{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_24648/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_24648","id":"gutenberg_24648","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24648","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Chambers, Robert, 1802-1871. Vestiges of the natural history of creation","Creation","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Greg Bergquist and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA THEORY OF CREATION.\n\n\nA\n\nREVIEW\n\nOF\n\n\"VESTIGES OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF\n\nCREATION.\"\n\n\nFROM THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW FOR APRIL, 1845.\n\n\nBOSTON:\nOTIS, BROADERS, AND COMPANY,\n120 WASHINGTON STREET.\n1845.\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE:\nMETCALF AND COMPANY,\nPRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nTHEORY OF CREATION.\n\n     _Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation._ New York: Wiley &\n     Putnam. 1845. 12mo. pp. 291.\n\n\nThis is one of the most striking and ingenious scientific romances that\nwe have ever read. The writer of it is a bold man; he has undertaken to\ngive a hypothetical history of creation, beginning, as the title-pages\nsay, at the earliest period, and coming down to the present day. It is\nnot quite so authentic as that of Moses, nor is it written with such an\nair of simplicity and confidence as the narrative of the Jewish\nhistorian; but it is much longer, and goes into a far greater variety of\ninteresting particulars. It contradicts the Jewish cosmogony in a few\nparticulars, and is at variance with probability and the ordinary laws\nof human reasoning in many others. But the rather liberal rules of\ninterpretation, which it is now the fashion to apply to the first\nchapter of Genesis, will relieve the reader from any scruples on the\nformer account; and as to the latter, in these days of scientific\nquackery, it would be quite too harsh to make any great complaint about\nsuch peccadilloes. The writer has taken up almost every questionable\nfact and startling hypothesis, that have been promulgated by proficients\nor pretenders in science during the present century, except animal\nmagnetism; and for this omission we have reason to be thankful. The\nnebular hypothesis, Laplace's or Compte's theory of planets _shelled\noff_ from the sun, spontaneous generation,--some of these vagaries, we\nadmit, are of much older date than the year 1800,--the Macleay system,\ndogs playing dominoes, negroes born of white parents, materialism,\nphrenology,--he adopts them all, and makes them play an important part\nin his own magnificent theory, to the exclusion, in a great degree, of\nthe well-accredited facts and established doctrines of science.\n\nWe speak lightly of the author's plan, as one can hardly fail to do of a\nscheme so magnificent, and going apparently so far beyond the ordinary\nsources of information and the range of the human intellect. But the\nexecution of the work is of so high an order, as fairly to challenge\nattention and respect. The writer, who has not chosen to give his name\nto the world, is evidently a man of great ingenuity and correct taste, a\nmaster of style, a plausible, though not a profound, reasoner, and\nhaving quite a general, but superficial, acquaintance with the sciences.\nHis materials are arranged with admirable method, the illustrations are\ncopious and interesting, the transitions are skilfully managed, and the\nseveral portions of the theory are so well fitted to each other, and\nform such a round and perfect whole, that it seems a pity to subject it\nto severe analysis and searching criticism. It is a very pleasant\nhypothesis, set forth in a most agreeable manner; and though it contains\nmany objectionable features, these are cautiously veiled and kept in the\nbackground, and the reader is seduced into accepting most of the\nconclusions, before he is aware of their true character and tendency.\n\nBefore a just opinion can be formed of the correctness of the writer's\nviews, it is necessary to take to pieces this skilful fabric, and to\nbring the parts together in a different connection and with greater\nsuccinctness, following out each doctrine to its inevitable, but most\nremote, conclusions, so as to obtain a just idea of the position in\nwhich we should be placed by the acceptance of the theory as a whole.\nFor obvious reasons, the author has not chosen to give a general summary\nof his views, or to mention explicitly all the inferences that may be\ndrawn from them. He merely puts the reader upon the track, indicating\nits general direction, and leaving it for him to find out what objects\nwill be encountered by the way, and where the journey will end. We\npropose to finish the work that is thus left incomplete, and to set\nforth the doctrine in its plainest terms. We would reduce the theory at\nonce to its narrowest compass and simplest expression; but at the same\ntime, would incorporate into it every doctrine which properly belongs to\nit, and follow out each hypothesis to its remote, though necessary,\ninferences and conclusions. To this end, it is requisite to separate, as\nfar as possible, the doctrines themselves from the evidence adduced in\nsupport of them; and to consider the former as a whole, before\nproceeding, to discuss the cogency of the latter. The following may be\ntaken as the most concise abstract that we can form of the history of\nthe creation, according to this author.