454 
A Characterisation of 
[August, 
“the species” (p. 33) Mr. Darwin tacitly concurs. His 
remark that it is “ in opposition to all analogy ’ to suppose 
that “ many individuals varied simultaneously ” (p. 204) 
shows that he conceived these saltations as analogous to 
what the vulgar would distinguish as natural variations. 
And herein a failure to appreciate an opponent’s position. 
Philosophical Characteristics. 
The function of Philosophy is said to be the unification 
of knowledge ; to concern itself with the fusion into more 
general terms of hitherto unaffiliated truths garnered from 
the several sciences. These latter strive to assign the phe- 
nomena encountered in their domains to what are called 
“ secondary causes,” in so doing trusting (some upon one 
ground, some upon another, and some upon a third) in the 
Persistence of Force, with its derivative truths, involving, 
inter alia, a belief that “ forces, which become manifest, do 
“ so by disappearance of pre-existing equivalent forces. 
The term may likewise be employed to invest with due dig- 
nity the attempt to discern the laws and purposes of inter- 
ference with the Persistence of Force, assuming such ever 
occur or have ever occurred. The philosophy of the Or. 
of Sp . is in direct antagonism to the former, and irre- 
concilable with any form of the latter worthy of being 
entertained. Let us see why. 
Whether Mr. Darwin held that Deity “created a few 
“original forms,” alive ah initio , or in the appeaiance 01 
“ creation ” of a “ few forms ” or of “ some one prototype ” 
(either “ considerably lower than the lowest mollusc ” or 
only “ a little lower than the angels ”), with their, or its, 
subsequent vivification by the breath of the Creator, some 
force not recognised as persistent in the philosophical sense 
is summoned. Moreover, the creation of mere living beings 
is almost, if not quite, worthless metaphysically. When a 
person handles the plant called the nettle, quite probably 
that person alone feels, — almost certainly he alone determines 
to avoid contact henceforth. So the theory of Divine vivi- 
fication is not needed to explain sensation or free-will. It 
has been affirmed that “ in the production of consciousness 
“ by physical agents aCting on physical struaure we come 
“to an absolute mystery never to be solved ” ; while Mr. 
Darwin considers free-will a typically insoluble problem (ii., 
428). Deity is a bountiful mine of explanation : surely its 
services might have been utilised a little here ! 
To recur to Philosophy. Advocates of Divine interference 
