546 ON THE RECEPTION OF 



* the successive creation of species may constitute a regulai 

 part of the economy of nature,' but he has nowhere, I think, 



. so described this process as to make it appear in what de- 

 partment of science we are to place the hypothesis. Are 

 these new species created by the production, at long intervals, 

 of an offspring different in species from the parents ? Or are 

 the species so created produced without parents ? Are they 

 gradually evolved from some embryo substance ? Or do 

 they suddenly start from the ground, as in the creation of 

 the poet ? . . . 



'' Some selection of one of these forms of the hypothesis, 

 rather than the others, with evidence for the selection, is 

 requisite to entitle us to place it among the known causes of 

 change, which in this chapter we are considering. The bare 

 conviction that a creation of species has taken place, whether 

 once or many times, so long as it is unconnected with our or- 

 ganical sciences, is a tenet of Natural Theology rather than 

 of Physical Philosophy." * 



I The earlier part of this criticism appears perfectly just 

 and appropriate; but, from the concluding paragraph, Whew- 

 ell evidently imagines that by '^ creation " Lyell means a 

 preternatural intervention of the Deity ; whereas the letter 



^ to Herschel shows that, in his own mind, Lyell meant natural 

 causation ; and I see no reason to doubt f that, if Sir Charles 



* Whewell's ' History,' vol. iii. p. 639-640 (Ed. 2, 1847). 



f The following passages in Lyell's letters appear to me decisive on 

 this point : — 



To Darwin, Oct. 3, 1859 (ii, 325), on first reading the ' Origin.' 

 I " I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is made, all that 

 you claim in your concluding pages will follow. 



"It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling that the 

 case of Man and his Races, and of other animals, and that of plants, is 

 one and the same, and that if a vera causa be admitted for one instant, 

 [instead] of a purely unknown and imaginary one, such as the word ' crea- 

 tion,' all the consequences must follow." 



To Darwin, March 15, 1863 (vol. ii. p. 365). 



" I remember that it was the conclusion he [Lamarck] came to about 

 man that fortified me thirty years ago against the great impression which 