\n\nIn the beginning--we use this word in a kind of preter-perfect sense--in\nthe _very_ beginning of things, immense portions of infinite space were\nfilled with finely diffused nebulous matter, heated to an intensity that\nis altogether inconceivable. The particles of this \"fire mist,\" as it is\nappropriately called, were the true _primordia rerum_,--the elements of\nthe universe,--the principles of all the forms of inorganic matter and\nall organic things. At the outset, the Creator endowed these particles\nwith certain qualities and capacities, and then stood aside from his\nwork, as there was nothing farther for him to do. The subsequent\nprogress of creation is only the successive _development_, upon\nmechanical and necessary principles, and as fast as proper occasions\nwere offered, of these qualities thus made inherent in the primitive\nconstitution of matter. The atoms thus marvellously endowed have gone\non, without any further aid from Almighty power, to form suns, and\nastral systems, and planets with their satellites, and worlds tenanted\nby successive generations and races of vegetable and animal things. And\nthis work of creation, or rather of development, is still in progress\nall around us, and in all its various stages, though in the portion most\ndirectly exposed to the observation of man it is far advanced towards\nperfection. Upon this earth, the unaided action of these atoms is still\nevolving all the phenomena of generation, progress, and decay, of\nvegetable and animal life, of instinct and of mind. In the abyss of\nspace, it is also forming new suns, and solar systems, and worlds that\nare to pass through the same stages and wonderful transformations to\nwhich our own planet has already been subjected. All that has occurred\nwith respect to this earth, and the system of which it forms a part, is\nbut a type of what is constantly going on in the countless other systems\nof stars that people the firmament.\n\nThe first stage in the history of these fiery particles is the formation\namong them, in some unaccountable way, of nuclei, or centres of\naggregation, like the bright points that are now visible in some of the\nnebulae of the heavens. As soon as these centres are formed, gravity, one\nof the original principles of matter, begins to act, and the atoms in\nall the neighbouring parts of space are attracted towards the nucleus\nand heaped upon it. In this manner, a central sun of vast dimensions is\nformed, which soon assumes a motion of rotation upon its axis from the\ngeneral law which gives a circular movement to all fluids that are drawn\ntowards a common centre. The centrifugal force thus generated tends to\nthrow off matter from the equatorial regions of the great orb, but is\nrestrained by the attraction of gravitation, which would prevent any\nseparation of the parts, if the sun itself did not now begin to cool\ndown, and consequently to shrink in size. Under this cooling process, a\ncrust is formed upon the surface, too rigid to yield to the force of\ngravity, and the parts within, continuing to shrink, separate from this\nenvelope; so that there is now a central orb, revolving more rapidly\nfrom its greater density and smaller diameter, and surrounded by an\nexterior shell, or band, like Saturn's ring, rotating at its original\nspeed. As we cannot suppose that the ring would usually be of uniform\nthickness and strength, it eventually breaks up into fragments, the\nlarger of which attracts the smaller into itself, and the whole is\nformed by its revolving motion into an oblate spheroid circling round\nthe contracted sun in the centre. In this manner, the planet Uranus was\nshelled off from our sun, which originally filled the whole of the vast\nsphere, of which the distance from Uranus to the centre of the present\nsun is but the radius. The planet itself, by the same process of\ncooling, shrinking, and thus forming exterior rings, threw off\nsuccessively all its six satellites; and the sun, also, continuing to\ncontract from the loss of heat, formed another ring, and thus\nconstituted the planet Saturn. In this way were formed successively all\nthe planets and satellites of the present solar system. The original\ndiameter of our earth was equal, of course, to the present diameter of\nthe moon's orbit. In the case of Saturn, the two rings formed around it\nhappened to be of unusual homogeneity and equal thickness, so that they\nwere not broken up, but have preserved their primitive shape. A ring was\nformed from the sun in the space between the present orbits of Mars and\nJupiter; but when it was broken up, the fragments did not congregate\ninto one, but spherified separately, so as to form the four smaller\nplanets which now revolve in that opening.\n\n     \"We have no means of judging of the seniority of systems; but it is\n     reasonable to suppose, that, among the many, some are older than\n     ours. There is, indeed, one piece of evidence for the probability\n     of the comparative youth of our system, altogether apart from human\n     traditions and the geognostic appearances of the surface of our\n     planet. This consists in a thin nebulous matter, which is diffused\n     around the sun to nearly the orbit of Mercury, of a very oblately\n     spheroidal shape. This matter, which sometimes appears to our naked\n     eyes, at sunset, in the form of a cone projecting upwards in the\n     line of the sun's path, and which bears the name of Zodiacal Light,\n     has been thought a residuum or last remnant of the concentrating\n     matter of our system, and thus may be supposed to indicate the\n     comparative recentness of the principal events of our cosmogony.\n     Supposing the surmise and inference to be correct, and they may be\n     held as so far supported by more familiar evidence, we might with\n     the more confidence speak of our system as not amongst the elder\n     born of Heaven, but one whose various phenomena, physical and\n     moral, as yet lay undeveloped, while myriads of others were fully\n     fashioned and in complete arrangement. Thus, in the sublime\n     chronology to which we are directing our inquiries, we first find\n     ourselves called upon to consider the globe which we inhabit as a\n     child of the sun, elder than Venus and her younger brother Mercury,\n     but posterior in date of birth to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and\n     Uranus; next, to regard our whole system as probably of recent\n     formation in comparison with many of the stars of our firmament. We\n     must, however, be on our guard against supposing the earth as a\n     recent globe in our ordinary conceptions of time. From evidence\n     afterwards to be adduced, it will be seen that it cannot be\n     presumed to be less than many hundreds of centuries old.\"--pp. 22,\n     23.