290 
These are two of the great difficulties attendant on the view of 
the independent creation of each individual species. But although 
they were fatal to that view, it does not fall to Mr Darwin as sole 
(Edipus to solve them. The doctrine of progressive development (to 
which Mr Darwin’s view has many points of affinity), or any doc- 
trine in which development of species ex ovo plays a part, will ex- 
plain these facts equally well. The germ must bear some trace 
of its origin ; and hence we should, under such a theory, see 
not only the relationships and homologies referred to, but also cer- 
tain appearances which bear indications of reversion to type, such 
as the appearance of the stripes of the tiger in the young of the 
lion, &c. These, I own, are difficult to be explained (I do not say 
unexplainable) under the theory of independent creation, but natural, 
and to be expected, under any theory of development ex ovo , — not 
more under Mr Darwin’s than under any other. The distinctive 
character of Mr Darwin’s theory is not development ex ovo ; that 
is the theory of Oken, of Agassiz, of the author of the “ Vestiges 
of Creation nay, I may go farther back. It is the theory of 
Bonnet and of Priestley, who, however involved their ideas might 
be, still held “ that all the germs of future plants, organical bodies 
of all kinds, and the reproducible parts of them, were really con- 
tained in the first germ.” Darwin’s, on the other hand, is gradual 
transition by slow and scarcely perceptible degrees ; and, so far 
as that specialty is concerned , it has no more bearing than Oken’s 
upon the classes of facts above referred to ; and the distinction 
between them is not confined merely to the modus operandi of the 
process of development ; it is much more material than that ; it 
embraces the question of final causes, and bears on the very 
existence of design in the organic creation. The views of Agassiz 
and Oken do not challenge the fact of design existing in the 
wonderful adaptations of structure to purpose which we see every- 
where displayed in living organisms. Their theory allowed us 
to retain our belief in the great argument on which the whole of 
natural theology is based ; nay, even to place it on higher grounds, 
as the intelligence which performs its work by the intervention of a 
law or machinery designed by itself, and operating on a great scale, 
is superior to the intelligence which executes each individual detail 
directly and without such intervention. If it furnished no expla- 
nation of the causes of adaptation of structure to habit, at least it 
