REVIEWS. 



471 



operations during past ages of a fewer number of original forms. We cannot 

 follow Mr, Darwin through all his arguments in support of his theory, nor do 

 we always agree with his teachings, still so many important problems can be 

 feasibly solved by the application of his doctrine, as go far to convince one 

 that it has a really good foundationfor three great natural truths — the undoubted 

 influence of the struggle for life ; the necessitous interference of external 

 physical cii'cumstances upon the varieties and conditions of life and vegetation 

 at all periods of the earth's history; and the existence, at least, of a principle of 

 natural selection. We should on some points be inclined to go further than 

 Mr. Darwin, especially in regard to the matter of time. Granting his position 

 that the changes produced by natural selection v.sv.allij require great ages of 

 time, we are still disposed to consider that sucli changes might, under favour- 

 able or active circumstances be rapidly accomplished, and that in some cases 

 they might even be brought about in the range of two or three or even of a 

 single generation. 



The .greatest objection, it seems to us, which can be brought against the 

 theory is its reliance on natural causes and chance in effecting tlie changes. 



We should be more inclined to refer the modifications which species of 

 of animals or plants have uudergone to the direct will of God, for it seems 

 difficult to conceive how a being totally ignorant of its own structure or 

 conditions of living should so commence modifying its structure, form, or 

 habits, as to adapt not itself, but successively its progeny to new forms and 

 conditions of life. Take ourselves — some few who have undergone severe anato- 

 mical studies excepted — and how much do we know of our bodies ? What do 

 we know of the organs in their interiors ? Do we know how often in a day our 

 heart beats, or our limirs palpitate ? How many ounces of blood run in our 

 veins ? If we are ill can we tell what organ is aifccted ? or chseased internally 

 Can we say where or why ? Do we of ourselves, untaught even, know either 

 the existence or use of one of our unseen and not external organs ? Even of 

 those which are visible what do we know? can we tell why the ^^alI causes the hand 

 to wi'ite, or the feet to walk ? Or what is the means of communication between 

 our will and our limbs ? Did our progenitors, however remote, conceive the 

 idea of nails to our fingers, eyelids to our eyes, or lashes for our eyelids F Do 

 we conceive any improvement in our offspring ? Could we suggest any possible 

 improvement of our present structure ? Could we add one beautiful line to the 

 face ? or one more efficiently constructed limb ? Could we suggest any more 

 convenient arrangement, or disposition of our parts ? And if ^ce, standing at the 

 highest pinnacle of knowledge, cannot suggest a sportive variety, even, of 

 ourselves, how much less can we consider that mere brutes, or insensate plants, 

 should have any innate power of themselves to cause the slightest improvement 

 of their organization ? If we could not suggest one improvement of our con- 

 dition, how much less can we believe that the alpine partridge effected his own 

 power of changing the colour of its feathers, or the insect assume the colour of 

 the leaf it feeds upon ; and still less can we conceive how the peach could 

 assume of itself its downy surface, or the plum its purple bloom. Such results 

 if naturally produced can only emanate from divine laws. The beautiful perfec- 

 tion of our bodies — the wonderful adaptations in the forms of animals to render 

 them efficient for their purposes of Life seem so skiKuUy planned, that it is im- 

 possible to regard them as effects of chance, and not as inapproachably perfect 

 designs. If we could accept the transmutation doctrines, we must concede the 

 transmutatory laws as of pre-eminently divine origin and maintenance, purposely 

 conceived to be ever forcibly acting in direct antagonism to the necessity of 

 destruction and change, to which all nature seems subject. In this light we 

 might accept it, and trace back the natural divergence of life-forms to the first 

 vital force thrown off from the hand of the Creator, who threw off with an 



