54 DARWINIAFA. 



lished his theory of derivation many will admit with 

 us that he has rendered a theory of derivation much 

 less improbable than before ; that such a theory chimes 

 in with the established doctrines of physical science, 

 and is not unlikely to be largely accepted long before 

 it can be proved. Moreover, the various notions that 

 prevail equally among the most and the least religious 

 as to the relations between natural agencies or phe- 

 nomena and efficient cause, are seemingly more crude, 

 obscure, and discordant, than they need be. 



It is not surprising that the doctrine of the book 

 should be denounced as atheistical. What does sur- 

 prise and concern us is, that it should be so denounced 

 by a scientific man, on the broad assumption that a 

 material connection between the members of a series 

 of organized beings is inconsistent with the idea of 

 their being intellectually connected with one another 

 through the Deity, i. e., as products of one mind, as 

 indicating and realizing a preconceived plan. An as- 

 sumption the rebound of which is somewhat fearful to 

 contemplate, but fortunately one which every natural 

 birth protests against. 



It would be more correct to say that the theory in 

 itself is perfectly compatible with an atheistic view of 

 the universe. That is true ; but it is equally true of 

 physical theories generally. Indeed, it is more true 

 of the theory of gravitation, and of the nebular hy- 

 pothesis, than of the hypothesis in question. The latter 

 merely takes up a particular, proximate cause, or set 

 of such causes, from which, it is argued, the present 

 diversity of species has or may have contingently re- 

 Bulted. The author does not say necessarily resulted ; 



