is evolved is of     
itself subversive of all these higher   
properties2 the struggle for existence  
is essentially selfish1 and1 therefore1 
degrading4 ,even in the lower animals1  
it is a false assumption that its       
tendency is to elevate2 for animals1    
when driven to the utmost verge of the  
struggle for life1 become depauperated  
and degraded4 ,the dog which spends its 
life in snarling contention with its    
fellow curs for insufficient food1 will 
not be a noble specimen of its race4    
,god does not so treat his creatures4   

,there is far more truth to nature in   
the doctrine which represents ,him as   
listening to the young ravens when they 
cry for food4 ,but as applied to man1   
the theory of the struggle for          
existence1 and survival of the fittest1 
though the most popular phase of        
evolutionism at present1 is nothing less
 than the basest and most horrible of   
superstitions4 ,it makes man not merely 
carnal but devilish4 ,it takes his      
lowest appetites and propensities1 and  
makes them his ,god and ,creator4 ,his  
higher sentiments and aspirations1 his  
self-denying philanthropy1 his          
enthusiasm for the good and true1 all   
the struggles and sufferings of heroes  
and martyrs1 not to speak of that       
self-sacrifice which is the foundation  
of ,christianity1 are1 in the view of   
the evolutionist1 mere loss and waste1  
failure in the struggle of life4 ,what  
does he give us in exchange8 ,an endless
 pedigree of bestial ancestors1 without 
one gleam of high and holy tradition to 

enliven the procession2 and for the     
future1 the prospect that the poor mass 
of protoplasm1 which constitutes the sum
 of our being1 and which is the sole    
gain of an indefinite struggle in the   
past1 must soon be resolved again into  
inferior animals or dead matter4 ,that  
men of thought and culture should       
advocate such a philosophy1 argues      
either a strange mental hallucination1  
or that the higher spiritual nature has 
been wholly quenched within them4 ,it is
 one of the saddest of many sad         
spectacles which our age presents4 7p4  
#cie7  ,,footnote3  #ci ,the ,story of  
,earth and ,man4 ,by ,j4 ,w4 ,dawson1   
,,ll4 ,d41 ,f4 ,r4 ,s41 ,f4 ,g4 ,s41    
,principal and ,vice-,chancellor of     
,mc,gill ,university1 ,montreal4 ,author
 of ,archaia1 ,acadian ,geology1 etc4   
,second edition4 ,london1 #ahgc1 pp4    
#cig4   ,relation of ,darwinism to      
,religion4  ,the consideration of that  
subject would lead into the wide field  
of the relation between science and     

religion4 ,into that field we lack      
competency and time to enter2 a few     
remarks1 however1 on the subject may not
 be out of place4 ,those remarks1 we    
would fain make in a humble way         
irenical4 ,there is need of an          
,irenicum1 for the fact is painfully    
notorious that there is an antagonism   
between scientific men as a class1 and  
religious men as a class4 ,of course    
this opposition is neither felt nor     
expressed by all on either side4        
,nevertheless1 whatever may be the cause
 of this antagonism1 or whoever are to  
be blamed for it1 there can be no doubt 
that it exists and that it is an evil4  
,the first cause of the alienation in   
question is1 that the two parties1 so to
 speak1 adopt different rules of        
evidence1 and thus can hardly avoid     
arriving at different conclusions4 ,to  
understand this we must determine what  
is meant by science1 and by scientific  
evidence4 ,science1 according to its    
etymology1 is simply knowledge4 ,but    

usage has limited its meaning1 in the   
first place1 not to the knowledge of    
facts or phenomena1 merely1 but to their
 causes and relations4 ,it was said of  
old1 ,greek3 hoti scienti fundamentum1  
,greek3 dioti fastigium4 ,no amount of  
materials would constitute a building4  
,they must be duly arranged so as to    
make a symmetrical whole4 ,no amount of 
disconnected data can constitute a      
science4 ,those data must be            
systematized in their relation to each  
other and to other things4 ,in the      
second place1 the word is becoming more 
and more restricted to the knowledge of 
a particular class of facts1 and of     
their relations1 namely1 the facts of   
nature or of the external world4 ,this  
usage is not universal1 nor is it fixed4
 ,in ,germany1 especially1 the word     
,wissenschaft is used of all kinds of   
ordered knowledge1 whether              
transcendental or empirical4 ,so we are 
accustomed to speak of mental1 moral1   
social1 as well as of natural science4  

,nevertheless1 the more restricted use  
of the word is very common and very     
influential4 ,it is important that this 
fact should be recognized4 ,in common   
usage1 a scientific man is distinguished
 specially from a metaphysician4 ,the   
one investigates the phenomena of       
matter1 the other studies the phenomena 
of mind1 according to the old           
distinction between physics and         
metaphysics4 ,science1 therefore1 is the
 ordered knowledge of the phenomena     
which we recognize through the senses4  
,a scientific fact is a fact perceived  
by the senses4 ,scientific evidence is  
evidence addressed to the senses4 ,at   
one of the meetings of the ,victoria    
,institute1 a visitor avowed his        
disbelief in the existence of ,god4     
,when asked1 what kind of evidence would
 satisfy him8 he answered1 ,just such   
evidence as ,i have of the existence of 
this tumbler which ,i now hold in my    
hand4 ,the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,henslow says1 ,by
 science is meant the investigation of  

facts and phenomena recognizable by the 
senses1 and of the causes which have    
brought them into existence4#dj ,this is
 the main root of the trouble4 ,if      
science be the knowledge of the facts   
perceived by the senses1 and scientific 
evidence1 evidence addressed to the     
senses1 then the senses are the only    
sources of knowledge4 ,any conviction   
resting on any other ground than the    
testimony of the senses1 must be faith4 
,darwin admits that the contrivances in 
nature may be accounted for by assuming 
that they are due to design on the part 
of ,god4 ,but1 he says1 that would not  
be science4 ,haeckel says that to       
science matter is eternal4 ,if any man  
chooses to say1 it was created1 well and
 good2 but that is a matter of faith1   
and faith is imagination4 ,ulrici quotes
 a distinguished ,german physiologist   
who believes in vital1 as distinguished 
from physical forces2 but he holds to   
spontaneous generation1 not1 as he      
admits1 because it has been proved1 but 

because the admission of any higher     
power than nature is unscientific4#da   
,it is inevitable that minds addicted to
 scientific investigation should receive
 a strong bias to undervalue any other  
kind of evidence except that of the     
senses1 i4 e41 scientific evidence4 ,we 
have seen that those who give themselves
 up to this tendency come to deny ,god1 
to deny mind1 to deny even self4 ,it is 
true that the great majority of men1    
scientific as well as others1 are so    
much under the control of the laws of   
their nature1 that they cannot go to    
this extreme4 ,the tendency1 however1 of
 a mind addicted to the consideration of
 one kind of evidence1 to become more or
 less insensible to other kinds of      
proof1 is undeniable4 ,thus even        
,agassiz1 as a zologist and simply on   
zological grounds1 assumed that there   
were several zones between the ,ganges  
and the ,atlantic ,ocean1 each having   
its own flora and fauna1 and inhabited  
by races of men1 the same in kind1 but  

of different origins4 ,when told by the 
comparative philologists that this was  
impossible1 because the languages spoken
 through that wide region1 demonstrated 
that its inhabitants must have had a    
common descent1 he could only answer    
that as ducks quack everywhere1 he could
 not see why men should not everywhere  
speak the same language4  ,a still more 
striking illustration is furnished by   
,dr4 ,lionel ,beale1 the distinguished  
,english physiologist4 ,he has written a
 book of three hundred and eighty-eight 
pages for the express purpose of proving
 that the phenomena of life1 instinct1  
and intellect cannot be referred to any 
known natural forces4 ,he avows his     
belief that in nature mind governs      
matter1 and in the existence of a       
never-changing1 all-seeing1             
power-directing and matter-guiding      
,omnipotence4 ,he avows his faith in    
miracles1 and those miracles on which   
,christianity is founded4 ,nevertheless1
 his faith in all these points is       

provisional4 ,he says that a truly      
scientific man1 if the maintenance1     
continuity1 and nature of life on our   
planet should at some future time be    
fully explained without supposing the   
existence of any such supernatural      
omnipotent influence1 would be bound to 
receive the new explanation1 and might  
abandon the old conviction4#db ,that is1
 all evidence of the truths of religion 
not founded on nature and perceived by  
the senses1 amounts to nothing4  ,now as
 religion does not rest on the testimony
 of the senses1 that is on scientific   
evidence1 the tendency of scientific men
 is to ignore its claims4 ,we speak only
 of tendency4 ,we rejoice to know or    
believe that in hundreds or thousands of
 scientific men1 this tendency is       
counteracted by their consciousness of  
manhood--the conviction that the body is
 not the man1--by the intuitions of the 
reason and the conscience1 and by the   
grace of ,god4 ,no class of men stands  
deservedly higher in public estimation  

than men of science1 who1 while         
remaining faithful to their higher      
nature1 have enlarged our knowledge of  
the wonderful works of ,god4  ,a second 
cause of the alienation between science 
and religion1 is the failure to make the
 due distinction between facts and the  
explanation of those facts1 or the      
theories deduced from them4 ,no sound   
minded man disputes any scientific fact4
 ,religious men believe with ,agassiz   
that facts are sacred4 ,they are        
revelations from ,god4 ,christians      
sacrifice to them1 when duly            
authenticated1 their most cherished     
convictions4 ,that the earth moves1 no  
religious man doubts4 ,when ,galileo    
made that great discovery1 the ,church  
was right in not yielding at once to the
 evidence of an experiment which it did 
not understand4 ,but when the fact was  
clearly established1 no man sets up his 
interpretation of the ,bible in         
opposition to it4 ,religious men admit  
all the facts connected with our solar  

system2 all the facts of geology1 and of
 comparative anatomy1 and of biology4   
,ought not this to satisfy scientific   
men8 ,must we also admit their          
explanations and inferences8 ,if we     
admit that the human embryo passes      
through various phases1 must we admit   
that man was once a fish1 then a bird1  
then a dog1 then an ape1 and finally    
what he now is8 ,if we admit the        
similarity of structure in all          
vertebrates1 must we admit the evolution
 of one from another1 and all from a    
primordial germ8 ,it is to be remembered
 that the facts are from ,god1 the      
explanation from men2 and the two are   
often as far apart as ,heaven and its   
antipode4  ,these human explanations are
 not only without authority1 but they   
are very mutable4 ,they change not only 
from generation to generation1 but      
almost as often as the phases of the    
moon4 ,it is a fact that the planets    
move4 ,once it was said that they were  
moved by spirits1 then by vortexes1 now 

by self-evolved forces4 ,it is hard that
 we should be called upon to change our 
faith with every new moon4 ,the same man
 sometimes propounds theories almost as 
rapidly as the changes of the           
kaleidoscope4 ,the amiable ,sir ,charles
 ,lyell1 ,england's most distinguished  
geologist1 has published ten editions of
 his ,principles of ,geology1 which so  
differ as to make it hard to believe    
that it is the work of the same mind4   
,in all the editions up to the tenth1 he
 looked upon geological facts and       
geological phenomena as proving the     
fixity of species and their special     
creation in time4 ,in the tenth edition1
 just published1 he announces his change
 of opinion on this subject and his     
conversion to the doctrine of           
development by law4#dc ,in the eighth   
edition of his work1 says ,dr4 ,bree1   
,sir ,charles ,lyell1 the ,nestor of    
geologists1 to whom the present         
generation is more indebted than to any 
other for all that is known of geology  

in its advanced stage1 teaches that     
species have a real existence in nature1
 and that each was endowed at the time  
of its creation with the attributes and 
organization by which it is now         
distinguished4 ,the change on the part  
of this eminent geologist1 it is to be  
observed1 is a mere change of opinion4  
,there was no change of the facts of    
geology between the publication of the  
eighth and of the tenth edition of his  
work1 neither was there any change in   
his knowledge of those facts4 ,all the  
facts relied upon by evolutionists1 have
 long been familiar to scientific men4  
,the whole change is a subjective one4  
,one year the veteran geologist thinks  
the facts teach one thing1 another year 
he thinks they teach another4 ,it is now
 the fact1 and it is feared it will     
continue to be a fact1 that scientific  
men give the name of science to their   
explanations as well as to the facts4   
,nay1 they are often1 and naturally1    
more zealous for their explanations than

 they are for the facts4 ,the facts are 
,god's1 the explanations are their own4 
,the third cause of the alienation      
between religion and science1 is the    
bearing of scientific men towards the   
men of culture who do not belong to     
their own class4 ,when we1 in such      
connections1 speak of scientific men1 we
 do not mean men of science as such1 but
 those only who avow or manifest their  
hostility to religion4 ,there is an     
assumption of superiority1 and often a  
manifestation of contempt4 ,those who   
call their logic or their conjectures   
into question1 are stigmatized as       
narrow-minded1 bigots1 old women1 ,bible
 worshippers1 etc4  ,professor ,huxley's
 advice to metaphysicians and           
theologians is1 to let science alone4   
,this is his ,irenicum4 ,but do he and  
his associates let metaphysics and      
religion alone8 ,they tell the          
metaphysician that his vocation is gone2
 there is no such thing as mind1 and of 
course no mental laws to be established4