\n\nHaving thus explained the _genesis_ of the solar system, we come down to\nthe history of our own earth, since it shelled off the ring which formed\nour moon. Continuing to cool down and shrink, a thin but rigid crust of\nprimary rocks, still bearing marks of the intense heat to which they\nhave been subjected, was formed upon its surface; and then the vapors,\nwith which the atmosphere had been charged, were condensed, and formed\nseas, which covered the whole, or the greater part, of the earth's\nrind. The continual agitation of these waters, and their high\ntemperature, as they were still nearly at the boiling point,\ndisintegrated and wore down many of these rocks, and, in the lapse of\nages, deposited their remains, in thick layers of sand and mud, at the\nbottom of the seas. Baked by the heat from beneath, and pressed by the\nweight of superincumbent waters, these layers slowly hardened into\nstratified rocks. Forms of vegetable and animal life, though only of the\nlowest type, the origin of which is to be explained hereafter, now began\nto appear. Some sea-plants, zooephytes, infusory animalcules, and a few\nof the molluscous tribe, all low down in the order of being, but\nimportant from their immense numbers and joint action, commenced their\nwork of absorbing the carbonic acid with which the air was overcharged,\nand building up vast piers and mounds of stone from their own remains.\nMeanwhile, the internal fires of the earth occasionally broke through\nthe rocky crust that imprisoned them, threw up liquid primitive rock\nthrough the rents, and distorted and tilted up the strata that had been\nformed above.\n\nWe may remark, in passing, that the chronology of the events of which we\nnow speak is not very accurately determined; the only thing certain\nabout it is, that a series of ages, so protracted that the imagination\ncannot conceive their number, elapsed between the successive epochs in\nthe history of the earth's crust. Some of the convulsions caused by the\nfiery mass within threw up rock above the surface of the waters, and\nthus the dry land began to appear. Islands were formed, and immediately\nland-plants made their appearance, of excessive luxuriance, under the\ntropical temperature that still prevailed all over the globe, and began\ntheir office of absorbing carbon, and storing it up for future use.\nLand-animals as yet were not, for the excess of carbonic acid in the\natmosphere rendered it incapable of supporting animal life. But the\nrichness of this island vegetation gradually purified the air; while the\ndecaying plants themselves, being accumulated into vast beds and strata,\nand subjected, through the changes of the earth's surface, to the\npressure of mighty waters, gradually formed immense deposits of coal,\nfor the subsequent service of man. Animals of a higher grade were now\nformed; fishes became abundant, and amphibious monsters, huge lizards\nand other reptiles, with an imperfect apparatus of respiration, began to\nbreathe an atmosphere not yet fitted for birds and mammifers.\n\nIt is not necessary to trace out the comparatively well known facts and\ntheories of geological science, that are incorporated into this history.\nIt is enough, for the present purpose, to point out a few of the general\nconclusions of the geologist respecting the several great changes that\nthe earth's crust has undergone, and the distinct races of vegetables\nand animals which have successively tenanted the earth's surface. These\nchanges and these races have borne a constant relation to each other; as\nthe scenes shifted, the inhabitants also changed, the latter being\nalways adapted to the circumstances in which they were placed. There has\nbeen a constant progress, the soil and the atmosphere becoming more and\nmore fitted for the support of the higher forms of life; and when all\nthings were thus made ready for them, these higher forms have appeared,\nand the lower orders of being, which formerly occupied the scene, have\nentirely died out, so that their remains, entombed in the solid rock,\nare now the only indications of their past existence. In the era of the\nprimary rocks, as we have seen, there was no organization or life, as\nthere was nothing to support it. In the succeeding period, zooephytes and\nmollusca appeared; these were followed by fishes, and then land rose\nabove the surface of the waters. Land-plants and animals came next,\nthough of a low type; continually advancing orders of beings, reptiles,\nbirds, and mammifers, suited to the improved condition of things,\nsuccessively appeared, until, at the latest epoch, man entered upon the\nscene, the head of animated nature as at present constituted, with\npowers and capacities well adapted for the full enjoyment of the\naugmented riches of the earth. And the end is not yet. \"The present\nrace, rude and impulsive as it is, is perhaps the best adapted to the\npresent state of things in the world; but the external world goes\nthrough slow and gradual changes, which may leave it in time a much\nserener field of existence. There may then be occasion for a nobler type\nof humanity, which shall complete the zooelogical circle on this planet,\nand realize some of the dreams of the purest spirits of the present\nrace.\"\n\nThe question now occurs, How are we to account for the origin of\n_life_, both in the vegetable and animal kingdoms? The answer can\nreadily be given, if we follow out resolutely to their remotest\nconsequences the principles that have already been established. The\nevolution of natural laws, the necessary action of the qualities with\nwhich atoms were at first endowed, has sufficed to produce this complex\nsystem of mutually dependent worlds, and all the successive\ntransformations of the earth's rind, which have fitted it for the\nsupport of successive races of organic beings. May not the same causes\nhave produced the beings themselves? The one process would seem to be\nnot much more elaborate and intricate than the other. If the inherent\nqualities of matter have built up a solar system, they may have created,\nalso, the first animalcule, the first fish, the first quadruped, and the\nfirst man. There has been a marked progress, in either case, from the\nchaotic, the rude, the imperfectly developed, up to the orderly, the\ncomplex, the matured forms. The first essays, the rude efforts, of\nnature have gradually been perfected. The chaotic world that was first\nshelled off from the sun differed not less widely from the admirably\nfurnished planet we now inhabit, than does the zooephyte, whose remains\nare not split out of the rock, from man, the present head of the animal\ntribe. At any rate, geology informs us, that the causes, whatever they\nmay be, which produce life, have been long and frequently in operation.