KIJi'G — ON THE OEIGIN" OF SPECIES. 



255 



kind of matter : on the other hand, it would be equally irrational to 

 doubt His power to ordain and sustain laws, through the instru- 

 mentality of which originally created organisms could be modified and 

 adapted to external clianges. The two modes may be designated, — 

 the first, Autotheogenif, — and the second, Genetlieonomy . 



I hold that an organism, whether it typifies a spedes, a genus, a 

 family, an order, or a class, is an autotheogen, if it possesses a set of 

 characters which isolate it from other equivalent groups ; also, that 

 such an organism, through being acted on by inherent and external 

 forces, may become more or less modified, thereby resulting in gene- 

 theonomous forms. I see no reason why Mr. Darwin should not 

 admit the same, notwithstanding that his present belief merely re- 

 cognizes among animals "at most only four or five" autotheogenous 

 roots of apparently as many classes. On psychological grounds alone, 

 Man must be regarded as isolated from all other organisms ; hence 

 I consider him to be an autotheogenous species. 



Until within the last year or two, Genetheonomy was far from suffi- 

 ciently supported by the arguments of its advocates ; those advanced 

 by Lamarck, Geoflroy St. Hilaire, and the author of the ' Yestiges,' 

 being only of partial application, or simply illustrated by a restricted 

 group of analogies. If organisms underwent changes only during 

 their emhryonic stage, the author of the ' Yestiges ' would have some 

 grounds for his theory of development " by generation " — by " a 

 universal gestation of nature, analogous to that of the individual 

 being ;" but, considering that all organisms undergo, after their hirth, 

 and throughout the entire period of their existence, successive modi- 

 fications (less marked, it is true, in the higher Yertebrata than in 

 the Invertebrata and Batrachia), it is manifest that the doctrine of 

 the ' Yestiges ' has nothing in its favour except a restricted group of 

 analogical phenomena. Its author has made out a case of " parity of 

 plan between embryonic development and the succession of life on 

 our planet ;" but he has failed, as far as I can understand the theory, 

 in establishing "a real identity of character in the two sets of pheno- 

 mena." Of late, however, Darwin and Wallace have considerably 

 enlarged the field of well-sustained argument supportive of creation 

 by Divine law. 



But does the hypothesis of the last-named naturalists sufficiently 

 explain the various genetheonomous phenomena? My own reason- 

 ing compels me to answer in the negative. I admit to a great extent 

 the power of " natural selection " in producing a species ; but I can- 

 not divest myself of the impression that it only holds the rank of a 

 subordinate or ancillary agent. The particular view under consider- 

 ation, if I am not much mistaken, implies that plants and animals 

 are modifiable by mere external influences — of course, acting by law. 

 Entertaining this opinion, I am led to regard "natural selection," as 

 widely removed from primary laws; and functionally no higher 

 than chance or accident, as conceived by the untutored. 



I feel a difficulty in understanding how "natural selection" could 

 produce a species, unless other and higher principles were involved. 