 ,metaphysics are merged into physics4  
,professor ,huxley tells the religious  
world that there is over-whelming and   
crushing evidence 7scientific evidence1 
of course7 that no event has ever       
occurred on this earth which was not the
 effect of natural causes4 ,hence there 
have been no miracles1 and ,christ is   
not risen4#dd ,he says that the doctrine
 that belief in a personal ,god is      
necessary to any religion worthy of the 
name1 is a mere matter of opinion4      
,tyndall1 ,carpenter1 and ,henry        
,thompson1 teach that prayer is a       
superstitious absurdity2 ,herbert       
,spencer1 whom they call their great    
philosopher1 i4 e41 the man who does    
their thinking1 labors to prove that    
there cannot be a personal ,god1 or     
human soul or self2 that moral laws are 
mere generalizations of utility1 or1 as 
,carl ,vogt says1 that self respect1 and
 not the will of ,god1 is the ground and
 rule of moral obligation4 ,if any      
protest be made against such doctrines1 

we are told that scientific truth cannot
 be put down by denunciation 7or as     
,vogt says1 by barking74 ,so doubtless  
the ,pharisees1 when our blessed ,lord  
called them hypocrites and a generation 
of vipers1 and said3 ,ye compass sea and
 land to make one proselyte2 and when he
 is made1 ye make him twofold more the  
child of hell than yourselves1 doubtless
 thought that that was a poor way to    
refute their theory1 that holiness and  
salvation were to be secured by         
church-membership and church-rites4     
,nevertheless1 as those words were the  
words of ,christ1 they were a           
thunderbolt which reverberates through  
all time and space1 and still makes     
,pharisees of every name and nation     
tremble4 ,huxley's ,irenicum will not   
do4 ,men who are assiduously poisoning  
the fountains of religion1 morality1 and
 social order1 cannot be let alone4     
,haeckel's ,irenicum amounts to much the
 same as that of ,professor ,huxley4 ,he
 forbids the right to speak on these    

vital subjects1 to all who are not      
thoroughly versed in biology1 and who   
are not entirely emancipated from the   
trammels of their long cherished        
traditional beliefs4#de ,this1 as the   
whole context shows1 means that a man in
 order to be entitled to be heard on the
 evolution theory1 must be willing to   
renounce his faith not only in the      
,bible1 but in ,god1 in the soul1 in a  
future life1 and become a monistic      
materialist4#df  ,it is very reasonable 
that scientific men1 in common with     
lawyers and physicians and other        
professional men1 should feel themselves
 entitled to be heard with special      
deference on subjects belonging to their
 respective departments4 ,this deference
 no one is disposed to deny to men of   
science4 ,but it is to be remembered    
that no department of human knowledge is
 isolated4 ,one runs into and overlaps  
another4 ,we have abundant evidence that
 the devotees of natural science are not
 willing to confine themselves to the   

department of nature1 in the common     
sense of that word4 ,they not only      
speculate1 but dogmatize1 on the highest
 questions of philosophy1 morality1 and 
religion4 ,and further1 admitting the   
special claims to deference on the part 
of scientific men1 other men have their 
rights4 ,they have the right to judge of
 the consistency of the assertions of   
men of science and of the logic of their
 reasoning4 ,they have the right to set 
off the testimony of one or more experts
 against the testimony of others2 and   
especially1 they have the right to      
reject all speculations1 hypotheses1 and
 theories1 which come in conflict with  
well established truths4 ,it is ground  
of profound gratitude to ,god that ,he  
has given to the human mind intuitions  
which are infallible1 laws of belief    
which men cannot disregard any more than
 the laws of nature1 and also           
convictions produced by the ,spirit of  
,god which no sophistry of man can      
weaken4 ,these are barriers which no man

 can pass without plunging into the     
abyss of outer darkness4  ,if there be  
any truth in the preceding remarks1 then
 it is obvious that there can be no     
harmony between science and religion    
until the evils referred to be removed4 
,scientific men must come to recognize  
practically1 and not merely in words1   
that there are other kinds of evidence  
of truth than the testimony of the      
senses4 ,they must come to give due     
weight to the testimony of              
consciousness1 and to the intuitions of 
the reason and conscience4 ,they must   
cease to require the deference due to   
established facts to be paid to their   
speculations and explanations4 ,and they
 must treat their fellow-men with due   
respect4 ,the ,pharisees said to the man
 whose sight had been restored by       
,christ1 ,thou wast altogether born in  
sin1 and dost thou teach us6 ,men of    
science must not speak thus4 ,they must 
not say to every objector1 ,thou art not
 scientific1 and therefore hast no right

 to speak4 ,the true ,irenicum is for   
all parties to give due heed to such    
words as these1 ,if any man would be    
wise1 let him become a fool1 that he may
 be wise2 or these1 ,be converted1 and  
become as little children2 or these1    
,the ,spirit of ,truth shall guide you  
in all truth4 ,we are willing to hear   
this called cant4 ,nevertheless1 these  
latter words fell from the lips of ,him 
who spake as never man spake4  ,so much1
 and it is very little1 on the general  
question of the relation of science to  
religion4 ,but what is to be thought of 
the special relation of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
theory to the truths of natural and     
revealed religion8 ,we have already seen
 that ,darwinism includes the three     
elements1 evolution1 natural selection1 
and the denial of design in nature4     
,these points1 however1 cannot now be   
considered separately4  ,it is conceded 
that a man may be an evolutionist and   
yet not be an atheist and may admit of  
design in nature4 ,but we cannot see how

 the theory of evolution can be         
reconciled with the declarations of the 
,scriptures4 ,others may see it1 and be 
able to reconcile their allegiance to   
science with their allegiance to the    
,bible4 ,professor ,huxley1 as we have  
seen1 pronounces the thing impossible4  
,as all error is antagonistic to truth1 
if the evolution theory be false1 it    
must be opposed to the truths of        
religion so far as the two come into    
contact4 ,mr4 ,henslow1 indeed1 says    
,science and ,religion are not          
antagonistic because they are in        
different spheres of thought4 ,this is  
often said by men who do not admit that 
there is any thought at all in religion2
 that it is merely a matter of feeling4 
,the fact1 however1 is that religion is 
a system of knowledge1 as well as a     
state of feeling4 ,the truths on which  
all religion is founded are drawn within
 the domain of science1 the nature of   
the first cause1 its relation to the    
world1 the nature of second causes1 the 

origin of life1 anthropology1 including 
the origin1 nature1 and destiny of man4 
,religion has to fight for its life     
against a large class of scientific men4
 ,all attempts to prevent her exercising
 her right to be heard are unreasonable 
and vain4  ,it should be premised that  
this paper was written for the single   
purpose of answering the question1 ,what
 is ,darwinism8 ,the discussion of the  
merits of the theory was not within the 
scope of the writer4 ,what follows1     
therefore1 is to be considered only in  
the light of a practical conclusion4    
#a4 ,the first objection to the theory  
is its prim facie incredibility4 ,that a
 single plant or animal should be       
developed from a mere cell1 is such a   
wonder1 that nothing but daily          
observation of the fact could induce any
 man to believe it4 ,let any one ask    
himself1 suppose this fact was not thus 
familiar1 what amount of speculation1 of
 arguments from analogies1              
possibilities1 and probabilities1 could 

avail to produce conviction of its      
truth4 ,but who can believe that all the
 plants and animals which have ever     
existed upon the face of the earth1 have
 been evolved from one such germ8 ,this 
is ,darwin's doctrine4 ,we are aware    
that this apparent impossibility is     
evaded by the believers in spontaneous  
generation1 who hold that such germ     
cells may be produced anywhere and at   
all times4 ,but this is not ,darwinism4 
,darwin wants us to believe that all    
living things1 from the lowly violet to 
the giant redwoods of ,california1 from 
the microscopic animalcule to the       
,mastodon1 the ,dinotherium1--monsters  
the very description of which fill us   
with horror1--bats with wings twenty    
feet in breadth1 flying dragons1        
tortoises ten feet high and eighteen    
feet long1 etc41 etc41 came one and all 
from the same primordial germ4 ,this    
demand is the more unreasonable when we 
remember that these living creatures are
 not only so different1 but are1 as to  

plants and animals1 directly opposed in 
their functions4 ,the function of the   
plant1 as biologists express it1 is to  
produce force1 that of the animal to    
expend it4 ,the plant1 in virtue of a   
power peculiar to itself1 which no art  
or skill of man can imitate1 transmutes 
dead inorganic matter into organic      
matter1 suited to the sustenance of     
animal life1 and without which animals  
cannot live4 ,the gulf1 therefore1      
between the plant and animal would seem 
to be impassable4  ,further1 the        
variations by which the change of       
species is effected are so trifling as  
often to be imperceptible1 and their    
accumulation of them so slow as to evade
 notice1--the time requisite to         
accomplish any marked change must be    
counted by millions1 or milliards of    
years4 ,here is another demand on our   
credulity4 ,the apex is reached when we 
are told that all these transmutations  
are effected by chance1 that is1 without
 purpose or intention4 ,taking all these

 things into consideration1 we think it 
may1 with moderation1 be said1 that a   
more absolutely incredible theory was   
never propounded for acceptance among   
men4  #b4 ,there is no pretence that the
 theory can be proved4 ,mr4 ,darwin does
 not pretend to prove it4 ,he admits    
that all the facts in the case can be   
accounted for on the assumption of      
divine purpose and control4 ,all that he
 claims for his theory is that it is    
possible4 ,his mode of arguing is that  
if we suppose this and that1 then it may
 have happened thus and so4 ,amiable and
 attractive as the man presents himself 
in his writings1 it rouses indignation1 
in one class at least of his readers1 to
 see him by such a mode of arguing      
reaching conclusions which are          
subversive of the fundamental truths of 
religion4  #c4 ,another fact cannot fail
 to attract attention4 ,when the theory 
of evolution was propounded in #ahdd in 
the ,vestiges of ,creation1 it was      
universally rejected2 when proposed by  

