PROOFS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AUTHORITIES, ETC. Ixi 



amount of evidence whatever which would induce him to go beyond 

 the mere barren profession, that if proved, it should be embraced. 



In conclusion, let us devote a few remarks to the one grand fallacy 

 under favour of which the leading proposition of this work has been, 

 in pamphlets, reviews, and opposing works almost innumerable, 

 assumed to be overturned. 



" Spontaneous generation," say these writers, " proves to be a 

 mistake: omne vivum ex ovo is the rule. Ages elapse, and no 

 example of transmutation takes place : therefore species is permanent. 

 For these two reasons, we conclude against the development hypo- 

 thesis." This is called bringing the question to the bar of science, 

 and it is consequently affirmed that of course the development hypo- 

 thesis is overthrown and refuted. 



It never occurs to these gentlemen, that the disproof of spon- 

 taneous generation and transmutation of species, granting it were 

 accomplished, which it is not, would only be sufficient to establish 

 that life does not commence from inorganic elements and species do 

 not change in the present day ; which is not the question at issue. 

 The question is, How did this series of phenomena originate ? 

 They do not see that their two rules as to present phenomena cannot 

 be applied to the past, without leading to the conclusion that the 

 present series of phenomena has never had a beginning at all that 

 both Moses's account of the creation of animals and the doctrines of 

 palaeontology must be rejected. 



Now, they admit that there was a beginning of species. Many, 

 such as Professor Sedgwick, admit that it was a natural phenomenon. 

 They at the same time allege that individuals ahvays come by 

 parentage and species never change. How are the two beliefs to be 

 reconciled ? It is evident that our opponents must either give up 

 the idea of a beginning of life on earth, which both Genesis and 

 Geology forbid them to do, or admit that invariable parental repro- 

 duction and invariability of species can only at the utmost have held 

 good since the beginning. The latter of course is their election, and 

 consequently all this parade of evidence against spontaneous genera- 

 tion and changes of species only shows how superficial and irrelevant 

 are all their ideas upon the subject. The phenomena of the beginning 

 remain to be ascertained from whatever sources may be available. 

 Say the opponents, we do not inquire into them at all ; they are an 

 inscrutable mystery. Then, in the name of reason, do not bring up 

 your disproofs of present spontaneous generation, as if they were 

 somehow to settle the question, which it is evident they no how 



can do. 



On the other hand, it has never been assumed here that there are 

 proofs for the Development Hypothesis in spontaneous generation, 

 or in anything else. It is only said, all the. operations of God in 

 nature being in an order, or figuratively speaking, by law, it is pro- 

 bable that the origin of species was so likewise, for that is fully seen 

 to be connected in time and fact with the range of natural operations 