\nThey were not exhausted in the first effort; they are probably still at\nwork throughout the universe. Not merely successive generations, but\nsuccessive races, both of plants and animals, widely distinguished from\neach other, have, at different periods, tenanted the earth's surface.\nThose of which we possess the fossil remains belong, almost without\nexception, to extinct species. They were crowded out of existence, as it\nwere, by the new forms, more perfectly organized, which came to take\ntheir places in the improving condition of things. This continuous\nagency of the life-producing causes, effecting still higher results by\neach successive effort, seems to point directly to the gradual expansion\nand development of the qualities with which matter was first endowed.\n\nWe actually see natural agents now at work around us, producing results\nwhich counterfeit life, if they do not constitute it. Many substances\ncrystallize into shapes bearing a strong resemblance to vegetable forms,\nas in the well known chemical experiment producing the _arbor Dianae_.\nThe passage of the electric fluid leaves marks that are like the\nbranches and foliage of a tree, and the same fluid exerts a direct\ninfluence on the germination of plants. Some of the proximate principles\nof vegetable and animal bodies, such as urea and alantoin, are said to\nhave been produced artificially by the chemist; and in the combination\nof the simple elements, such as carbon and oxygen, into these proximate\nprinciples, it is now acknowledged that there is no violation of the\nordinary laws of chemical affinity. The origin of all vegetable and\nanimal life, so far as it can be traced, is in germinal vesicles, or\nlittle cells containing granules. Such are the ova of all animals; and\nboth vegetable and animal tissues are entirely formed from them. When\nthe parent cells come to maturity, they burst and liberate the granules,\nwhich immediately develope themselves into new cells, thus repeating the\nlife of their original. Now, it has been asserted, that globules can be\nproduced in albumen by electricity; and _if these globules are true\ngerminal vesicles_, the difficult problem of producing life by\nartificial means is entirely solved.\n\nBut the burden of this part of the theory rests on the evidence that has\nbeen produced of late years to favor the doctrine of equivocal\ngeneration, or the production of living beings without the agency,\neither direct or indirect, of parents of the same species. Can such\nbeings, _orphans_ in the strictest sense, now be produced or discovered?\nWe have not space to repeat our author's argument on this difficult\nmooted question in science, nor is it necessary; he sums up the evidence\non his own side, and of course finds it satisfactory, though the weight\nof authority is against him. He adduces the experiments of Mr. Crosse,\nrepeated by Mr. Weekes, who claim to have produced animalcules in\nconsiderable numbers, of a species before unknown, by passing a voltaic\ncurrent through silicate of potash, and through nitrate of copper. The\nexistence of _entozoa_, or parasitic animals, found in the interior of\nthe bodies of other animals, and found nowhere else, is thought to\nsupport the same doctrine. The question is, How came they there? Being\ntoo large, either in their perfect form, or in the egg, to have passed\nthrough the capillary blood-vessels, how came they within the body of\nanother animal,--itself but a few weeks or a few days old, or even in\nthe embryo stage,--unless they were created there without parentage of\ntheir own species?\n\nThese facts and reasonings, it is true, only go to prove, that\nanimalcules, or beings of very small size, and low in the scale of\nanimated existence, can be produced in this way by the inherent\nqualities of matter. No one will pretend, that a dog, a horse, or a man\ncan thus be created. How can we account for the existence of these\nlarger animals of a higher type, admitted to have been denizens of the\nearth only since the latest geological epochs, and therefore of\ncomparatively recent origin? Here we come to another point in our\nauthor's theory,--the transmutation of species, or the successive\n_development_ of higher and higher orders of being out of the species\nimmediately below them, through the accidental or natural fulfilment of\ncertain conditions, in the course of a long period of years.\n\nNatural history teaches us, that there is quite a regular gradation\namong the several tribes of vegetables and animals; though we may not be\nable to range all the species, as constantly advancing in a single line,\nthere is certainly the general appearance of a scale, beginning with the\nmost simple, and going on to the most complex forms. While the external\ncharacteristics are very different, all are but variations of a single\nplan, which exists as the basis of all, and is varied in each individual\nonly so as to accommodate it to the conditions under which the\nindividual is to live. The germ of a higher animal--a mammifer, for\ninstance--is the representative of a lower animal full-grown, like the\n_volvox globator_; the latter remaining in this initial stage, as an\nanimalcule, through its whole existence; while the former is developed\nout of it, by successive stages, into a quadruped, or even into a man.\nSimilar functions are performed in different animals by very different\norgans, the gills of fishes performing the same office as the lungs of\nthe mammalia; and these different organs sometimes exist, at different\nperiods, according to the degree of development, in the same animal.\nThus, the tadpole, so long as it continues to be a fish, breathes by\ngills, which disappear and give place to lungs when it becomes a frog.