,mr4 ,darwin1 less than twenty years    
afterward1 it was received with         
acclamation4 ,why is this8 ,the facts   
are now what they were then4 ,they were 
as well known then as they are now4 ,the
 theory1 so far as evolution is         
concerned1 was then just what it is now4
 ,how then is it1 that what was         
scientifically false in #ahdd is        
scientifically true in #ahfd8 ,when a   
drama is introduced in a theatre and    
universally condemned1 and a little     
while afterward1 with a little change in
 the scenery1 it is received with       
rapturous applause1 the natural         
conclusion is1 that the change is in the
 audience and not in the drama4  ,there 
is only one cause for the fact referred 
to1 that we can think of4 ,the ,vestiges
 of ,creation did not expressly or      
effectually exclude design4 ,darwin     
does4 ,this is a reason assigned by the 
most zealous advocates of his theory for
 their adoption of it4 ,this is the     
reason given by ,bchner1 by ,haeckel1   

and by ,vogt4 ,it is assigned also in   
express terms by ,strauss1 the          
announcement of whose death has diffused
 a feeling of sadness over all who were 
acquainted with his antecedents4 ,in his
 last work1 ,the ,old ,faith and the    
,new1 he admits that ,darwin's doctrine 
is a mere hypothesis2 that it leaves the
 main points unexplained 7,die ,hupt und
 ,cardinal-punkte noch unerklrt sind72  
nevertheless1 as he has shown how       
miracles may be excluded1 he is to be   
applauded as one of the greatest        
benefactors of the human race4 7p4 #agg7
 ,by ,wunder1 or miracle1 ,strauss means
 any event for which natural causes are 
insufficient to account4 ,we            
philosophers and critical theologians1  
he says1 have spoken well when we       
decreed the abolition of miracles2 but  
our decree 7macht-spruch7 remained      
without effect1 because we could not    
show them to be unnecessary1 inasmuch as
 we were unable to indicate any natural 
force to take their place4 ,darwin has  

provided or indicated this natural      
force1 this process of nature2 he has   
opened the door through which a happier 
posterity may eject miracles forever4   
,then follows the sentence just quoted1 
,he who knows what hangs on miracle1    
will applaud ,darwin as one of the      
greatest benefactors of the human race4 
,with ,strauss and others of his class1 
miracles and design are identical1      
because one as well as the other assumes
 supernatural agency4 ,he quotes        
,helmholtz1 who says1 ,darwin's theory1 
that adaptation in the formation of     
organisms may arise without the         
intervention of intelligence1 by the    
blind operation of natural law2 and then
 adds1 ,as ,helmholtz distinguishes the 
,english naturalist as the man who has  
banished design from nature1 so we have 
praised him as the man who has done away
 with miracles4 ,both mean the same     
thing4#dg ,design is the miracle-worker 
in nature1 which has put the world      
upside down2 or as ,spinoza says1 has   

placed the last first1 the effect for   
the cause1 and thus destroyed the very  
idea of nature4 ,design in nature1      
especially in the department of living  
organisms1 has ever been appealed to by 
those who desire to prove that the world
 is not self-evolved1 but the work of an
 intelligent ,creator4 7p4 #baa7 ,on    
page #age1 he refers to those who       
ridicule ,darwin1 and yet are so far    
under the influence of the spirit of the
 age as to deny miracles or the         
intervention of the ,creator in the     
course of nature1 and says3 ,very well2 
how do they account for the origin of   
man1 and in general the development of  
the organic out of the inorganic8 ,would
 they assume that the original man as   
such1 no matter how rough and unformed1 
but still a man1 sprang immediately out 
of the inorganic1 out of the sea or the 
slime of the ,nile8 ,they would hardly  
venture to say that2 then they must know
 that there is only the choice between  
miracle1 the divine hand of the         

,creator1 and ,darwin4 ,what an         
alternative2 the ,creator or ,darwin6   
,in this1 however1 ,strauss is right4   
,to banish design from nature1 as is    
done by ,darwin's theory1 is1 in the    
language of the ,rev4 ,walter ,mitchell1
 virtually to dethrone the ,creator4    
,ludwig ,weis1 ,m4 ,d41 of ,darmstadt1  
says it is at present the mode in       
,germany 7and of course in a measure    
here71 to glorify ,buddhism4 ,strauss1  
he adds1 says1 ,nature knows itself in  
man1 and in that he expresses the       
thought which all ,idealism and all     
,materialism make the grand end4 ,to the
 same effect it is said1 ',in ,man the  
,all comprehends itself as conscious    
being 7comes to self-consciousness72 or1
 in ,man the absolute knowledge         
7,wissen1 the act of knowing7 appears in
 the limits of personality4' ,this was  
the doctrine of the ,buddhist and of the
 ancient ,chinese4 ,thus1 as ,dr4 ,weis 
says1 in the nineteenth century of the  
,christian era1 philosophers and        

scientists have reached the point where 
the ,chinese were two thousand years    
ago4  ,the only way that is apparent for
 accounting for evolution being rejected
 in #ahdd1 and for its becoming a       
popular doctrine in #ahff1 is1 that it  
happens to suit a prevailing state of   
mind4 ,it is a fact1 so far as our      
limited knowledge extends1 that no one  
is willing to acknowledge himself1 not  
simply an evolutionist1 but an          
evolutionist of the ,darwinian school1  
who is not either a ,materialist by     
profession1 or a disciple of ,herbert   
,spencer1 or an advocate of the         
philosophy of ,hume4  ,there is another 
significant fact which goes to prove    
that the denial of design1 which is the 
creative idea of ,darwinism1 is the main
 cause of its popularity and success4   
,professor ,owen1 ,england's greatest   
naturalist1 is a derivationist4         
,derivation and evolution are           
convertible terms4 ,both include the    
denial that species are primordial1 or  

have each a different origin2 and both  
imply that one species is formed out of 
another and simpler form4 ,professor    
,owen1 however1 although a              
derivationist1 or evolutionist1 is a    
very strenuous anti-,darwinian4 ,he     
differs from ,darwin as to two points4  
,first1 as to ,natural ,selection1 or   
the ,survival of the ,fittest4 ,he says 
that is inconsistent with facts and     
utterly insufficient to account for the 
origin of species4 ,he refers the origin
 of species to an inherent tendency to  
change impressed on them from the       
beginning4 ,and second1 he admits       
design4 ,he denies that the succession  
and origin of species are due to chance1
 and expresses his belief in the        
constant operation of creative power in 
the formation of species from the varied
 descendants of more generalized        
forms4#dh ,he believes that all living  
things have been produced by such law   
7of variation7 in time1 their position  
and uses in the world having been       

preordained by the ,creator4#di         
,professor ,owen says he has taught the 
doctrine of derivation 7evolution7 for  
thirty years1 but it attracted little   
attention4 ,as soon1 however1 as ,darwin
 leaves out design1 we have a           
prairie-fire4 ,a prairie-fire1 happily1 
does not continue very long2 and while  
it lasts1 it burns up little else than  
stubble4  #d4 ,all the evidence we have 
in favor of the fixedness of species is1
 of course1 evidence not only against   
,darwinism1 but against evolution in all
 its forms4 ,it would seem idle to      
discuss the question of the mutability  
of species1 until satisfied what species
 is4 ,this1 unhappily1 is a question    
which it is exceedingly difficult to    
answer4 ,not only do the definitions    
given by scientific men differ almost   
indefinitely1 but there is endless      
diversity in classification4 ,think of  
four hundred and eighty species of      
humming-birds4 ,haeckel says that one   
naturalist makes ten1 another forty1    

another two hundred1 and another one1   
species of a certain fossil2 and we have
 just heard that ,agassiz had collected 
eight hundred species of the same fossil
 animal4 ,haeckel also says 7p4 #bdf71  
that there are no two zologists or any  
two botanists who agree altogether in   
their classification4 ,mr4 ,darwin says1
 ,no clear line of demarcation has yet  
been drawn between species and          
sub-species1 and varieties4 7p4 #fa7 ,it
 is absolutely necessary1 therefore1    
that a distinction should be made       
between artificial and natural species4 
,no man asserts the immutability of all 
those varieties of plants and animals1  
which naturalists1 for the convenience  
of classification1 may call distinct    
species4 ,haeckel1 for example1 gives a 
list of twelve species of man4 ,so any  
one may make fifty species of dogs1 or  
of horses4 ,this is a mere artificial   
distinction1 which amounts to nothing4  
,there is far greater difference between
 a pouter and a carrier pigeon1 than    

between a ,caucasian and a ,mongolian4  
,to call the former varieties of the    
same species1 and the latter distinct   
species1 is altogether arbitrary4       
,nevertheless1 notwithstanding the      
arbitrary classifications of            
naturalists1 it remains true that there 
are what ,professor ,dana calls units of
 the organic world4 ,when individuals   
multiply from generation to generation1 
it is but a repetition of the primordial
 type-idea1 and the true notion of the  
species is not in the resulting group1  
but in the idea or potential element    
which is the basis of every individual  
of the group4#ej ,dr4 ,morton's         
definition of species as primordial     
organic forms1 agrees with that given by
 ,professor ,dana2 and both agree with  
the ,bible1 which says that ,god created
 plants and animals each after its kind4
 ,a primordial form is a form which was 
not evolved out of some other form1 but 
which began to be in the form--subject  
to such varieties as we see in the dog1 

horse1 and man--in which it continued   
during the whole period of its          
existence4  ,the criteria of these      
primordial forms or species of nature1  
are1 7#a47 ,morphological4 ,animals1    
however1 may approach very nearly in    
their structure1 and yet belong to      
different species4 ,it is only when the 
peculiarities of structure are          
indicative of specialty of design1 that 
they form a safe ground of              
classification4 ,if the teeth of one    
animal are formed to fit it to feed on  
flesh1 and those of another to fit it to
 feed on plants2 if one has webbed feet 
and another not2 then1 in all such      
cases1 difference of structure proves   
difference of kind4 7#b47               
,physiological2 that is1 the internal   
nature1 indicated by habits and         
instincts1 furnishes another safe       
criterion4 7#c47 ,permanent fecundity4  
,the progenitors of the same species    
reproduce their kind from generation to 
generation2 the progeny of different    

species1 although nearly allied1 do not4
 ,it is a fixed law of nature that      
species never can be annihilated1 except
 by all the individuals included in them
 dying out2 and that new species cannot 
be produced4 ,every true species is     
primordial4 ,it is this fact1 that is1  
that no variety1 with the essential     
characteristics of species1 has ever    
been produced1 that forces1 as we saw   
above1 ,professor ,huxley to pronounce  
,mr4 ,darwin's doctrine to be an        
unproved hypothesis4 ,species continue2 
varieties1 if let alone1 always revert  
to the normal type4 ,it requires the    
skill and constant attention of man to  
keep them distinct4  ,now that there are
 such forms in nature1 is proved not    
only from the testimony of the great    
body of the most distinguished          
naturalists1 but by all the facts in the
 case4  ,first1 the fact that such      
species are known to have existed       
unchanged1 through what geologists      
consider almost immeasurable periods of 

time4 ,palontologists tell us that      
,trilobites abounded from the primordial
 age down to the ,carboniferous period1 
that is1 as they suppose1 through       
millions of years4 ,more wonderful      
still1 the little animals whose remains 
constitute the chalk formations which   
are spread over large areas of country1 
and are sometimes a hundred feet thick1 
are now at work at the bottom of the    
,atlantic4 ,principal ,dawson tells us1 
with regard to ,mollusks existing in a  
sub-fossil state in the ,post-pliocene  
clays of ,canada1 that after carefully  
studying about two hundred species1 and 
of some of these1 many hundreds of      
specimens1 ,i have arrived at the       
conclusion that they are absolutely     
unchanged4444 ,here again we have an    
absolute refusal1 on the part of all    
these animals1 to admit that they are   
derived1 or have tended to sport into   
new species4#ea  ,on the previous page  
he says1 ,pictet catalogues ninety-eight
 species of mammals which inhabited     

