THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 
417 
degrees of intelligence and sagacity. Now, either the higher natures are develop- 
''^j ments of the lower, or they are not. If they are mere developments, why may we 
not regard the nature of man as a development too? What special reasons are 
'^"'^ there for supposing the nature of man to be a creation, while we regard the varied 
and distinctive natures of the other animals as mere developments ? We perceive 
in the old proverb, "Necessity is the mother of invention," the popular recog- 
5' nition of the fact that circumstances have a certain modifying effect upon the 
' intellect of man, and that, too, in cases where, in all probability, they would fail to 
I exercise any modifying effect whatever upon the mental powers of the brute. If, 
\ j therefore, the developing power of circumstances acts in certain cases with even 
' i greater effect upon the man than upon the brute, v)hy may we not suppose that 
^' these modifying causes might act during an almost infinite succession of ages and 
j through an almost endless chain of being, and the accumulated result be the mind 
of man as we now find it ? 
j Further, if mind of any degree can be developed, I certainly see no greater 
' diflficulty in supposing that an animal, under the pressure of circumstances, might 
modify its mental powers (as in fact is done daily in education, both in man and 
many of the lower animals), than in supposing that it might acquire a new member 
or a new faculty. If, for example, the mussel can develope into the fish, as Oken 
says it can, why may not the nature of the mussel develope into the nature of the 
fish ? Or, if the fish can develope into the land animal, why may not the nature 
of the fish develope into the nature of the land animal ? Or, finally, if the brute can 
develope into the man, ^hy may not the nature of the brute develope into the 
nature of the man ? From a careful perusal of Lieutenant Hutton's article and 
[ explanation, it appears to me that he supposes the various natures of the inferior 
animals to be mere developments, the higher of the lower ; but how he can at the 
same time consistently maintain that the nature of man was " given him by special" 
act of creational power, I confess I cannot make out. Perhaps he found himself in 
one of the "dilemmas" he speaks of, and wished to harmonize his theory with the 
facts before him. If, however, I misapprehend his "Theory," and if, in reality, 
he means to assert that mind cannot in any case be developed, then in effect the 
"Theory of development" becomes the "Theory of creation," for a continuous 
series of " special interpositions " is assumed, and the idea of development becomes 
a new and very comprehensive idea indeed. 
But to return for a moment to the theological aspect of this theory, Lieutenant 
Hutton says, that "man" was developed from some inferior animal (he does not 
know which), but that his "mental and moral powers," that is, his soul, were 
bestowed upon him at the proper time by a "special" act of creation. The 
' Bible says (Gen. i. 26, 27; ii. 7, &c.) that God created man both Vody and 
: soul. I am aware of the use which Lieutenant Hutton makes of the word "cre- 
ated," but I reject that use of it in this place as evidently inappropriate. I have 
not as yet seen the pamphlet by Dr. Asa Gray, but I have read my Bible, and 
whether I interpret it aright or Lieutenant Hutton, I leave your readers to decide. 
For a further discussion of the theological bearings of the Development Theory, I 
must refer your readers to Hugh Miller's " Footprints of the Creator," a work 
containing some very good arguments on the subject. 
I have already occupied more of your space than I oiiginally intended, and con- 
sequently feel loath to trespass further ; still I cannot close my letter without a 
remark or two on the actual position of geology with reference to this theory. I 
will endeavour, however, to be very brief ; and if in consequence of this enforced 
brevity, my arguments or illustrations should seem to any incomplete or inconclu- 
sive, I trust they will ascribe such defects to their true cause, and not to any 
uncertainty in the teachings of geology, which, to me at least, are plain and 
unmistakeable. 
In my former letter, inserted in your number for June, I quoted from Darwin 
the statement that, if his theory were true, then before the deposition of the lowest 
Silurian strata there elapsed periods of time " probably longer than the whole interval 
from the Silurian age to the present day," during which " the world swarmed with 
living creatures ;" and I put to Lieutenant Hutton the question which had already 
been put to Mr. Darwin — "What has become of the records of these vast pnmor- 
dial periods ?" In reply, Lieutenant Hutton simply refers me to his very elaborate 
VOL. IV. 2 Y 