\nSimilar transformations of the insect tribe are familiar to all.\nImperfect or rudimentary organs are found in certain animals, as the\nmammae of a man; a particular organ being here developed to a certain\nextent, though it is not needed; but being developed a little further,\nit becomes useful in the next set of animals in the scale. The same\npeculiarity is found among plants; the skilful gardener being able\nactually to develope these rudimentary organs by supplying the requisite\nconditions, and thus, as it were, to raise the plant one step in the\nscale.\n\n     \"We have yet to advert to the most interesting class of facts\n     connected with the laws of organic development. It is only in\n     recent times that physiologists have observed that each animal\n     passes, in the course of its germinal history, through a series of\n     changes resembling the _permanent forms_ of the various orders of\n     animals inferior to it in the scale. Thus, for instance, an insect,\n     standing at the head of the articulated animals, is, in the larva\n     state, a true annelid, or worm, the annelida being the lowest in\n     the same class. The embryo of a crab resembles the perfect animal\n     of the inferior order myriapoda, and passes through all the forms\n     of transition which characterize the intermediate tribes of\n     crustacea. The frog, for some time after its birth, is a fish with\n     external gills and other organs, fitting it for an aquatic life,\n     all of which are changed as it advances to maturity, and becomes a\n     land animal. The mammifer only passes through still more stages,\n     according to its higher place in the scale. Nor is man himself\n     exempt from this law. His first form is that which is permanent in\n     the animalcule. His organization gradually passes through\n     conditions generally resembling a fish, a reptile, a bird, and the\n     lower mammalia, before it attains its specific maturity. At one of\n     the last stages of his foetal career, he exhibits an\n     intermaxillary bone, which is characteristic of the perfect ape;\n     this is suppressed, and he may then be said to take leave of the\n     simial type, and become a true human creature. Even, as we shall\n     see, the varieties of his race are represented in the progressive\n     development of an individual of the highest, before we see the\n     adult Caucasian, the highest point yet attained in the animal\n     scale.\n\n     \"To come to particular points of the organization. The brain of\n     man, which exceeds that of all other animals in complexity of\n     organization and fulness of development, is, at one early period,\n     only 'a simple fold of nervous matter, with difficulty\n     distinguishable into three parts, while a little tail-like\n     prolongation towards the hinder parts, and which had been the first\n     to appear, is the only representation of a spinal marrow. Now, in\n     this state, it perfectly resembles the brain of an adult fish, thus\n     assuming _in transitu_ the form that in the fish is permanent. In a\n     short time, however, the structure is become more complex, the\n     parts more distinct, the spinal marrow better marked; it is now\n     the brain of a reptile. The change continues; by a singular motion,\n     certain parts (_corpora quadragemina_), which had hitherto appeared\n     on the upper surface, now pass towards the lower; the former is\n     their permanent situation in fishes and reptiles, the latter in\n     birds and mammalia. This is another advance in the scale, but more\n     remains yet to be done. The complication of the organ increases;\n     cavities, termed _ventricles_, are formed, which do not exist in\n     fishes, reptiles, or birds; curiously organized parts, such as the\n     corpora striata, are added; it is now the brain of the mammalia.\n     Its last and final change alone seems wanting,--that which shall\n     render it the brain of man.'\"--pp. 150-152.\n\nUsually, it is true, each species produces only its like,--\"every\ncreeping thing and beast of the earth\" bringing forth young \"_after his\nkind_.\" But the development of a single animal, under the ordinary law,\ntakes place in a few weeks or days; while the development of distinct\nraces and species is the work of a whole creation, and is spread over\ncountless ages. It is reasonable to suppose, that the latter is effected\nby means of a higher law, manifesting itself only at long intervals. Its\ninfrequent manifestation is no argument against the regularity and\nnecessity of its occurrence,--against its being a law at all. The comet\nthat visits our system only once in five hundred years is controlled by\nthe same inflexible principle which causes the return of another comet\nonce in five years. The conditions requisite for a development more\nperfect than usual,--that is, for the production of a new\nspecies,--instead of a new individual of the same species, may be\nfulfilled only at long intervals; but when they are fulfilled, the\nresult--the more perfect development--takes place as necessarily, as\nmuch by the virtue of law, as the more ordinary phenomenon of the\npropagation of one race. These conditions may be answered in the\nsuccessive stages of improvement, through which the earth and its\natmosphere pass, during the vast periods of time contemplated in\ngeology. In the era of the old red sand-stone, for instance, there were\nno higher animals than fishes, because the atmosphere was highly charged\nwith carbonic acid, and could not support respiration by lungs. When the\nair became purer, the gills were changed into the imperfect lungs of the\namphibious tribes, such as the huge saurians and the frogs. Deprive\nthese latter animals, in their lower stage, of all access to the light,\nand they will not advance to their higher stage. Put a tadpole into a\nperforated box, and sink it to the bottom of a river, and the animal\nwill never be perfected into a frog; he will grow to an enormous size,\nbut he will continue a tadpole.