,europe in the ,post-glacial period4 ,of
 these fifty-seven still exist          
unchanged1 and the remainder have       
disappeared4 ,not one can be shown to   
have been modified into a new form1     
though some of them have been obliged1  
by changes of temperature and other     
conditions1 to remove into distant and  
now widely separated regions4  ,a second
 fact which attests the primordial      
character and fixedness of species is1  
that every species as it first appears1 
is not in a transition state between one
 form and another1 but in the perfection
 of its kind4 ,science has indeed       
discovered an ascending order in        
creation1 which agrees marvellously with
 that given in the book of ,genesis3    
first1 vegetable productions2 then the  
moving creatures in the sea2 then       
terrestrial animals2 and finally man4   
,naturalists1 who utterly reject the    
,scriptures as a divine revelation1     
speak with the highest admiration of the
 ,mosaic account of the creation1 as    

compared with any other cosmogony of the
 ancient world4 ,while there is in      
general an ascending series in these    
living forms1 each was perfect in its   
kind4  ,agassiz says that fishes existed
 contemporaneously with species of all  
the invertebrate sub-kingdoms in the    
,taconic1 or sub-,cambrian strata4 ,this
 is the extreme limit of known          
geological strata in which life is found
 to have existed4 ,as the evolution of  
one species out of another requires1    
according to ,darwin1 millions of years1
 it is out of the question to trace     
these animals beyond the strata in which
 their remains are now found4 ,yet crabs
 or lobsters1 worms1 cuttle-fish1       
snails1 jelly-fish1 star-fish1 oysters1 
the polyps lived contemporaneously with 
the first known vertebrate animals that 
ever came into being--all as clearly    
defined by unmistakable ordinal or      
special characters as they are at the   
present moment4#eb  ,the foot of the    
horse is considered by zologists as one 

of the most beautiful contrivances in   
nature4 ,the remains of this animal     
found in what is called the ,pliocene   
,period1 show the foot to have been as  
perfect then as it is now4  ,mr4        
,wallace says that man has existed on   
the earth a hundred thousand years1 and 
that it is probable that he existed four
 hundred thousand years ago4 ,of course 
we do not believe this4 ,we have little 
faith in the chronology of science4 ,it 
gives no sure data for the calculation  
of time1 hence we find them differing   
from four thousand to four hundred      
thousand years as to the time required  
for certain formations4 ,the most       
trustworthy geologists teach that all   
that is known of the antiquity of man   
falls within the limits of ,biblical    
chronology4 ,the further1 however1      
,darwinians push back the origin of man1
 the stronger1 as against them1 becomes 
the argument for the immutability of    
species4 ,the earliest remains of man   
show that at his first appearance1 he   

was in perfection4 ,the oldest known    
human skull is that called the ,engis1  
because found in the cave of ,engis in  
,belgium4 ,of this skull ,professor     
,huxley says it may have belonged to an 
individual of one of the existing races 
of men4 ,principal ,dawson1 who has a   
cast of it1 on the same shelf with the  
skulls of some ,algonquin ,indians1 says
 it might be taken for the skull of an  
,american ,indian4 ,indeed1 ,dawson     
seems to think that these fossil human  
remains go to show that the earliest men
 were better developed than any of the  
extant races4  ,thirdly4 ,the historical
 evidence accessible all goes to prove  
the immutability of species4 ,the       
earliest historical records and the     
oldest monuments prove that all extant  
animals were what they now are thousands
 of years ago4  ,fourthly4 ,the fact    
that hybrids cannot be perpetuated1 that
 no device of man can produce a new     
species1 is proof that ,god has fixed   
limits which cannot be passed4 ,this    

,huxley himself admits to be an         
insuperable objection4 ,so long as it   
exists1 he says1 ,darwin's doctrine must
 be content to remain a hypothesis2 it  
cannot pretend to the dignity of a      
theory4 ,another fact of like import is 
that varieties artificially produced1 if
 let alone1 uniformly revert to the     
simple typical form4 ,it is only by the 
utmost care they can be kept distinct4  
,all the highly prized varieties of     
horses1 cattle1 sheep1 pigeons1 etc41   
without human control1 would be merged  
each class into one1 with only the      
slight differences occasioned by        
diversities of climate and other        
external conditions4 ,if in the sight of
 man it is important that the words of a
 book should be kept distinct1 it is    
equally evident that in the sight of    
,god it is no less important that the   
units of nature should not be mixed in  
inextricable and indistinguishable      
confusion4  ,fifthly4 ,the sudden       
appearance of new kinds of animals is   

another fact which ,palontologists urge 
against the doctrine of evolution4      
,according to the view of geologists    
great changes have1 at remote periods1  
occurred in the state of the earth4     
,continents have been submerged and the 
bottom of the sea raised above the      
surface of the waters4 ,corresponding   
changes have occurred in the state of   
the atmosphere surrounding the globe1   
and in the temperature of the earth4    
,accompanying or following these        
revolutions new classes of plants and   
animals appear1 adapted to the new      
condition of the earth's surface4       
,whence do they come8 ,they have1 as    
,dawson expresses it1 neither fathers   
nor mothers4 ,nothing precedes them from
 which they could be derived2 and       
nothing of the same kind follows them4  
,they live through their appointed      
period2 and then1 in a multitude of     
cases1 finally disappear1 and are in    
their turn followed by new orders or    
kinds4 ,in other words1 the links or    

connecting forms of this assumed regular
 succession or derivation are not to be 
found4 ,this fact is so patent1 that    
,hugh ,miller1 when arguing against the 
doctrine of evolution as proposed in the
 ,vestiges of ,creation1 says1 that the 
record in the rocks seems to have been  
written for the very purpose of proving 
that such evolution is impossible4  ,we 
have the explicit testimony of ,agassiz1
 as a ,palontologist1 that the facts of 
geology contradict the theory of the    
transmutation of species4 ,this         
testimony has been repeatedly given and 
in various forms4 ,in the last          
production of his pen1 he says3 ,as a   
,palontologist ,i have from the         
beginning stood aloof from this new     
theory of transmutation1 now so widely  
admitted by the scientific world4 ,its  
doctrines1 in fact1 contradict what the 
animal forms buried in the rocky strata 
of our earth tell us of their own       
introduction and succession upon the    
surface of the globe4 ,let us look now  

at the earliest vertebrates1 as known   
and recorded in geological surveys4     
,they should1 of course1 if there is any
 truth in the transmutation theory1     
correspond with the lowest in rank or   
standing4 ,what then are the earliest   
known vertebrates8 ,they are ,selachians
 7sharks and their allies7 and ,ganoids 
7garpikes and the like71 the highest of 
all living fishes1 structurally         
speaking4 ,he closes the article from   
which these quotations are taken with   
the assertion1 that there is no evidence
 of a direct descent of later from      
earlier species in the geological       
succession of animals4#ec ,it will be   
observed that ,agassiz is quoted1 not as
 to matters of theory1 but as to matters
 of fact4 ,the only answer which        
evolutionists can make to this argument1
 is the imperfection of the geological  
record4 ,when asked1 ,where are the     
immediate predecessors of these new     
species8 they answer1 ,they have        
disappeared1 or1 have not yet been      

found4 ,when asked1 ,where are their    
immediate successors8 the answer again  
is1 ,they have disappeared4#ed ,this is 
an objection which ,mr4 ,darwin1 with   
his usual candor1 virtually admits to be
 unanswerable4 ,we have already seen1   
that he says1 ,every one will admit that
 the geological record is imperfect2 but
 very few can believe that it is so very
 imperfect as my theory demands4  ,such 
are some of the grounds on which        
geologists and palontologists of the    
highest rank assert that the theory of  
evolution has not the slightest         
scientific basis2 and they support their
 assertion with an amount of evidence of
 which the above items are a miserable  
pittance4  ,sixthly4 ,there is another  
consideration of decisive importance4   
,strauss says1 there are three things   
which have been stumbling-blocks in the 
way of science4 ,first1 the origin of   
life2 second1 the origin of             
consciousness2 third1 the origin of     
reason4 ,these are equivalent to the    

gaps which1 ,principal ,dawson says1    
exist in the theory of evolution4 ,he   
states them thus3 #a4 ,that between dead
 and living matter4 #b4 ,that between   
vegetable and animal life4 ,these are   
necessarily the converse of each other3 
the one deoxidizes and accumulates1 the 
other oxidizes and expends4 #c4 ,that   
between any species of plant or animal1 
and any other species4 ,it was this gap1
 and this only1 which ,darwin undertook 
to fill up by his great work on the     
origin of species1 but1 notwithstanding 
the immense amount of material thus     
expended1 it yawns as wide as ever1     
since it must be admitted that no case  
has been ascertained in which an        
individual of one species has           
transgressed the limits between it and  
another species4 #d4 ,another gap is    
between the nature of the animal and the
 self-conscious1 reasoning1 and moral   
nature of man4 7pp4 #cbe-cbh7  ,first1  
as to the gap between death and life2   
this is what ,dr4 ,stirling calls the   

gulf of all gulfs1 which ,mr4 ,huxley's 
protoplasm is as powerless to efface as 
any other material expedient that has   
ever been suggested4#ee ,this gulf ,mr4 
,darwin does not attempt to bridge over4
 ,he admits that life owes its origin to
 the act of the ,creator4 ,this1        
however1 the most prominent of the      
advocates of ,darwinism say1 is giving  
up the whole controversy4 ,if you admit 
the intervention of creative power at   
one point1 you may as well admit it in  
any other4 ,if life owes its origin to  
creative power1 why not species8 ,if the
 stupendous miracle of creation be      
admitted1 there is no show of reason for
 denying supernatural intervention in   
the operations of nature4 ,most         
,darwinians attempt to pass this gulf on
 the imaginary bridge of spontaneous    
generation4 ,in other words1 they say   
there is no gulf there4 ,the molecules  
of matter1 in one combination1 may as   
well exhibit the phenomena of life1 as  
in other combinations1 any other kind of

 phenomena4 ,the distinguished ,sir     
,william ,thomson cannot trust himself  
to that bridge4 ,dead matter1 he says1  
cannot become living matter without     
coming under the influence of matter    
previously alive4 ,this seems to me as  
sure a teaching of science as the law of
 gravitation4444 ,i am ready to adopt1  
as an article of scientific faith1 true 
through all space and through all time1 
that life proceeds from life1 and       
nothing but life4#ef ,he refers the     
origin of life on this earth to falling 
meteors1 which bring with them from     
other planets the germs of living       
organisms2 and from those germs all the 
plants and animals with which our world 
is now covered have been derived4       
,principal ,dawson thinks that this was 
intended as irony4 ,but the whole tone  
of the address1 and specially of the    
closing portion of it1 in which this    
idea is advanced1 is far too serious to 
admit of such an explanation4  ,no one  
can read the address referred to without

 being impressed1 and even awed1 by the 
immensity and grandeur of the field of  
knowledge which falls legitimately      
within the domain of science4 ,the      
perusal of that discourse produces a    
feeling of humility analogous to the    
sense of insignificance which every man 
experiences when he thinks of himself as
 a speck on the surface of the earth1   
which itself is but a speck in the      
immensity of the universe4 ,and when a  
man of mere ordinary culture sees ,sir  
,william ,thomson surveying that field  
with a mastery of its details and       
familiarity with all the recondite      
methods of its investigation1 he feels  
as nothing in his presence4 ,yet this   
great man1 whom we cannot help regarding
 with wonder1 is so carried away by the 
spirit of his class as to say1 ,science 
is bound1 by the everlasting law of     
honor1 to face fearlessly every problem 
which can fairly be brought before it4  
,if a probable solution1 consistent with
 the ordinary course of nature1 can be  

found1 we must not invoke an abnormal   
act of ,creative ,power4 ,and1          
therefore1 instead of invoking ,creative
 ,power1 he accounts for the origin of  
life on earth by falling meteors4 ,how  
he accounts for its origin in the places
 whence the meteors came1 he does not   
say4 ,yet ,sir ,william ,thomson        
believes in ,creative ,power2 and in a  
subsequent page1 we shall quote his     
explicit repudiation of the atheistic   
element in the ,darwinian theory4       
,strauss quotes ,dubois-,reymond1 a     
distinguished naturalist1 as teaching   
that the first of these great problems1 
viz4 the origin of life1 admits of      
explanation on scientific 7i4 e41 in his
 sense1 materialistic7 principles2 and  
even the third1 viz4 the origin of      
reason2 but the second1 or the origin of
 consciousness1 he says1 is perfectly   
inscrutable4 ,dubois-,reymond holds that
 the most accurate knowledge of the     
essential organism reveals to us only   
matter in motion2 but between this      

material movement and my feeling pain or
 pleasure1 experiencing a sweet taste1  
seeing red1 with the conclusion         
'therefore ,i exist1' there is a        
profound gulf2 and it 'remains utterly  
and forever inconceivable why to a      
number of atoms of carbon1 hydrogen1    
etc41 it should not be a matter of      
indifference how they lie or how they   
move2 nor1 can we in any wise tell how  
consciousness should result from their  
concurrent action4' ,whether1 adds      
,strauss1 these ,verba ,magistri are    
indeed the last word on the subject1    
time only can tell4#eg ,but if it is    
inconceivable1 not to say absurd1 that  
sense-consciousness should consist in   
the motion of molecules of matter1 or be
 a function of such molecules1 it can   
hardly be less absurd to account for    
thought1 conscience1 and religious      
feeling and belief on any such          
hypothesis4 ,it may be said that ,mr4   
,darwin is not responsible for these    
extreme opinions4 ,that is very true4   

