304 [Jan. 5, 
Price.] 
youst live ; and He must have adapted all life to these conditions of nature 
in which it is placed. He who would deny the Creator in any part of His 
works must be prepared to do so as to the whole. Whatever be the pur- 
pose of the theory its tendency is to teach men not to believe in God or 
their own souls. 
The reader will, if he yield his belief in any degree, reason thus, and 
say, if I sprang from an almost senseless piece of pristine life; if after 
my ancestors had arrived to the stage of evolution next preceding man, 
they were no more than monkeys; then, as I believe, these had no im- 
mortal souls so have I not an immortal soul: If I only differ from them 
by reason of a more perfect physical development, that of itself could 
give me no claim to an immortal soul. If I sprang from the beast I must 
die the death of the beast! And this idea would be strengthened by the 
supposed possibility of a reversal of the process of evolution, under the 
suspicion of which I would be brought ; for Darwin admits that although 
the ancestral rudiments have become wholly suppressed for want of use, 
“they are nevertheless liable to occasional reappearance through rever- 
sion; and this is a circumstance well worthy of attention.’ Ib. 18. So, 
indeed, it appears if man be not yet sure of remaining man; if he may 
relapse to the ape, or become a new variety and be on the road to become 
a new species, let those look to the possible consequences who have an 
extra finger or toe, or whose canines or last molars, or ‘slightly pointed 
ears, show kindred with the ape or donkey. If their descendants should 
cease to be man, can they in law inherit a man’s estate? If there was 
such a transition upwards there may as likely be downwards. Who can 
tell what may be the freaks of nature, if nature be not in the keeping of 
God ? 
Mr. Darwin, writing in support of his theory does not show the facts 
that oppose that theory. He does not show the great differences 
that exist between the species that he would approximate. This is so 
both when speaking of the physical structure and the mental powers. 
When he passes to the admitted great mental and moral disparity between 
even the savage man and the most intelligent of the inferior animals, he 
advocates the cause of the latter, by stating what they do with their dele- 
gated power of instinct, and that they also exhibit instances of a glim- 
mering reason. He, however, makes no near approximation, and admits 
the difference to be enormous though the comparison be made with the 
lowest savage. 1 Ib. 33, 67. The theory is really based but upon the 
physical structure, otherwise the ape would not have been selected as the 
progenitor of man, but rather the bee or ant, the beaver, dog or elephant, 
who are far more sagacious than the monkey. 
What do we now behold over the face of the earth? Everywhere there 
yet abound the animals through which man is imagined to have descended, 
without having suffered variation or change, though exposed to the like 
causes supposed to have wrought their fellows into man ; and everywhere 
men, savage or civilized, have been dispersed over the earth, and have so 
been without any evidence of material physical change, throughout all 
