1875.] Science, her Claims, Position, and Duties. iy: 
weighing each along with the objections raised against it 
and with the fervid eulogies of Dr. Guardia,* would be 
simply a life-task. This will readily be granted when we 
remind ourselves that, in addition to the vexed question of 
“‘materialism,”—more corre¢tly called apneumatism,—the 
transformation of species is one of the points upon which 
judgment must be given. Indeed, passing over the merely 
historical portion and the ‘‘drawn game ”’ between Lucretius 
and Bishop Butler, the main part of the ‘‘ Address” is de- 
voted to an exposition of the speculations of Darwin, 
Huxley, and Wallace, on the origin of species, and to the 
researches of Herbert Spencer on the development of intel- 
ligence. To this part of the subject we are led by the 
remark that Bishop Butler “boldly embraced the whole 
animal world in his scheme of immortality,” like the Rev. 
J. G. Wood in our day,—thus overthrowing one of the most 
formidable barriers erected between man and the lower 
animals,—and by a reference to modern geology and pale- 
ontology. We do not know whether due weight has been 
laid upon the circumstance that the infant chimpanzee and 
the human infant have a very considerable resemblance to 
each other, which, as the two beings respectively approach 
maturity, becomes smaller and smaller. What does this 
signify ? If, standing on an eminence overlooking a wide 
tract of country, we see two streams gradually and conti- 
nuously diverging from each other as they flow,—say, east- 
wards,—we very naturally conclude that if we could follow 
them in the opposite direction we should find them gradually 
converge. In the same manner the increasing divergence of 
animals, as they approach perfection, seems strongly to 
support the view of an ultimately common origin of species 
now apparently distinct. It is a ludicrous error to suppose 
that the doctrine of evolution is necessarily connected with 
the atheistic hypothesis of existence. Just the same charges 
were in former days brought against the heliocentric theory 
of the solar system. Should ‘ transformism ’’—as the Abbé 
Moigno inelegantly calls it—become better understood, 
divines will cease to dread it, and we shall see once more 
the Church and the World yoke themselves side by side to 
the chariot of success. The recognition of the development 
theory is, however, retarded by an abuse to which one of its 
do¢trines is put by a certain social school, and which gives 
a certain plausibility to such attacks as those of the eloquent 
and subtle, though sorely mistaken, Bishop of Peterborough. 
* Moniteur Scientifique, November, 1874. 
