Ivi PROOFS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AUTHORITIES, ETC. 



silent advance of an ordinary mother from one week to another of 

 her pregnancy." Dr. Hitchcock is the less excusable for confound- 

 ing this doctrine with the imperfect one of Lamarck, inasmuch as 

 the distinction between them is explicitly stated in the Vestiges, with 

 the following remarks, surely sufficiently plain : " It is possible that 

 wants and the exercise of faculties have entered in some manner 



into the production of the phenomena but certainly not in 



the way suggested by Lamarck, whose whole notion is obviously 

 inadequate to account for the rise of the organic kingdoms. Had 

 the laws of organic development been known in his time, his theory 

 might have been of a more imposing kind. " It is in such ways 

 that a well-meaning public is deceived (quite unintentionally) into 

 the idea that " such and such a doctrine has been answered refuted 

 left not a shadow of basis to stand upon. Only see Dr. Hitch- 

 cock's unanswerable lectures !" etc. Writers of his class have, I fear, 

 a fatally easy task set before them not the task of refuting an un- 

 popular doctrine, but that of making an ignorant populace believe 

 that it is refuted. 



In proceeding to controversy on special points, the learned Presi- 

 dent first remarks that " the occurrence of events according to law 

 does not remove the necessity of a divine contriving, superintending, 

 and sustaining Power." Like Mr. Sedgwick, he professes his belief 

 " that every event in the universe takes place according to fixed laws. 

 For what," says he, " is a natural law ? Nothing more nor less 

 than the uniform mode in which divine power works." His readers 

 will of course think that here is the orthodox account of natural law, 

 as against the idea of the author of the Vestiges, that law is some- 

 thing which supersedes deity, or leaves him inactive. If they would 

 only look into the Vestiges, and take its author upon his own show- 

 ing, they would find that his idea of natural law is precisely that 

 stated by Dr. Hitchcock. It has been so through all his editions, 

 and in some of the later he has even argued for natural law neces- 

 sarily inferring an Intelligence and Will external to itself "a 

 Being beyond Nature, its author ;" law being thus " but another 

 phrase for the action of the ever-present and sustaining God." The 

 president goes on to say, " if the advocates of this hypothesis mean 

 simply that every event is regulated by law, in other words, that 

 with like antecedents, like consequents will be connected, I have no 

 controversy with them." Well, we have never meant anything, 

 never expressed anything, beyond this ; consequently, Dr. Hitchcock 

 ought not to have anything to say against us or our views. He 

 even admits that such is precisely our professed doctrine. Why, 

 then, should he make a controversy on the subject ? 



Because " this is by no means all that is meant by the hypothesis." 

 It infers, it seems, a denial of " all special and extraordinary laws." 

 It admits of no " miraculous interference in the creation or preserva- 

 tion of the universe." Dr. Hitchcock even quotes us as saying, that 

 " it does not appear necessary that God should exercise an imme- 

 diate superintending power over the mundane economy ;" not ob- 