,mr4 ,darwin is not a ,monist1 for in   
admitting creation1 he admits a dualism 
as between ,god and the world4 ,neither 
is he a ,materialist1 inasmuch as he    
assumes a supernatural origin for the   
infinitesimal modicum of life and       
intelligence in the primordial          
animalcule1 from which without divine   
purpose or agency1 all living things in 
the whole history of our earth have     
descended4 ,all the innumerable         
varieties of plants1 all the countless  
forms of animals1 with all their        
instincts and faculties1 all the        
varieties of men with their intellectual
 endowments1 and their moral and        
religious nature1 have1 according to    
,darwin1 been evolved by the agency of  
the blind1 unconscious laws of nature4  
,this infinitesimal spark of            
supernaturalism in ,mr4 ,darwin's       
theory1 would inevitably have gone out  
of itself1 had it not been rudely and   
contemptuously trodden out by his       
bolder1 and more logical successors4    

,the grand and fatal objection to       
,darwinism is this exclusion of design  
in the origin of species1 or the        
production of living organisms4 ,by     
design is meant the intelligent and     
voluntary selection of an end1 and the  
intelligent and voluntary choice1       
application1 and control of means       
appropriate to the accomplishment of    
that end4 ,that design1 therefore1      
implies intelligence1 is involved in its
 very nature4 ,no man can perceive this 
adaptation of means to the              
accomplishment of a preconceived end1   
without experiencing an irresistible    
conviction that it is the work of mind4 
,no man does doubt it1 and no man can   
doubt it4 ,darwin does not deny it4     
,haeckel does not deny it4 ,no          
,darwinian denies it4 ,what they do is  
to deny that there is any design in     
nature4 ,it is merely apparent1 as when 
the wind of the ,bay of ,biscay1 as     
,huxley says1 selects the right kind of 
sand and spreads it in heaps upon the   

plains4 ,but in thus denying design in  
nature1 these writers array against     
themselves the intuitive perceptions and
 irresistible convictions of all        
mankind1--a barrier which no man has    
ever been able to surmount4 ,sir        
,william ,thomson1 in the address       
already referred to1 says3 ,i feel      
profoundly convinced that the argument  
of design has been greatly too much lost
 sight of in recent zological           
speculations4 ,reaction against the     
frivolities of teleology1 such as are to
 be found1 not rarely1 in the notes of  
the learned commentators on ',paley's   
,natural ,theology1' has1 ,i believe1   
had a temporary effect of turning       
attention from the solid irrefragable   
argument so well put forward in that    
excellent old book4 ,but overpowering   
proof of intelligence and benevolent    
design lie all around us1 and if ever   
perplexities1 whether metaphysical or   
scientific1 turn us away from them for a
 time1 they come back upon us with      

irresistible force1 showing to us       
through nature the influence of a free  
will1 and teaching us that all living   
beings depend upon one ever-acting      
,creator and ,ruler4  ,it is impossible 
for even ,mr4 ,darwin1 inconsistent as  
it is with his whole theory1 to deny all
 design in the constitution of nature4  
,what is his law of heredity8 ,why      
should like beget like8 ,take two germ  
cells1 one of a plant1 another of an    
animal2 no man by microscope or by      
chemical analysis1 or by the magic power
 of the spectroscope1 can detect the    
slightest difference between them1 yet  
the one infallibly develops into a plant
 and the other into an animal4 ,take the
 germ of a fish and of a bird1 and they 
are equally indistinguishable2 yet the  
one always under all conditions develops
 into a fish and the other into a bird4 
,why is this8 ,there is no physical     
force1 whether light1 heat1 electricity1
 or anything else1 which makes the      
slightest approximation to accounting   

for that fact4 ,to say1 as ,stuart ,mill
 would say1 that it is an ultimate fact1
 and needs no explanation1 is to say    
that there may be an effect without an  
adequate cause4 ,the venerable ,r4 ,e4  
,von ,baer1 the first naturalist in     
,russia1 of whom ,agassiz speaks in     
terms of such affectionate veneration in
 the ,atlantic ,monthly for ,january1   
#ahgd1 has written a volume dated       
,dorpat1 #ahgc1 and entitled ,zum       
,streit ber den ,darwinismus4 ,in that  
volume1 as we learn from a ,german      
periodical1 the author says3 ,the       
,darwinians lay great stress on         
heredity2 but what is the law of        
heredity but a determination of         
something future8 ,is it not in its     
nature in the highest degree            
teleological8 ,indeed1 is not the whole 
faculty of reproduction intended to     
introduce a new life-process8 ,when a   
man looks at a dissected insect and     
examines its strings of eggs1 and asks1 
,whence are they8 the naturalist of our 

day has no answer to give1 but that they
 were of necessity gradually produced by
 the changes in matter4 ,when it is     
further asked1 ,why are they there8 is  
it wrong to say1 ,it is in order that   
when the eggs are mature and fertilized1
 new individuals of the same form should
 be produced4  ,it is further to be     
considered that there are innumerable   
cases of contrivance1 or evidence of    
design in nature1 to which the principle
 of natural selection1 or the           
purposeless changes effected by         
unconscious force1 cannot apply2 as for 
example1 the distinction of sex1 with   
all that is therein involved4 ,but      
passing by such cases1 it may be asked1 
what would it avail to get rid of design
 in the vegetable and animal kingdom1   
while the whole universe is full of it8 
,that this ordered ,cosmos is not from  
necessity or chance1 is almost a        
self-evident fact4 ,not one man in a    
million of those who ever heard of ,god1
 either does doubt or can doubt it4     

,besides how are the cosmical relations 
of light1 heat1 electricity1 to the     
constituent parts of the universe1 and  
especially1 so far as this earth is     
concerned1 to vegetable and animal life1
 to be accounted for8 ,is this all      
chance work8 ,is it by chance that light
 and heat cause plants to carry on their
 wonderful operations1 transmuting the  
inorganic into the organic1 dead matter 
into living and life sustaining matter8 
,is it without a purpose that water     
instead of contracting1 expands at the  
freezing point8--a fact to which is due 
that the earth north of the tropic is   
habitable for man or beast4 ,it is no   
answer to this question to say that a   
few other substances have the same      
peculiarity1 when no good end1 that we  
can see1 is thereby accomplished4 ,no   
man is so foolish as to deny that his   
eye was intended to enable him to see1  
because he cannot tell what the spleen  
was made for4 ,it is1 however1 useless  
to dwell upon this subject4 ,if a man   

denies that there is design in nature1  
he can with quite as good reason deny   
that there is any design in any or in   
all the works ever executed by man4     
,the conclusion of the whole matter is1 
that the denial of design in nature is  
virtually the denial of ,god4 ,mr4      
,darwin's theory does deny all design in
 nature1 therefore1 his theory is       
virtually atheistical2 his theory1 not  
he himself4 ,he believes in a ,creator4 
,but when that ,creator1 millions on    
millions of ages ago1 did               
something1--called matter and a living  
germ into existence1--and then abandoned
 the universe to itself to be controlled
 by chance and necessity1 without any   
purpose on his part as to the result1 or
 any intervention or guidance1 then ,he 
is virtually consigned1 so far as we are
 concerned1 to non-existence4 ,it has   
already been said that the most extreme 
of ,mr4 ,darwin's admirers adopt and    
laud his theory1 for the special reason 
that it banishes ,god from the world2   

that it enables them to account for     
design without referring it to the      
purpose or agency of ,god4 ,this is done
 expressly by ,bchner1 ,haeckel1 ,vogt1 
and ,strauss4 ,the opponents of         
,darwinism direct their objections      
principally against this element of the 
doctrine4 ,this1 as was stated by ,rev4 
,dr4 ,peabody1 was the main ground of   
the earnest opposition of ,agassiz to   
the theory4 ,america's great botanist1  
,dr4 ,asa ,gray1 avows himself an       
evolutionist2 but he is not a           
,darwinian4 ,of that point we have the  
clearest possible proof4 ,mr4 ,darwin1  
after explicitly denying that the       
variations which have resulted in the   
formation of the most perfectly adapted 
animals in the world1 man included1 were
 intentionally and specially guided1    
adds3 ,however much we may wish it1 we  
can hardly follow ,professor ,asa ,gray 
in his belief 'that variation has been  
led along certain beneficial lines' like
 a stream 'along definite and useful    

lines of irrigation4'#eh ,if ,mr4       
,darwin does not agree with ,dr4 ,gray1 
,dr4 ,gray does not agree with ,mr4     
,darwin4 ,it is as to the exclusion of  
design from the operations of nature    
that our ,american1 differs from the    
,english1 naturalist4 ,this is the vital
 point4 ,the denial of final causes is  
the formative idea of ,darwin's theory1 
and therefore no teleologist can be a   
,darwinian4  ,dr4 ,gray quotes from     
another writer the sentence1 ,it is a   
singular fact1 that when we can find how
 anything is done1 our first conclusion 
seems to be that ,god did not do it2 and
 then adds1 ,i agree with the writer    
that this first conclusion is premature 
and unworthy2 ,i will add1 deplorable4  
,through what faults of dogmatism on the
 one hand1 and skepticism on the other1 
it came to be so thought1 we need not   
here consider4 ,let us hope1 and ,i     
confidently expect1 that it is not to   
last2 that the religious faith which    
survived without a shock the notion of  

the fixedness of the earth itself1 may  
equally outlast the notion of the       
absolute fixedness of the species which 
inhabit it2 that in the future1 even    
more than in the past1 faith in an      
order1 which is the basis of science1   
will not--as it cannot reasonably--be   
dissevered from faith in an ,ordainer1  
which is the basis of religion4#ei ,we  
thank ,god for that sentence4 ,it is the
 concluding sentence of ,dr4 ,gray's    
address as ex-,president of ,the        
,american ,association for the          
,advancement of ,science1 delivered     
,august1 #ahgb4  ,dr4 ,gray goes        
further4 ,he says1 ,the proposition that
 the things and events in nature were   
not designed to be so1 if logically     
carried out1 is doubtless tantamount to 
atheism4 ,again1 ,to us1 a fortuitous   
,cosmos is simply inconceivable4 ,the   
alternative is a designed ,cosmos4444   
,if ,mr4 ,darwin believes that the      
events which he supposes to have        
occurred and the results we behold      