\n\nWe see, then, the process of an \"organic creation by law,\" or by virtue\nof the inherent qualities of inorganic matter. The ordinary chemical\naffinities of different substances may draw them together into such\ncompounds as albumen and fibrin, which are the proximate principles of\norganic tissues. The action of electricity, heat, light, or some other\nmysterious imponderable agent, on these proximate principles, may\nproduce globules, or germinal vesicles. These germs, multiplying\nthemselves by fissiparous generation, will constitute a stock of animals\nof a low type, such as a tribe of infusory animalcules. Then \"this\nsimplest and most primitive type, under a law to which that of like\nproduction is subordinate, gives birth to the type next above it, this\nagain produces the next higher, and so on to the very highest, the\nstages of advance being in all cases very small,--namely, from one\nspecies only to another; so that the phenomenon has always been of a\nsimple and modest character.\" Thus, the first reptile was born from a\nfish, the first bird was generated by a reptile, and the first mammifer\nhad birds for its parents. The transformations appear rather astounding,\nas we pass from one class to another; but the difference between the\nspecies, even, is often so great, that the transition appears hardly\nless difficult. In what quadruped, for instance, do we find the first\nancestor of the huge and sagacious elephant? What humble lizard gave\nbirth to those monsters of the fossil world, the plesiosaurus and\nmegalosaurus, thirty or forty feet in length? Man, of course, upon this\ntheory, is only a more perfectly developed monkey, or chimpanzee. With a\nnod of approbation to Lord Monboddo's theory, our author observes, that\nman has even the rudiments of \"a caudal extremity\" in the _os coccygis_.\n\nThat the instinct of animals and the mind of man are the results of\nnothing but material organization is an obvious corollary from this\ndoctrine. \"The difference,\" says this writer, \"between mind in the lower\nanimals and in man is a difference in degree only; it is not a specific\ndifference.\" Mental phenomena, apparently so various and unstable in\nthe individual, are reduced at once to regularity, and become subject to\ncalculation, if considered in the mass. This shows, that, like the\nphenomena of the weather, they are under the presidency of natural laws.\nThe phrenologists are the only persons who have followed the order of\nnature in the study of mind; they have even determined the functions of\nthe different parts of the brain. An experiment is mentioned with a\nnewly killed animal, whose brain was taken out and its place filled with\nsubstances producing electric action, when the process of digestion,\nthat had been interrupted, was instantly resumed, thus \"showing the\nabsolute identity of the brain with a galvanic battery.\" The experiment\nof inducing muscular action in a corpse, by applying galvanism, is\nsufficiently well known. To borrow an illustration from Sidney Smith, it\nwould seem, that, if we only knew to what organs of the brain to direct\nan electric current, an automaton, or a dead man, might be made to hold\nan argument, \"at least as well as most country parsons.\"\n\nA person who should hear for the first time this naked exposition of the\nwriter's theory would be tempted at once to reject the whole, as too\nextravagant and absurd to deserve further notice. But he would be much\nmistaken in this conclusion. The theory is a very plausible one; it is\none of the best cosmogonies that the wit of man has ever framed. It is a\nrevival of the old atheistic hypothesis,--the Epicurean doctrine of the\nformation of the universe by a fortuitous concourse of atoms,--with all\nthe modifications and improvements that were rendered necessary by the\ndiscoveries of modern science. We call it an atheistic theory, because,\nthough the writer supposes that primitive matter was first endowed _by\ndivine power_ with its mysterious qualities and capacities, this\nsupposition is gratuitous and arbitrary, and only mars the simplicity of\nthe scheme, and injures the consistency and coherence of the parts with\neach other. We can more easily believe that these qualities are\nnecessarily inherent in the constitution of matter, forming a part of\nits very essence, just like the properties of impenetrability and\nextension, than that they subsequently developed themselves by forming\nmyriads of intricate organizations, without further aid from the divine\narchitect. If we can credit the hypothesis, that bricks and mortar came\ntogether of their own accord, and arranged themselves into the first\nhouse meet for the habitation of man, we can very readily admit, also,\nthat the bricks first assumed the proper shape, and mortar the proper\ntenacity and hardness, without the intervention of human labor and\nskill. If there is no need of a bricklayer, we may discard also the\nbrick-maker.\n\nPutting aside, therefore, this gratuitous addition to the theory, we\ncome to examine the plausibility of the doctrine which assumes, that\nmaterial atoms, constituted as they now are, are capable, without\noversight or direction, of forming a universe like our own, and\nproducing all the animated tribes which tenant it. In all the atheistic\nreasoning upon this subject, and especially in the work now before us,\nthere is a constant confusion between _what may be_, for aught we know\nto the contrary, and _what is_, so far as we are able positively to\ndetermine it from our present means of observation and experiment;\nbetween the _possibility_ that is measured only by human ignorance, and\nthe _probability_ that is fairly inferred by the legitimate exercise of\nthe understanding. Effects have unquestionably been produced, such as\nthe formation of a solar system, and the production of new and perfectly\ndistinct orders of being, which we are wholly unable to account for by\nthe _present and ordinary_ operation of what are called secondary\ncauses. If a theorist chooses to assume, that these secondary causes,\nunder certain conditions, which we never have seen, and never can see,\nrealized, might produce very extraordinary results, might even fully\naccount for the wonderful effects in question, we have a right to say,\nin reply, that he is dealing in pure