74 
transmutation of species, and we therefore must reject this 
theory as not in harmony with what we do know of nature. 
But it may be retorted that I have admitted that we do 
possess a knowledge of the c( hind of effects Mr. Darwin lays 
stress upon ” — such as the influence of climate, use and 
disuse, and external conditions generally, upon plants and 
animals ; and if so, why not admit his whole theory ? But I 
reply, it is not for us to go beyond our knowledge, or to make 
nature itself what we might call “ harmonious.” Our duty is 
to have our hypothesis in harmony with nature, such as it is. 
I admit these effects, but only within the limits of nature s 
laws, and according to what we know. I must exclude from 
my definition — again using Mr. Waringtcufis words all 
mere transient sports, or temporary variations,” as well as 
({ all apparent varieties dependent upon situation, climate, &c. 
Holding that exceptio ptrobat regulam, I reject a theory which 
turns exceptions into rule, and reverses those laws of nature 
which are known to be i( constant and inherent at the present 
time.” To have recourse to an analogy suggested by Mr. 
Warington's test of harmoniousness, we know that an occa- 
sional and delicate note of discord may even serve to increase 
the sweetest harmony \ but were discords to become pre- 
dominant in musical composition, all harmony would . be 
destroyed. And so with the constant discords Darwinism 
seeks to make the rule of nature. They are utterly destruc- 
tive of harmony. 
Besides, let it be granted that varieties may become con- 
firmed in their differences, and thereby become new species, 
does it then follow — as Mr. Wallace and others have argued 
elsewhere* — that therefore this process might go on ad in- 
jinitum , and new genera be also developed from species . 
Certainly not. You may call this granting the first step m 
the process, and therefore say I must grant the whole. . But, 
I ask, will Mr. Warington, then, admit . the same kind of 
argument as regards the first steps of his reasoning ? Can 
he, for instance, or does Mr. Darwin in fact, attempt to get 
a beginning for the first few forms of life, or for the one 
to which analogy would lead him, without a breathing of life 
by the Creator into that first one, or into these few first forms ? 
No. And, if not if you must have the Creator to give you 
your first form or forms of life, why limit Him to these ? 
Why not begin with more than this one or meagre few ? 
Why should He not have given life to “ every living creature 
after its kind,” i.e., to every genus at least, or even to many 
* Anthrop. Rev. ; vol. ii., pp. cxxviii, cxxix. 
