REVIEWS. 
395 
And thirdly : — 
“ There is a grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having 
been originally breathed into a few forms or into one ; and that whilst this 
planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so 
simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have 
been and are being evolved.” * 
The author first referred to, who declares himself to be the seeker of 
“ truth,” and who wishes to deal “ charitably towards the opinions of 
others,” has in his work quoted the last extract, in which our readers will 
perceive that the Creator is referred to, but not named ; but he sedulously 
avoids noticing the second paragraph, which he might have found (if he 
did not find it) on the preceding page ; and although he condescendingly 
gives Mr. Darwin credit for geniality , as evinced in the paragraph last 
quoted, and the context; yet he condemns him for appealing to chance and 
nature (not to prescience and Almighty Power , mark!) for all subsequent 
development, “ as if these blind deities f were aught without the direction 
of the same original life-breathing impulse ! ” Ergo , Mr. Darwin is a 
materialist. Now, without expressing our individual opinion (which may 
or may not, for causes other than those under consideration, be at variance 
with Mr. Darwin’s), we 'would ask our readers to say honestly, who has 
formed the highest conception of the Creator, he who believes that the 
Deity said, “Let it be,” and so it is forever; or he who believes that 
the command is of no avail unless the Lawgiver watches for ever over the 
execution of His laws, lest they should vary or be broken 1 
As to the misrepresentation, we say nothing. Our readers well know 
how to value the testimony of such a witness for the future. One thing 
is quite certain. A proceeding of this kind is by no means calculated to 
enforce a recognition of the hand of the Creator in His works. 
But if this writer has misconstrued Mr. Darwin, we think our readers 
will agree with us that Professor Huxley has been far from happy in his 
interpretation of the views of that eminent naturalist, and that neither 
commentator has conferred a benefit on the object of his criticisms. 
Mr. Darwin does not say, “given the origin,” or “given the existence 
of organic matter, its tendency to transmit its properties, &c.” . . . . 
“ these are the causes of the present and past conditions of organic 
nature.” 
What he does say, we have given in his own words, and it is unnecessary 
to repeat them. He modestly expresses his conviction in a certain theory 
in regard to the production of all species, past and present, from a few 
forms, and draws attention to the fact that the same reasoning might lead 
to the belief that all are descended from one prototype. He shows that 
the phenomena which form the basis of his belief are due to secondary 
causes; but he has taken care to let his readers distinctly understand 
that he has never lost sight of the Great First Cause, speaking with 
* P. *190. 
t There is nothing in Mr. Darwin’s work to warrant this expression : 
“ These obedient servants” would have been correct. 