speculation and hypothesis; that,\nhaving had no experience under the conditions or postulates of his\ntheory, he is necessarily _speaking from_ ignorance and _appealing_ to\nignorance; that, even if we could not point out a single difficulty, a\nsingle false assumption, in his whole scheme and argument, it would\nstill remain a mere hypothesis, alike incapable of proof or disproof;\nand that, at the best, the arguments brought against it must be of\nnearly the same wiredrawn, speculative, and far-fetched character with\nthose adduced in its support. On a mere sandbank, unsupplied either with\narms or tools, the only edifice that can be built is one of sand, and\nsand affords the only means for its destruction. The fallacy to which\nsuch speculatists constantly have resort is, that the weakness or the\nentire absence of all considerations against their theory constitutes a\npositive argument in its support. No such thing; it affords only a fair\npresumption of the baseless character of the whole fabric.\n\nThis may be made more clear by examples. If a child, who has had little\nexperience of the laws of nature, and has learned nothing from books, is\ngravely assured by his instructor, that in a distant region of the ocean\nthere is an island where stones fly upward instead of downward, and men\nwalk on their heads instead of their feet, the young philosopher,\nhowever acute and ingenious we may suppose him to be, certainly could\nnot offer one valid argument against the alleged fact. He could only\nstare, and wonder, and say that it might be so _for all that he knew to\nthe contrary_. Just so, when the atheist tells us, that far off in\ninfinite space is a region, of which we can see nothing, even with our\nbest telescopes, except a faint glimmer of light, floating like a\ncloudlet in the heavens, where the primitive atoms of matter, directed\nby gravity alone, are slowly congregating together, and forming suns,\nand planets, and secondary satellites, and giving birth to such\nintricate harmonies of mutually dependent and revolving worlds as those\nwhich have prevailed for ages in our own system; or that, thousands of\nyears ago, the same unassisted laws of matter, which we now see\nproducing only such comparatively meagre and insufficient results,\nactually caused animalcules to be produced from pure sand, and fishes to\nbe created out of oysters, and birds to be generated by slimy and\ngrovelling reptiles, and men to be born from monkeys;--if he should tell\nus all this, certainly we could offer no direct confutation of the\nwonderful tale. In regard to alleged facts of this character, the wisest\nof men are, and always must be, mere children. But it would be monstrous\nto say, that this wild assertion derived any support from their admitted\nbewilderment and incapacity. This would be to attempt to found knowledge\nupon ignorance. The dim analogies resting on questionable facts, the\nbold assumptions and slippery arguments on which such daring hypotheses\nmust be based, can be refuted, for the most part, only by reasoning in\nkind,--by arguments nearly as uncertain, it may be, as those which they\nare brought to answer. We cannot _prove_ a negative; we can only show\nthe insufficiency of the ground on which the opposite assumption is made\nto rest; and enough is done for this end, when it is made to appear,\nthat the whole scheme is a _mere_ hypothesis.\n\nWe make these general remarks only to relieve some readers of this\nvolume from the doubt and perplexity which its perusal may have caused,\nsolely because they were unable to detect any one glaring fallacy or\ninconsistency in the writer's theory. It appears plausible enough; for,\nthough there is very little in its favor, it seems at first sight as if\nthere was little or nothing to say against it. On closer scrutiny, it\nwill be found, perhaps, that it is disproved by a multitude of\nconsiderations, any one of which would be fatal to it; as the hypothesis\nis of such a character, that, when a single breach is made in it, the\nwhole edifice must tumble. If the intervention of an extraneous cause be\nabsolutely necessary at any one stage or process in the creation, it may\nas well be admitted in all; the principle must be given up, and the\nwhole purpose of the theist is answered. We shall endeavour to show that\nthis hypothetical history of creation is not only faulty in every point,\nwhen viewed from the author's own ground, but, when examined in the\nproper direction, is absolutely unintelligible, or is in fact no history\nat all.\n\nLet us look first at the nebular hypothesis. Certain spots and tracts in\nthe heavens, of a whitish color, appearing to the naked eye to be\nnebulae, on being examined through a telescope, instantly resolve\nthemselves into a multitude of distinct and perfectly formed stars. Such\nis the greatest nebula of all,--the galaxy, or milky way. Other spots of\na like character, if viewed through glasses of moderate power, still\nappear as nebulae; but when seen through more perfect instruments, they\nimmediately seem, like the others, to be a mere crowd of stars. Others,\nagain, are not separated or resolved by the best telescopes; but what is\nthe natural inference from this fact? Surely, we infer that they are\nmerely crowded collections of stars, just like the others, except that\nthey are too distant or too small to be seen as distinct bodies, even\nwith the most powerful instruments that we possess. If telescopes of a\ngreater range should hereafter be constructed, there is every reason to\nbelieve that these also will be resolved to the eye into their component\nparts as stars; and in fact, if newspaper accounts may be credited, when\nLord Rosse's new and magnificent telescope was first turned towards some\nof these spots, which had always preserved their nebulous appearance\nwhen examined by inferior instruments, it was immediately apparent, that\nthey were composed of distinct stars. Yet the hypothesis we are now\nconsidering assumes, that these remote and faintly seen nebulae are not\ncrowds of stars, but primitive luminous matter, the particles of which\nare slowly congregating together, and forming one new star, or several.