23 
the probable original perfection of man, from the perfection we find 
in the rest of the animate creation. It is neither my argument nor 
that of those whom I oppose, that man is now what he was origi- 
nally. The question therefore is — having rejected the “ evolution 
theory ” for all living as well as for all inanimate nature — In what 
condition and with what character did man probably come from the 
hands of his Creator ? He evidently somehow has changed, and he 
changes his character before our very eyes ; w r hile the inferior animals 
do not so change, and apparently never have changed. If we found 
the mason-bee or carpenter-bee copying from one another, or endea- 
vouring to rival the construction of the cells of the hive-bee, or the 
latter making the least advance or fresh discovery from generation 
to generation ; then we might by analogy reason that man had in 
like manner advanced from an inferior primitive state. But, it 
may be replied, that if man has not advanced he has degenerated ; 
and that this destroys the analogy between him and the other 
animals whose instincts and character thus remain unaltered. No 
doubt whatever it does. The analogy breaks off, and becomes an 
antithesis whenever we admit that man has changed. But that is 
not the question. We only desire to establish by analogy what was 
his probable original condition. 
40. What I argue is, that as all nature has a beauty and per- 
fection and fitness of its own, exhibited in every element, and in 
every plant, and every animal, save man ; we are bound from 
analogy to conclude, — man being now the exception to that rule, — 
that originally there was no such exception. We are bound from 
all analogy to argue, that as the ant, the bee, the spider, the beaver, 
the elephant, the dog, have each their peculiar and marvellous 
instincts and intelligence adapted to their nature and place in crea- 
tion, so that man when originally created would surely in like 
manner come perfect from the hand of his Creator, with an intel- 
ligence and enlightened reason adapted to his superior place in the 
creation. If not, we should have a solecism in nature : in other 
words, it is unnatural and irrational to come to such a strange con- 
clusion. But it is not only contrary to all we do know of nature, 
but it is derogatory to our conception of the character of the Creator, 
to conclude that He made man less perfect than the inferior creatures. 
41. That man is now a solecism in the creation is, alas ! too 
true. Here is a picture of his present condition, which I drew 
six years ago : — 
“ Nature is not for him a sufficient guide. He has no perfect instincts. 
Nature does not even clothe him, as it does the birds and beasts. His birth 
brings with it pain and sorrow and sickness unknown to the lower creation. 
His period of utter helplessness as an infant and child is long and pro- 
tracted. If not carefully trained and taught and elevated, he degenerates. 
By his wilful acts he may demoralize himself, and often does, even after 