around us were undirected and           
undesigned2 or if the physicist believes
 that the natural forces to which he    
refers phenomena are uncaused and       
undirected1 no argument is needed to    
show that such belief is atheistic4#fj  
,we have thus arrived at the answer to  
our question1 ,what is ,darwinism8 ,it  
is ,atheism4 ,this does not mean1 as    
before said1 that ,mr4 ,darwin himself  
and all who adopt his views are         
atheists2 but it means that his theory  
is atheistic2 that the exclusion of     
design from nature is1 as ,dr4 ,gray    
says1 tantamount to atheism4  ,among the
 last words of ,strauss were these3 ,we 
demand for our universe the same piety  
which the devout man of old demanded for
 his ,god4 ,in the enormous machine of  
the universe1 amid the incessant whirl  
and hiss of its jagged iron wheels1 amid
 the deafening crash of its ponderous   
stamps and hammers1 in the midst of this
 whole terrific commotion1 man1 a       
helpless and defenceless creature1 finds

 himself placed1 not secure for a moment
 that on an imprudent motion a wheel may
 not seize and rend him1 or a hammer    
crush him to a powder4 ,this sense of   
abandonment is at first something       
awful4#fa  ,among the last words of     
,paul were these3 ,i know whom ,i have  
believed1 and am persuaded that ,he is  
able to keep that which ,i have         
committed unto ,him against that day4444
 ,the time of my departure is at hand4  
,i have fought a good fight1 ,i have    
finished my course1 ,i have kept the    
faith3 henceforth there is laid up for  
me a crown of righteousness1 which the  
,lord1 the righteous judge1 shall give  
me at that day3 and not to me only1 but 
unto all them also that love his        
appearing4  ,,footnotes3  #dj ,science  
and ,scripture not ,antagonistic1       
because ,distinct in their ,spheres of  
,thought4 ,a ,lecture1 by ,rev4 ,george 
,henslow1 ,m4 ,a41 ,f4 ,l4 ,s41 ,f4 ,g4 
,s4 ,london1 #ahgc1 p4 #a4  #da ,gott   
und ,natur1 p4 #bjj4  #db ,protoplasm2  

or1 ,matter and ,life4 ,by ,lionel ,s4  
,beale1 ,m4 ,b41 ,f4 ,r4 ,s4 ,third     
edition4 ,london  ,philadelphia1 #ahgd1 
p4 #cde2 and the whole chapter on       
,design4  #dc ,fallacies in the         
,hypothesis of ,mr4 ,darwin1 by ,c4 ,r4 
,bree1 ,m4 ,d41 ,f4 ,z4 ,s4 ,london1    
#ahgb1 p4 #bij4  #dd ,when ,professor   
,huxley says1 as quoted above1 that he  
does not deny the possibility of        
miracles1 he must use the word miracle  
in a sense peculiar to himself4  #de    
,jenaer ,literaturzeitung1 ,january #c1 
#ahgd4 ,in this number there is a notice
 by ,doctor ,haeckel of two             
books1--,descendenzlehre und            
,darwinismus1 von ,oscar ,schmidt1      
,leipzig1 #ahgc2 and ,die ,fortschritte 
des ,darwinismus1 von ,j4 ,w4 ,spengel1 
,cln and ,leipzig1 #ahgd2 in which he   
says3 ,erstens1 um in ,sachen der       
,descendenz-,theorie mitreden zu knnen1 
ein gewisser ,grad von tieferer         
biologischer 7sowohl morphologischer als
 physiologischer7 ,bildung              

unentbehrlich1 den die meistzen von     
jenen ,auctoren 7the opposers of the    
theory7 nicht besitzen4 ,zweitens ist fr
 ein klares und zutreffendes ,urtheil in
 diesem ,sachen eine rcksichtslose      
,hingabe an vernunftgemsse ,erkenntniss 
und eine dadurch bedingte ,resignation  
auf uralte1 liebgewordene und tief      
vererbte ,vorurtheile erforderlich1 zu  
welcher sich die wenigsten entschliesen 
knnen4  #df ,in his ,natrlische         
,schpfungsgeschichte1 ,haeckel is still 
more exclusive4 ,when he comes to answer
 the objections to the evolution1 or1 as
 he commonly calls it1 the descendence  
theory1 he dismisses the objections     
derived from religion1 as unworthy of   
notice1 with the remark that all ,glaube
 ist ,aberglaube2 all faith is          
superstition4 ,the objections from a    
priori1 or intuitive truths1 are        
disposed of in an equally summary       
manner1 by denying that there are any   
such truths1 and asserting that all our 
knowledge is from the senses4 ,the      

objection that so many distinguished    
naturalists reject the theory1 he       
considers more at length4 ,first1 many  
have grown old in another way of        
thinking and cannot be expected to      
change4 ,second1 many are collectors of 
facts1 without studying their relations1
 or are destitute of the genius for     
generalization4 ,no amount of material  
makes a building4 ,others1 again1 are   
specialists4 ,it is not enough that a   
man should be versed in one department2 
he must be at home in all3 in ,botany1  
,zology1 ,comparative ,anatomy1         
,biology1 ,geology1 and ,palontology4   
,he must be able to survey the whole    
field4 ,fourthly1 and mainly1           
naturalists are generally lamentably    
deficient in philosophical culture and  
in a philosophical spirit4 ,the         
immovable edifice of the true1 monistic 
science1 or what is the same thing1     
natural science1 can only arise through 
the most intimate interaction and mutual
 interpenetration of philosophy and     

observation 7,philosophie und ,empirie74
 pp4 #fch-fda4 ,it is only a select few1
 therefore1 of learned and philosophical
 monistic materialists1 who are entitled
 to be heard on questions of the highest
 moment to every individual man1 and to 
human society4  #dg ,this short but     
significant sentence is omitted in the  
excellent translation of ,strauss's     
book1 by ,mathilde ,blind1 republished  
in ,new ,york1 by ,henry ,holt          
,company1 #ahgc4  #dh ,the ,fallacies of
 ,darwinism1 by ,c4 ,r4 ,bree1 ,m4 ,d41 
p4 #cjh4  #di ,the ,fallacies of        
,darwinism1 p4 #cje4  #ej ,bibliotheca  
,sacra1 #aheg1 p4 #hfa4  #ea ,the ,story
 of ,earth and ,man1 p4 #ceh4  #eb ,dr4 
,bree1 p4 #bge4 ,we presume geologists  
differ in the terms which they use to   
designate strata4 ,agassiz calls the    
oldest containing fossil1 the           
sub-,cambrian4 ,principal ,dawson calls 
the oldest the ,laurentian1 and places  
the first vertebrates in the ,silurian4 
,this is of no moment as to the         

argument4 ,the important fact is that   
each species is distinct as soon as it  
appears2 and that many have remained to 
the present time4  #ec ,atlantic        
,monthly1 ,january1 #ahgd4  #ed ,we have
 heard a story of a gentleman who gave  
an artist a commission for a historical 
painting1 and suggested as the subject1 
the ,passage of the ,israelites over the
 ,red ,sea4 ,in due time he was informed
 that his picture was finished1 and was 
shown by the artist a large canvas      
painted red4 ,what is that8 he asked4   
,why1 says the artist1 that is the ,red 
,sea4 ,but where are the ,israelites8   
,oh1 they have passed over4 ,and where  
are the ,egyptians8 ,they are under the 
sea4  #ee ,as ,regards ,protoplasm in   
,relation to ,professor ,huxley's ,essay
 an the ,physical ,basis of ,life4 ,by  
,dr4 ,james ,h4 ,stirling4 ,see1 also1  
,physiological ,anatomy and ,physiology 
of ,man1 by ,l4 ,s4 ,beale2 also1 ,the  
,mystery of ,life in ,reply to ,dr4     
,gull's ,attack on the ,theory of       

,vitality4 ,by ,l4 ,s4 ,beale1 ,m4 ,d41 
#ahga4  #ef ,the address delivered by   
,sir ,william ,thomson1 as ,president of
 the ,british ,association at its       
meeting in ,edinburgh1 #ahga4  #eg ,the 
,old ,faith and the ,new4 ,prefatory    
,postscript1 xxi4  #eh ,variation of    
,plants and ,animals under              
,domestication4 ,new ,york1 #ahfh1 vol4 
ii4 pp4 #eae1 #eaf4  #ei ,proceedings of
 the ,american ,association for the     
,advancement of ,science4 ,cambridge1   
#ahgc1 p4 #bj4  #fj ,the ,atlantic      
,monthly for ,october1 #ahfj4 ,the three
 articles in the ,july1 ,august1 and    
,october numbers of the ,atlantic1 on   
this subject1 have been reprinted with  
the name of ,dr4 ,asa ,gray as their    
author4  #fa ,strauss says that as he   
has arrived at the conclusion that there
 is no personal ,god1 and no life after 
death1 it would seem to follow that the 
question1 ,have we still a religion8    
must be answered in the negative4 ,but  
as he makes the essence of religion to  

consist in a sense of dependence1 and as
 he felt himself to be helpless in the  
midst of this whirling universe1 he had 
that much religion left4                
,,advertisements   ,the ,great          
,theological ,work of the ,age4  ,,dr4  
,,hodge',s ,,theology4  ,systematic     
,theology4  ,by ,,charles ,,hodge1      
,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d41  of ,princeton        
,theological ,seminary4   ,complete in  
three volumes #hvo1 tinted paper4       
,price1 vols4 ,i4 and ,,ii41 #d4ej4     
,vol4 ,,iii41 #e4  ,in these volumes are
 comprised the results of the life-long 
labors and investigations of one of the 
most eminent theologians of the age4    
,the work covers the ground usually     
occupied by treatises on ,systematic    
,theology1 and adopts the commonly      
received divisions of the               
subject1--,,theology1 ,vol4 ,i42        
,,anthropology1 ,vol4 ,,ii42            
,,soteriology ,,and ,,eschatology1 ,vol4
 ,,iii4  ,the ,,introduction is devoted 
to the consideration of preliminary     

matters1 such as ,method1 or the        
principles which should guide the       
student of ,theology1 and the different 
theories as to the source and standard  
of our knowledge of divine things1      
,rationalism1 ,mysticism1 the ,roman    
,catholic doctrine of the ,rule of      
,faith1 and the ,protestant doctrine on 
that subject4  ,the department of       
,,theology proper includes the origin of
 the ,idea of ,god1 the ,being of ,god1 
the ,anti-,theistic systems of ,atheism1
 ,polytheism1 ,materialism1 and         
,pantheism2 the ,nature of ,god1 the    
,divine ,attributes1 the ,doctrines of  
the ,trinity1 the ,divinity of ,christ1 
and of the ,holy ,spirit2 the ,decrees  
of ,god1 ,creation1 ,providence1 and    
,miracles4  ,the department of          
,,anthropology includes the ,nature1    
,origin1 and ,antiquity of ,man1 his    
,primitive ,state and ,probation2 the   
,fall2 the ,effect of ,adam's ,sin upon 
himself and upon his ,posterity2 the    
,nature of ,sin2 the ,different         

,philosophical and ,theological         
,theories on that subject4              
,,soteriology includes the ,plan or     
,purpose of ,god in reference to the    
,salvation of ,men2 the ,person and     
,work of the ,redeemer2 his ,offices as 
,prophet1 ,priest1 and ,king1 the ,work 
of the ,holy ,spirit in applying the    
redemption purchased by ,christ2 ,common
 and ,efficacious ,grace1 ,regeneration1
 ,faith1 ,justification1                
,sanctification1 the ,law or ,rule of   
,life1 and the means of ,grace4         
,,eschatology includes the ,state of the
 ,soul after ,death2 the ,second ,coming
 of ,christ2 the ,resurrection of the   
,body2 the ,general ,judgment and ,end  
of the ,world1 and the ,doctrine        
concerning ,heaven and ,hell4  ,the plan
 of the author is to state and vindicate
 the teachings of the ,bible on these   
various subjects1 and to examine the    
antagonistic doctrines of different     
classes of ,theologians4 ,his book1     
therefore1 is intended to be both       

didactic and elenchtic4  ,the various   
topics are discussed with that close and
 keen analytical and logical power      
combined with that simplicity1 lucidity1
 and strength of style which have       
already given ,dr4 ,,hodge a world-wide 
reputation as a controversialist and    
writer1 and as an investigator of the   
great theological problems of the day4  
,single copies1 sent post-paid on       
receipt of the price4  ,,scribner1      
,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed ,broadway1    
,new ,york  ,,edinburgh ,,review4--,the 
,,best ,history of the ,roman ,republic4
  ,,london ,,times4--,,by ,,far ,,the   
,,best ,history of the ,decline and     
,fall of the ,roman ,commonwealth4      
,,the  ,history of ,rome1  ,,from ,,the 
,,earliest ,,time ,,to ,,the ,,period   
,,of ,,its ,,decline4  ,by ,dr4         
,,theodor ,,mommsen4  ,translated1 with 
the author's sanction and additions1 by 
the ,rev4 ,w4 ,p4 ,,dickson1 ,regius    
,professor of ,biblical ,criticism in   
the ,university of ,glasgow1 late       

