theory by the pretext, that it is inexplicable that a being of infinite wisdom should have created animals of structures like those of the existing races; but that their forms and natures are explicable on the supposition that they are the work of the animals themselves, under the promptings of natural selection.

"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility, or by the doctrine of final causes

...

"The explanation is manifest on the theory of the natural selection of successive slight modifications,-each modification being profitable in some way to the modified form, but often affecting by correlation of growth other parts of the organization. In changes of this nature, there will be little or no tendency to modify the original pattern, or to transpose parts. The bones of a limb might be shortened and widened to any extent, and become gradually enveloped in thick membrane, so as to serve as a fin; or a webbed foot might have all its bones, or certain bones lengthened to any extent, and the membrane connecting them increased to any extent so as to serve as a wing: yet in all this amount of modification there will be no tendency to alter the framework of bones, or the relative connexion of the several parts. If we suppose that the ancient progenitor, the archetype, as it may be called, of all mammals, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they served, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the whole class. So of the mouths of insects, we have only to suppose that their common progenitor had an upper lip, mandibles, and two pair of maxillæ, these parts, perhaps, being very simple in form; and then natural selection will account for the infinite diversity in structure and function of the mouths of in

sects....

"There is another and equally curious branch of the present subject namely, the comparison not of the same part in different members of a class, but of the different parts or organs in the same individuals. Most physiologists believe that the bones of the skull are homologous with-that is, correspond in number and in relative connection with-the elemental parts of a certain number of vertebræ. The anterior and posterior limbs in each member of the vertebrate and articulate classes, are plainly homologous. We see the same law in comparing the wonder

fully complex jaws and legs in crustaceans. It is familiar to almost every one, that in a flower the relative position of the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, as well as their intimate structure, are intelligible on the view that they consist of metamorphosed leaves, arranged in a spire. In monstrous plants, we often get direct evidence of the possibility of one organ being transformed into another; and we can actually see in embryonic crustaceans, and in many other animals, and in flowers, that organs which, when mature, become extremely different, are, at an early stage of growth, exactly alike.

"How inexplicable are these facts on the ordinary view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily-shaped pieces of bone?... Why should similar bones have been created in the formation of the wing and leg of a bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes? Why should one crustacean which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts, consequently always have fewer legs; or conversely those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils in any individual flower, though fitted for such widely different purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern?

"On the theory of natural selection we can satisfactorily answer these questions. In the vertebrata we see a series of internal vertebræ bearing certain processes and appendages; in the articulata, we see the body divided into a series of segments, bearing external appendages; and in flowering plants, we see a series of successive spiral whorls of leaves. An indefinite repetition of the same part or organ is the common characteristic of all low or little modified forms; therefore we may readily believe that the unknown progenitor of the vertebrata possessed many vertebrae; the unknown progenitor of the articulata, many segments; and the unknown progenitor of flowering plants, many spiral whorls of leaves. We have seen that parts many times repeated, are eminently liable to vary in number and structure; consequently it is quite probable that natural selection, during a long-continued course of modification, should have seized on a certain number of the primordially similar elements, many times repeated, and have adapted them to the most diverse purposes. And as the whole amount of modification will have been effected by slight successive steps, we need not wonder at discovering in such parts or organs a certain degree of fundamental resemblance, retained by the strong principle of inheritance."-Pp. 378-380.

He thus expressly alleges-and there are many parallel passages that it is in effect an impeachment of the wisdom. of the Creator to suppose that he gave the animals in existence the peculiar forms and natures they possess, on the ground that parts of their bodies are unfitted to the sphere in which they live, and useless; while, on the other hand, he affirms that if those parts are the work of their own selfmodifying energies under the conduct of natural selection, then, though useless and unsuited to their sphere of life, their existence is explicable and unexceptionable. But, in the first place, he neither does nor can prove that any of those parts of their structure, to which he objects, are useless, or do not contribute in an important measure to the perfection of the animals in which they exist. He may not indeed see what their use is; but that is not by any means positively to see that they have no use. There is not an organ or element of an animal body of the functions of which Mr. Darwin or any other naturalist has more than a very slight and vague apprehension. His objection is thus founded on an assumption which he is unable to prove. In the next place: If it were admitted that those parts are not directly useful to the animals in which they occur, as an eye is for seeing and a foot for walking, the loss of which is the loss of power that is indispensable to the well-being of the animal, still it would not follow that they are not important to give proportion to the structure, and render it easier in its motion, or more graceful to the eye. Mr. Darwin indeed denies this with great earnestness. "Some naturalists," he says, "believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory."-P. 177. But though fatal to his theory, it is indisputable that many objects in the animal and vegetable world have a beauty of form, color, voice, and movement, that gives pleasure to the eye and ear of man. The fact, therefore, that man has a keen sensibility to the beauty of such forms, hues, voices, and motions, and that the shapes, colors, and many other peculiarities of animals and vegetables are such as strike that sensibility and excite pleasure, proves that God created those peculiarities with a reference, at least among other ends, to the pleasure

