303 [Price. 
1872.] 
tail, plainly represents this part in other vertebrate animals.’’ p. 28. ‘‘It 
is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man, rudimen- 
tary mamme exist.’”’ p. 80, which Mr. Darwin finds it “difficult to ex 
plain on the belief of the separate creation of each species.’? Darwin 
concludes this enumeration by saying, ‘‘ The homological construction of 
the whole frame in the members of the same class is intelligible, if we 
admit their descent from a common progenitor, together with their sub- 
sequent adaptation to diversified conditions. On any other view, the 
similarity of pattern between the hand of a man or monkey, the foot of a 
horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat, etc., is utterly inexplicable.” 
p. 81. And this conclusion may be admitted, if we believe creation had 
no Creator. But if all creatures had a Creator who endowed them with 
power to generate their like, but forbade them to generate their unlike, 
the explanation is clear, and makes that of Mr. Darwin wholly illogical. 
Was structure so great ever raised on so narrow a foundation ! Indeed, 
this small basis for so tremendous a theory, necessarily brings into ques- 
tion the author’s logical powers, and causes thoughtful men to set down 
much to personal idiosyneracy. 
These rudimentary signs of man’s relationship to the beast are of small 
things, indeed, but according to Darwin, of mighty significance : but to 
common apprehension of less account than the general functions common 
to mammal life, and the approximation of form between the ape and 
man; yet, all considered, leaving one a beast and the other an immortal 
being. 
Ts it not competent for the Creator to employ similar physical structures 
and functions in animals, and to give to all the benefits of adaptation to 
the food they are designed to feed upon, the situations they are to occupy, 
and the life they are intended to live, without making the one the offspring 
of the other? He who intended the good of all, would give the good in all 
to every species, so far as adapted to the welfare of each, and this we can 
more logically believe than that the man, the monkey, the horse, the seal, 
bat, &c., have blood relationship through a common ancestor. It is not 
a welcome belief that whether we eat ‘‘fish, flesh or fowl,”’ we are perpe- 
trating a kind of cannibalism, by feeding on distant relatives, though the 
degree of relationship cannot be traced, even with the help of Mr. Darwin. 
And can science dispense with a Creator? The votaries of science may 
grope through special investigations until they cease to see God in His 
works. But just so far as they cease to see God as the author of Nature, 
they seem to cease to understand the logic of creation, in its pervasive 
features, wisdom and magnificence. Yet this theory of a generated 
creation, if it could be believed to be true or logical, must still be taken to 
rest upon a Creator and an upholder of all nature, and of the Universe, while 
it will not own Him as Author of all kinds of life. But life could not be, 
nor generation, nor pirth, nor growth without His instant sustentation. 
And shall He not create His creation with all the distinctions of class, 
order, genera and species as we behold it? Me must have created this 
earth, the sun that warms it, the air, water and food by which all life 
] 
| 
