404 REVIEWS—ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 
probable. As to the third test, the hypothesis being the only one which 
can explain the phenomena, we cannot understand upon what ground 
Prof. Huxley believes that “the alternative is Darwinian or nothing.” 
The opponents of the new hypothesis may not profess to explain the ori- 
gin of species.by tracing them to second causes, but they insist that 
they are not called upon to do so. They find, as they think, organised 
mature made up of permanently distinct structures, amidst their dif- 
ferences bearing numerous and striking relations to each other, and 
together forming a connected whole displaying one grand plan, and 
presenting an inconceivable variety of different combinations of organs, 
all working out, by varying means, a common end and together filling 
creation with order, harmony, beauty, forming one grand and benefi- 
cent system. 
If it were a legitimate aim of philosophy to prevent the thought of 
Deity from arising from the contemplation of his works, we should 
have made a step in advance in adopting Darwin’s hypothesis which 
makes all the variety in nature the result of fixed physical laws, and 
limits the direct operation of the Divine volition to the production 
of the first organised element. Even so however a creative act is re- 
quired, and if for one creature why not for a million? If for one con- 
dition of external nature, why not for any number of such conditions 
which may succeed one another on the earth’s surface? The scheme 
of a creation of numerous species which may reproduce themselves 
‘with a certain limited variation is not essentially unphilosophical, and 
s0 long as we believe in the real distinctness of species is the most 
probable explanation of what we see. If the transmutation of species 
can be definitely established the case will be altered, and we may ap- 
ply ourselves with advantage to the study of the law of modification. 
Our limited space forbids, at present, the fuller expression of our 
views on this interesting subject, but differing as we do from Messrs. 
Darwin and Huxley and other eminent naturalists, we readily receive 
the speculations which have engaged their minds as worthy of candid 
consideration, and only desire that they may be so considered as to 
promote scund knowledge, just views, and practical utility. 
W. H. 