they yield mankind; and making the animal and vegetable world in that manner the means of enjoyment to man, is surely as suitable and honorable to his intelligence and goodness, as the provision of any other means of a natural, pure, and elevated pleasure is. It does little credit to Mr. Darwin's intelligence or taste, that he should doubt that God has acted with any reference to this important susceptibility of our nature; or that it would be creditable to his beneficence and skill. Thirdly, he furnishes no explanation of the perpetuation of the parts in question, on the supposition that the modifications which he alleges have taken place. He only says that it is "manifest," and the question why it has happened "is satisfactorily answered." But not a whisper of an answer does he give beyond the mere asseveration that if the changes took place by slight successive steps, there would be "no tendency to modify the original pattern;" when by the supposition the most important modifications of the pattern were wrought, and the whole nature metamorphosed. Would there be no change of pattern in transmuting a black bear to a whale, or a fish with a "swim-bladder" to an eagle with "lungs?" The pretence of an explanation is a sham. Fourthly, he contradicts his theory of the modifying power, in representing that in working its changes it leaves the animals in question in a condition so inapt and incompatible with their perfection, that it would be discreditable to the Creator by a direct fiat to give them forms encumbered with such useless and unmeaning parts. For he everywhere affirms that the modifying power which works under the tutelage of natural selection, aims exclusively at the improvement of the individuals on whom it exerts itself, and gives birth to no effects but what are beneficial, and advance them to a higher stage of adaptation to their sphere of existence. Yet by his affirmation here, the effect of its operation in these cases is to render parts that were originally beneficial, useless, and convert them into encumbrances. For if useless, what else can they be but encumbrances that burthen by their weight, and exhaust by the appropriation to themselves of a part of the vital forces that would otherwise be retained by other parts of the system? Such is the issue of his attempt to vindicate his theory by impeaching the wis

dom of the Almighty, and ascribing to the lowest natures in the animal world a higher measure of intelligence and skill than to him.

Mr. Darwin proceeds throughout in his theory-by implication at least, though perhaps unconsciously-on a worse impeachment of the Most High than even this, and a more preposterons misrepresentation of the nature of animals. For first,nothing can be more certain than that the most important and determinative element in an animal, is its psychical-that is, its perceptive, sensitive, and instinctive nature. It is that which gives to it its character, determines its mode and habits of life, and discriminates it mainly from others. Its body is but the instrument of its conscious nature, and has its peculiar form and powers, because of their adaptation to that nature. Take away its psychical nature from a wolf, and substitute the soul of a lamb in its place, and the being would no longer be a wolf, nor would it be a lamb. The body would have no adaptation to the conscious agent that animated it; and their incompatibility would doubtless lead to immediate death; as the instincts of the lamb could not lead it to seek and seize the food that would be required by the constitution of the body; and the body would not be capable of digesting the food that was suitable to the lamb. And next: nothing can be more certain than that the psychical nature of every animal always acts consistently with itself; that is, it is animated by appetites and desires, it is prompted and guided by instincts, and it exerts acts and pursues a course that is suited to its own peculiar nature; and preserves, gives effect to, and accomplishes the ends of that special nature. It never repudiates its own distinctive characteristics and usurps the appetites, instincts, and habits of a different animal. The wolf is the wolf in all conditions and ages, and nothing else the lamb is the lamb in all conditions and ages, and nothing else: the fox is the fox, the tiger the tiger, the elephant the elephant, the eagle the eagle, and man man; and it is because their psychical natures are what they are, that their several bodies are adapted to them, and that each propagates creatures after its own kind.

Now, Mr. Darwin, in his theory, that every race of animals has in a course of ages modified its organic frame, contra