,classical ,examiner in the ,university 
of ,st4 ,andrews4 ,with an ,introduction
 by ,dr4 ,,leonhard ,,schmitz1 and a    
copious ,index of the whole four        
volumes1 prepared especially for this   
edition4  ,,reprinted ,,from ,,the      
,,revised ,,london ,,edition  ,four     
,volumes crown #hvo4 ,price per volume1 
#b4jj4  ,dr4 ,,mommsen has long been    
known and appreciated through his       
researches into the languages1 laws1 and
 institutions of ,ancient ,rome and     
,italy1 as the most thoroughly versed   
scholar now living in these departments 
of historical investigation4 ,to a      
wonderfully exact and exhaustive        
knowledge of these subjects1 he unites  
great powers of generalization1 a       
vigorous1 spirited1 and exceedingly     
graphic style and keen analytical       
powers1 which give this history a degree
 of interest and a permanent value      
possessed by no other record of the     
decline and fall of the ,roman          
,commonwealth4 ,dr4 ,mommsen's work1 as 

,dr4 ,schmitz remarks in the            
introduction1 though the production of a
 man of most profound and extensive     
learning and knowledge of the world1 is 
not as much designed for the            
professional scholar as for intelligent 
readers of all classes who take an      
interest in the history of by-gone ages1
 and are inclined there to seek         
information that may guide them safely  
through the perplexing mazes of modern  
history4   ,,critical ,,notices4        
,a work of the very highest merit2 its  
learning is exact and      profound2 its
 narrative full of genius and skill2 its
 descriptions      of men are admirably 
vivid4 ,we wish to place on record our  
opinion      that ,dr4 ,mommsen's is by 
far the best history of the ,decline and
      ,fall of the ,roman               
,commonwealth4--,london ,times4         
,since the days of ,niebuhr1 no work on 
,roman ,history has appeared      that  
combines so much to attract1 instruct1  
and charm the reader4      ,its style--a

 rare quality in a ,german author--is   
vigorous1      spirited1 and animated4  
,professor ,mommsen's work can stand a  
comparison with the noblest productions 
of modern history4--,dr4      ,schmitz4 
,this is the best history of the ,roman 
,republic1 taking the work on      the  
whole--the author's complete mastery of 
his subject1 the      variety of his    
gifts and acquirements1 his graphic     
power in the      delineation of        
national and individual character1 and  
the vivid      interest which he        
inspires in every portion of his book4  
,he is      without an equal in his own 
sphere4--,edinburgh ,review4       ,a   
book of deepest interest4--,dean        
,trench4   ,,another ,,great            
,,historical ,,work4  ,the ,history of  
,greece1  ,by ,prof4 ,dr4 ,,ernst       
,,curtius4  ,translated by ,,adolphus   
,,william ,,ward1 ,m4,a41 ,fellow of    
,st4 ,peter's ,college1 ,cambridge1     
,prof4 of ,history in ,owen's ,college1 
,manchester4  ,to be completed in four  

or five vols41 crown #hvo1 at #b4ej per 
volume4  ,,printed ,,upon ,,tinted      
,,paper1 ,,uniform ,,with ,,mommsen',s  
,,history ,,of ,,rome1 ,,and ,,the      
,,library ,,edition ,,of ,,froude',s    
,,history ,,of ,,england4  ,,vols4 ,i41 
,,ii41 ,,iii41 ,,and ,,iv41 ,,now       
,,ready4   ,curtius' ,history of ,greece
 is similar in plan and purpose to      
,mommsen's ,history of ,rome1 with which
 it deserves to rank in every respect as
 one of the great masterpieces of       
historical literature4 ,avoiding the    
minute details which overburden other   
similar works1 it groups together in a  
very picturesque manner all the         
important events in the history of this 
kingdom1 which has exercised such a     
wonderful influence upon the world's    
civilization4 ,the narrative of ,prof4  
,curtius' work is flowing and animated1 
and the generalizations1 although bold1 
are philosophical and sound4            
,,critical ,,notices4        ,professor 
,curtius' eminent scholarship is a      

sufficient guarantee      for the       
trustworthiness of his history1 while   
the skill with which      he groups his 
facts1 and his effective mode of        
narrating them1      combine to render  
it no less readable than sound4         
,professor ,curtius      everywhere     
maintains the true dignity and          
impartiality of history1      and it is 
evident his sympathies are on the side  
of justice1      humanity1 and          
progress4--,london ,athenum4       ,we  
can not express our opinion of ,dr4     
,curtius' book better than by           
saying that it may be fitly ranked with 
,theodor ,mommsen's great               
work4--,london ,spectator4       ,as an 
introduction to the study of ,grecian   
history1 no previous      work is       
comparable to the present for vivacity  
and picturesque      beauty1 while in   
sound learning and accuracy of statement
 it is not      inferior to the         
elaborate productions which enrich the  
literature      of the age4--,n4 ,y4    

,daily ,tribune4       ,the ,history of 
,greece is treated by ,dr4 ,curtius so  
broadly and      freely in the spirit of
 the nineteenth century1 that it becomes
 in      his hands one of the worthiest 
and most instructive branches of        
study for all who desire something more 
than a knowledge of      isolated facts 
for their education4 ,this translation  
ought to      become a regular part of  
the accepted course of reading for young
      men at college1 and for all who   
are in training for the free            
political life of our country4--,n4 ,y4 
,evening ,post4   ,this book sent       
post-paid1 upon receipt of the price1 by
 the ,publishers1  ,,scribner1          
,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed ,,broadway1   
,,new ,,york4   ,,prospectus  ,,of ,a   
,theological  ,philosophical ,library   
,,edited ,,by  ,,henry ,b4 ,,smith1     
,d4,d41 ,,and ,,philip ,,schaff1 ,d4,d41
  ,professors in the ,union ,theological
 ,seminary1 ,new ,york4  ,the           
undersigned propose to publish a select 

and compact ,library of ,text-,books    
upon all the main departments of        
,theology and ,philosophy1 adapted to   
the wants especially of ministers and   
students in all denominations4  ,some of
 the works will be translated from the  
,german and other languages2 others will
 be based upon treatises by various     
authors2 some will be written for the   
,library by ,english or ,american       
scholars4 ,the aim will be to furnish at
 least one condensed standard work on   
each of the scientific divisions of     
,theology and ,philosophy1 giving the   
result of the best critical             
investigations1 excluding1 however1 such
 histories and commentaries as extend   
through many volumes4  ,this scheme is  
not presented as final1 but as          
indicating the aim of the editors4 ,if  
sufficient encouragement be given1 no   
pains will be spared to make the project
 complete1 and thus to meet a great and 
acknowledged desideratum in the         
apparatus for study4 ,on all these      

topics every student needs1 at least1   
one good work4 ,to supply this will be  
the aim of our ,library4  ,the various  
volumes will be published in the best   
style1 on reasonable terms1 and as      
rapidly as the nature of the work and   
the encouragement of the public will    
allow4  ,the editors will be assisted by
 eminent scholars of various            
denominations1 who will respectively    
assume the literary responsibility for  
the volumes prepared by themselves      
within the general plan and aim of the  
library4   ,,now ,,ready1  ,,in  ,the   
,theological and ,philosophical         
,library4  ,,ueberweg',s ,,history ,,of 
,,philosophy4   ,,vol4 ,i4--,history of 
the ,ancient and ,medival ,philosophy4  
,by ,dr4 ,friedrich ,ueberweg4          
,translated from the fourth ,german     
edition by ,george ,s4 ,morris1 ,a4,m41 
with additions by ,noah ,porter1 ,d4,d41
 ,,ll4,d41 ,president of ,yale ,college1
 and a general ,introduction by the     
editor of the ,philosophical ,library4  

,one vol4 #hvo1 cloth1 #c4ej4  ,,vol4   
,,ii4--,history of ,modern ,philosophy4 
,with an ,essay on ,english ,philosophy1
 by ,dr4 ,,noah ,,porter1 ,president of 
,yale ,college2 and on ,italian         
,philosophy1 by ,professor ,v4 ,,botta4 
,one vol4 #hvo1 cloth4 #d4jj4  ,sent1   
post-paid1 upon receipt of the price by 
the ,publishers1  ,,scribner1           
,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed ,,broadway1   
,,new ,,york4  ,,lange',s ,,commentary4 
,,now ,,ready3  ,the ,minor ,prophets4  
,edited by ,,rev4 ,,dr4 ,,philip        
,,schaff1 and including                 
,,hosea4--,by ,,otto ,,schmoller1 ,ph4  
,d41 ,urach1 ,wurtemberg4 ,translated1  
with additions1 by ,,james ,e4          
,,mccurdy4       ,,joel4--,by ,,otto    
,,schmoller1 ,ph4 ,d4 ,translated1 with 
additional ,notes      and a ,new       
,version of the ,hebrew ,text1 by ,,john
 ,,forsyth1 ,d4,d41 ,,ll4,d4            
,,amos4--,by ,,otto ,,schmoller1 ,ph4   
,d4 ,translated and enlarged by ,,talbot
      ,w4 ,,chambers1 ,d4,d4            

,,obadiah4--,by ,,paul ,,kleinert1 of   
,berlin4 ,translated1 with additions1   
by ,,george ,r4 ,,bliss1 ,d4,d4         
,,jonah4--,by ,,paul ,,kleinert4        
,translated and enlarged by ,,charles   
,,elliott1 ,d4,d4       ,,micah4--,by   
,,paul ,,kleinert4 ,translated1 with    
additions1 by ,,george ,r4      ,,bliss1
 ,d4,d4       ,,nahum1 ,,habakkuk1 ,,and
 ,,zephaniah4--,by ,,paul ,,kleinert4   
,translated and      enlarged by        
,,charles ,,elliott1 ,d4,d4             
,,haggai4--,by ,,james ,f4 ,,mccurdy1   
,princeton1 ,n4 ,y4                     
,,zechariah4--,by ,,talbot ,w4          
,,chambers1 ,d4,d41 ,new ,york4         
,,malachi4--,by ,,joseph ,,packard1     
,d4,d4 ,alexandria1 ,va4   ,one vol4    
royal #hvo1 cloth #e4jj   ,the ,volumes 
previously ,published are3  ,,old       
,,testament4--,i4 ,,genesis4 ,,ii4      
,,joshua1 ,,judges1 and ,,ruth4 ,,iii4  
,,first and ,,second ,,kings4 ,,iv4     
,,psalms4 ,v4 ,,proverbs1 ,,song ,,of   
,,solomon1 ,,ecclesiastes4 ,,vi4        

