80 
tion, with reference to the fertilization of orchids, How could 
they possibly have been fertilized and continued in being — 
supposing we pass over the difficulty of their first coming into 
existence — without the co-existence of the insects required for 
their propagation, according to Mr. Darwiffis interesting volume 
on the subject ? I may remind Mr. Warington that there is, 
if I may use the term, a theory of creation — not that of special 
creations invented by geologists with long gaps between — but 
an account of continuous creation, in which the insects that 
fulfil this purpose of nature come quickly into being by the 
Creators word, very shortly after the orchids themselves, with 
all the original flora of the earth, burst forth into existence 
in all their marvellously varied beauties and blossoms. 
And here I must observe, with some satisfaction, that 
throughout Mr. Waringtoffis paper, he never ventures to pro- 
pound a difficulty as regards that view, or to draw a contrast 
between Darwinism and that Divine theory of continuous 
special creations completed within six days ; for he only con- 
trasts the humanly invented theory of special creations by fits 
and starts, with ages intervening, and the gradual development 
theory of Mr. Darwin, which he prefers. 
And now, Sir, I think I might claim to have met fairly all 
Mr. Waringtoffis leading arguments, and proved Darwinism 
to be inharmonious, inconsistent, inadequate, and therefore 
irrational and incredible. But I am content to meet it on still 
lower ground ; not to press principles too logically against it; 
to allow it its illogical beginnings, and to leave the highest 
ground, in order, as it has been characterized, to fight the 
battle in a bog/'’ where the struggle for existence is already 
imagined to be going on; to grant so far, as Mr. Warington 
asks us, the “ possibility ” of the theory, and test its adequacy 
upon points of detail. 
And here I must quote for distinctness what our author calls 
the elements of the theory:—' “1. Growth with reproduction; 
2. Inheritance which [I agree with him] is almost implied in 
reproduction.” And these two definitions, in my opinion, 
might fairly be merged into one we have all often heard., that 
“ like produces like,” which is implied by either “ reproduc- 
tion ” or “ inheritance.” Then we come to Ho. 8, which is, 
“ Variability, from the indirect and direct action of the external 
conditions of life and from use and disuse ; and 4th, a ratio 
of increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life.” Now 
No. 3, you will observe, is in antithesis to Nos. 1 and 2. Vari- 
ability, and not reproduction or inheritance, is what it predi- 
cates : in other words, it requires us to hold that “ like does 
not produce like ” in nature. It is here we have the essential 
