EEVIEW3. 
471 
operations during past ages of a fewer number of original forms. Wc cannot 
fallow Mr, Darwin through all his arguments in su]iport of liis theory, nor do 
wc 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 tiirce great natural tnitiis — the undoubted 
influence of the struggle for life ; the necessitous interference of external 
physical circumstances upon the varieties and conditions of life and vegetation 
at iill 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 tlic matter of time. Granting his position 
that the changes produced by natural selection umally require great ages of 
time, we are still disposed to consider that such changes might, under favour- 
able or active circumstances be ra])idly 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 ou natural causes and chance in effecting the changes. 
We should be more inclined to refer the modifications which species of 
of animals or plants have undergone to the direct will of God, for it seems 
dilficidt to conceive how a being totally ignorant of its own structui-e or 
conditions of living should so commence modifying its structure, form, or 
habits, as to adaj^t 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 wc know of our bodies ? What do 
we know of the organs in their interiors ? Do we know liow often in a day our 
heart beats, or our lunsjs palpitate ? How many ounces of blood run in our 
veins ? If we are ill can we tell what organ is anected ? or diseased 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 ^vill causes the hand 
to write, or the feet to walk ? Or what is the means of communication between 
our wiU 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 ? Do 
we conceive any improvement in our offspring ? Could we suggest any possible 
improvement of our present structui-e ? 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 we, standing at the 
liighest 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 elFected 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 pui-poses of life seem so skilfully 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 aetiug 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 
