KING — ON THE OEIQIN OF SPECIES. 
265 
kind of matter; on the other hand, it would be equally irrational to 
doubt His power to ordain and sustain laws, through the instrii- 
uientality of which originally created organisms could be modified and 
adapted to external changes. The two modes may be designated, — 
the first, Autotheogeny, — and the second, Genetlieonomy. 
I hold that an organism, whether it typifies a species, 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 " autotheogenoua 
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, Geoffrey St. Hilaire, and the author of the ' Vestiges,' 
being only of partial application, or simply illustrated by a restricted 
group of analogies. If organisms underwent changes only during 
their embryonic stage, the author of the ' Vestiges ' 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 Vertebrata than in 
the Invertebrata and Batrachia), it is manifest that the doctrine of 
the * Vestiges ' 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. 