,,jeremiah and ,,lamentations4  ,,new   
,,testament4--,i4 ,,matthew4 ,,ii4      
,,mark and ,,luke4 ,,iii4 ,,john4 ,,iv4 
,,acts4 ,v4 ,,the ,,epistle ,,of ,,paul 
,,to ,,the ,,romans4 ,,vi4              
,,corinthians4 ,,vii4 ,,galatians1      
,,ephesians1 ,,philippians1             
,,colossians4 ,,viii4 ,,thessalonians1  
,,timothy1 ,,titus1 ,,philemon1 and     
,,hebrews4 ,,ix4 ,,the ,,epistles       
,,general ,,of ,,james1 ,,peter1 ,,john1
 and ,,jude4  ,each one vol4 #hvo4      
,price per vol41 in half calf1 #g4ej3 in
 sheep1 #f4ej3 in cloth1 #e4jj4         
,,names ,,and ,,denominations ,,of      
,,contributors4  ,w4 ,g4 ,t4 ,,shedd1   
,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4 ,e4 ,a4          
,,washburne1 ,d4,d41 ,episcopal4 ,a4 ,c4
 ,,kendrick1 ,d4,d41 ,baptist4 ,w4 ,h4  
,,green1 ,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4 ,j4 ,f4 
,,hurst1 ,d4,d41 ,methodist4 ,,tayler   
,,lewis1 ,,ll4,d41 ,dutch ,reformed4    
,,rev4 ,,ch4 ,f4 ,,shaffer1 ,d4,d41     
,lutheran4 ,r4 ,d4 ,,hitchcock1 ,d4,d41 
,presbyterian4 ,e4 ,,harwood1 ,d4,d41   

,episcopal4 ,h4 ,b4 ,,hackett1 ,d4,d41  
,baptist4 ,,john ,,lillie1 ,d4,d41      
,presbyterian4 ,,rev4 ,w4 ,g4 ,,sumner1 
,episcopal4 ,,prof4 ,,charles ,,elliott1
 ,presbyterian4 ,,thos4 ,c4 ,,conant1   
,d4,d41 ,baptist4 ,e4 ,d4 ,,yeomans1    
,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4 ,,rev4 ,c4 ,c4   
,,starbuck1 ,congregational4 ,j4        
,,isidor ,,mombert1 ,d4,d41 ,episcopal4 
,d4 ,w4 ,,poor1 ,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4  
,c4 ,p4 ,,wing1 ,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4  
,,george ,e4 ,,day4 ,d4,d41             
,congregational4 ,,rev4 ,p4 ,h4         
,,steenstra1 ,episcopal4 ,a4 ,,gosman1  
,d4,d41 ,presbyterian4 ,,pres4 ,,chas4  
,a4 ,,aiken1 ,d4,d41 ,presbyt'n4 ,m4 ,b4
 ,,riddle1 ,d4,d41 ,dutch ,reformed4    
,,prof4 ,,wm4 ,,wells1 ,d4,d41          
,methodist4 ,w4 ,h4 ,,hornblower1       
,d4,d41 ,presbyt'n4 ,,prof4 ,,george    
,,bliss1 ,baptist4 ,t4 ,w4 ,,chambers1  
,d4,d41 ,reformed4   999999 ,each volume
 of ,,lange',s ,,commentary is complete 
in itself1 and can be purchased         
separately4 ,sent1 post-paid1 to any    

address upon receipt of the price 7#e   
per volume7 by the publishers4          
,,scribner1 ,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed   
,,broadway1 ,,new ,,york4   ,manuals of 
,political ,economy1  ,,published ,,by  
,,scribner1 ,,armstrong  ,,co4          
,perry's ,elements of ,political        
,economy4  ,,new ,,edition1 ,,revised   
,,by ,,the ,,author4  ,this treatise    
presents views favorable to the utmost  
freedom of commerce1 compatible with    
legitimate revenue from tariff taxes4   
,it is a standard text-book in all our  
colleges throughout the country4 ,by    
,,arthur ,,latham ,,perry1 ,professor of
 ,political ,economy and ,history in    
,williams ,college4 #dhg pages1 price   
#b4ej4        ,your book interests      
students more than any other ,i have    
ever      instructed from1--,pres4 ,t4  
,d4 ,woolsey1 ,yale ,college4       ,as 
a manual for general reading and popular
 instruction1 ,prof4      ,perry's book 
is far superior to any work on the      
subject before      issued in the       

,united ,states4--,n4 ,y4 ,times4       
,we cordially recommend this book to    
all1 of whatever school of              
political economy1 who enjoy candid     
statement and full and logical          
discussion4--,n4 ,y4 ,nation4           
,there is more common sense in this book
 than in any of the more      elaborate 
works on the same subject that have     
preceded it4--,n4 ,y4      ,independent4
       ,in all the portions of the book 
which we have read1 the author          
shows himself to be a clear1 strong1    
bold1 and generally sound               
thinker4--,new ,englander4    ,bowen's  
,american ,political ,economy4  ,this   
treatise presents views compatible with 
the idea that every country has a       
political economy of its own1 suitable  
to its own physical circumstances of    
position on the globe1 and to the       
character1 habits1 and institutions of  
the people4 ,by ,,francis ,,bowen1      
,professor of ,political ,economy and   
,civil ,polity in ,harvard ,college4    

#die pages1 price #b4ej        ,if our  
members of ,congress would vote         
themselves a copy of this      book1 and
 read it1 fewer wild schemes would be   
concocted by them1      and a great     
saving of time and the people's money   
would be      secured4--,the            
,philadelphia ,age4       ,his arguments
 are worth considering1 and his whole   
book is of high      value to any       
,american to study economical           
questions4--,springfield                
,republican4       ,a solid and         
well-reasoned treatise4444 ,mr4 ,bowen's
 views are      clearly stated and      
thoroughly reasoned4--,boston           
,congregationalist4       444 ,there are
 hundreds going wrong to-day whom a     
careful perusal      of this volume     
would set right4--,n4 ,y4 ,daily        
,tribune4   999999,sent1 post-paid1 on  
receipt of price by the publishers4     
,prices and ,styles of the ,different   
,editions  ,,of  ,,froude',s ,,history  
,,of ,,england4  ,the ,chelsea ,edition4

  ,in half roan1 gilt top1 per set of   
twelve vols4 #abmo #ba4jj  ,elegance and
 cheapness are combined in a remarkable 
degree in this edition4 ,it takes its   
name from the place of ,mr4 ,froude's   
residence in ,london1 also famous as the
 home of ,thomas ,carlyle4   ,,the      
,,popular ,,edition4  ,in cloth1 at the 
rate of #a4be per volume4 ,the set 7#ab 
vols471 in a neat box4 #ae4jj  ,the     
,same1 in half calf extra #cf4jj  ,this 
edition is printed from the same plates 
as the other editions1 and on firm1     
white paper4 ,it is1 without exception1 
the cheapest set of books of its class  
ever issued in this country4   ,the     
,library ,edition4  ,in twelve vols4    
crown #hvo1 cloth #cj4jj ,the ,same1 in 
half calf extra #ej4jj  ,the ,edition is
 printed on laid and tinted paper1 at   
the ,riverside ,press1 and is in every  
respect worthy a place in the most      
carefully selected library4   ,,short   
,,studies ,,on ,,great ,,subjects4  ,,by
 ,,james ,,anthony ,,froude1 ,m4,a41    

,history of ,england1 ,the ,english in  
,ireland during the ,eighteenth         
,century1 etc4  ,,popular ,,edition4    
,two vols4 #abmo1 cloth1 #a4ej per vol4 
,the ,set  #c4jj  ,,chelsea ,,edition4  
,two vols4 #abmo1 half roan1 gilt top1  
#b4jj per volume4 ,per ,set  #d4jj      
,the ,complete ,works of ,james ,anthony
 ,froude1 ,m4,a4  ,,history ,,of        
,,england ,,and ,,short ,,studies4      
,fourteen vols41 in a neat ,box4        
,,popular ,,edition  #ah4jj ,,chelsea   
,,edition  #be4jj   ,the above works    
sent1 post-paid1 by the publishers1 on  
receipt of the price  ,,scribner1       
,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed ,,broadway1   
,,new ,,york4  ,popular and ,standard   
,works  ,,published ,,by  ,,scribner1   
,,armstrong  ,,co41  #fed ,broadway1    
,new ,york1  ,,in #ahgc4   #a4          
,,bagehot',s 7,w47 ,,lombard ,,street4  
#abmo                            #a #ge 
#b4  ,,bible ,,commentary4 ,vol4 ,,ii4  
#hvo                                  #e
 #jj #c4                  ,vol4 ,,iii4  

#hvo                                 #e 
#jj #d4  ,,cook',s 7,f4 ,c47 ,,exodus4  
#hvo                                    
#a #ej #e4  ,,dieulafait',s 7,l47       
,,diamonds ,,and ,,precious ,,stones4   
,illustrated4 #abmo                     
#b #jj #f4  ,,dodge',s 7,,mrs4 ,,mary   
,,mapes7 ,,hans ,,brinker4 ,illustrated4
 #abmo4    #a #ej #g4  ,,field',s 7,t4  
,w47 ,,indian ,,bibliography4 #hvo      
#e #jj #h4  ,,fisher',s 7,,dr4 ,g4 ,p47 
,,history ,,of ,,the ,,reformation4 #hvo
            #c #jj #i4  ,,guyot',s      
7,,prof4 ,a47 ,,physical ,,geography4   
,large #dto                #b #be #aj4  
,,hall',s 7,f47 ,,modern ,,english4     
#abmo                                #b 
#ej #aa4          ,,false ,,philology4  
#abmo1  boards                       #a 
#be #ab4 ,,holland',s 7,,dr4 ,j4 ,g7    
,,arthur ,,bonnicastle4 ,illustrated4   
#abmo4   #a #ge #ac4 ,,hopkins' 7,,dr4  
,m47 ,,outline ,,study ,,of ,,man4 #abmo
                    #a #ge   ,,the      
,,illustrated ,,library ,,of ,,travel   

,,and ,,adventure4     ,each #a vol4    
#abmo cloth                             
#a #ej       #ad4 ,central ,africa4     
#ae4 ,siam as ,it ,was and ,is4   ,,the 
,,library ,,of ,,choice ,,fiction3      
#af4 ,the ,burgomaster's ,family4 #hvo4 
,cloth1 #a4ej2 paper          #a #jj    
#ag4 ,wandering ,willie4 #hvo4 ,paper   
#ej     #ah4 ,galama4 #hvo4 ,cloth1     
#a4be2 paper                            
#ge     #ai4 ,may4 ,by ,,mrs4           
,,oliphant4 #hvo4 ,cloth1 #a4ej2 paper  
#a #jj #bj4 ,,lyndon',s ,,oxley4 ,a     
,novel4 #abmo                           
#a #ej #ba4 ,,medhurst',s 7,w4 ,h47     
,,the ,,foreigner ,,in ,,far ,,cathay4  
#abmo            #a #ej #bb4 ,,perry',s 
7,,prof4 ,a4 ,l47 ,,political ,,economy4
 #aath edition revised4         ,crown  
#hvo                                    
#b #ej #bc4 ,,saxe ,,holm',s ,,stories4 
#abmo1 extra gilt1 #a4ge2 plain         
#a #ej #bd4 ,,stanley',s 7,h4 ,m47 ,,my 
,,kalulu4 ,illustrated4 #abmo           
#b #jj #be4 ,,ueberweg',s 7,,prof4 ,f47 

,,history ,,of ,,philosophy4 ,vol4 ,,ii4
 #hvo4      #d #jj #bf4 ,,verne',s      
7,,jules7 ,,from ,,the ,,earth ,,to     
,,the ,,moon4 ,illustrated4             
,crown #hvo                             
#c #jj #bg4 ,,verne',s 7,,jules7        
,,journey ,,to ,,the ,,centre ,,of ,,the
 ,,earth4        ,illustrated4 #abmo    
#b #jj #bh4 ,,very ,,young ,,couple     
7,a74 #abmo                             
#a #be   999999,any of the above books  
sent postpaid to any address upon       
receipt of the price by the publishers4