\nCertainly, never was a bold theory built upon a narrower basis. It is\ndue, however, to the two Herschels, the chief supporters of this theory,\nto say, that they have always spoken of it only as a hypothesis, and by\nno means as an established fact in astronomical science. And, as a\nhypothesis, it labors under this peculiar difficulty, that it evidently\nnever can be verified. It must ever remain a _mere_ guess, directly\nopposed by an obvious induction from those nebulae which are resolvable\ninto perfect stars.\n\nThe fact, that one or two bright points, assumed to be centres of\naggregation, are seen in some of these nebulae, is of no importance. If a\nbright star be seen from this earth in the same line of vision with the\nnebula, it will be projected on the ground of that nebula, and will\nappear as a part of it, though it may be many millions of miles on this\nside, and have no more connection with it than the planet Jupiter would\nhave, if it should happen to be in conjunction with the nebula, and thus\nappear for a short time to be projected upon its disc.\n\nThere is one consideration of some weight, though we have never seen it\nadverted to, which tends directly to confute the nebular hypothesis.\nThat faint radiance called the zodiacal light, which is seen to stream\nup in the form of a cone from our sun, is assumed by our author to be a\nresiduum of the nebulous matter belonging to our system, which has not\nyet been drawn into the sun, though it is on its way thither. Others\nhave supposed, with far more probability, that it is the sun's\natmosphere, and therefore its present shape and size will never\nchange,--as they never have changed, during the period in which they\nhave been observed by man. But no matter; we are now reasoning upon our\nauthor's hypothesis. If the zodiacal light be composed of primitive\nnebulous matter, it must now be comparatively thick and dense, since the\nprocess of aggregation has been going on for countless ages, and, in our\nsystem, is considered as nearly completed; just as when a sediment is\nforming in a tumbler full of turbid water, after the upper portion of\nthe fluid has become entirely clear, there will be a stratum of water\nnext to the sediment more turbid than the whole was before the\ndeposition began. Yet this light is very faint, when seen only from the\ndistance of our earth; and at the boundaries of our system, from the\norbit of Uranus, for instance, we cannot believe that it is visible at\nall. Is it likely, then, that a portion of this nebulous matter, in\nwhich the process of deposition has hardly begun, and which is seen from\na distance so vast, that in comparison with it the whole diameter of our\nsolar system is but a point, would be visible from this earth? In the\ncase of the other nebulae, a multitude of perfectly formed suns, uniting\ntheir respective beams, are seen only as a faint, whitish speck on the\nblue arch. And yet we are required to believe, that the luminous matter\nwhich will ultimately form but one sun, or perhaps two, while still\nthinly diffused over an immense tract of space, the process of\naggregation having hardly commenced, is yet visible to our eyes at this\nvast distance.\n\n            \"Credat Judaeus Apella;\n    Non ego.\"\n\nWe pass to the next chapter in the history, which professes to explain\nthe gradual formation of a solar system by a process of cooling and\nshrinking, to which the central orb is exposed. And here we are met by a\ndifficulty at the outset; for the existence of comets with their very\neccentric orbits is wholly irreconcilable with the theory. At their\nperihelion, many of these bodies pass within the orbit of Mercury, while\nthe aphelion of some lies without the path of Uranus. Where were they,\nwhen the body of the sun filled up the whole of the vast sphere\ncircumscribed by the orbit of the remotest planet? If we suppose that\nthey are late comers, after the rest of our system was perfected,--that\nthey were generated by themselves in distant regions of space, and,\nhaving strayed about, orphan-like, for a while, they accidentally\ncrossed our track, and were taken as adopted children into our family,\nanother question remains to be answered. Why did they not remain in\ntheir first position, absorb their full share of nebulous matter, beget\na respectable family of planets, and take rank as chiefs of their own\nclan? These comparatively anomalous bodies are great stumbling-blocks\nfor the _soi-disant_ historians of creation.\n\nAgain, if an immense orb be formed, the parts of which cohere strongly\nenough for the whole to turn upon its axis as one body, the process of\ncooling can go on only from the surface. A crust may finally be formed\nthere; but we see not how the refrigeration and shrinking of the\ninterior parts can then go on separately, until the mass in the centre\nfinally becomes detached from its envelope, like a shrivelled nut from\nits shell. Our earth is cooling down at this moment, unless the warmth\nwhich it receives from the sun exactly counterbalances the loss by\nradiation of internal heat. But the exterior and interior do not cool by\ndifferent radiations, nor is there, so far as we know, the least\ntendency in the central mass to shrink separately, so as to detach\nitself from the surrounding crust. As deep as we can penetrate towards\nthe centre, we find the heat regularly increase,--just as we might\nexpect, if the only absolute loss of heat be from the surface.\n\nIf the matter now concentrated in the sun, and that which forms the\nseveral planets with their secondaries, were all moulded into one mass,\nand then dilated so as to fill the vast sphere of which the orbit of\nUranus forms a circumference, the substance would evidently be in a\nstate of extreme tenuity and diffusion. Immense as the mass of the sun\nnow is, it is but a mere nut at the centre of the grand globe which we\nare now considering. Expanded to such vast dimensions, we cannot\nconceive of it as a solid spheroid turning upon its axis, but only as a\nmass of fluid or vapor, in which a circular motion would generate only\nvortices or whirlwinds. In such an aggregation of subtile matter, no\ncrust could be solidified on the outer ring, and then detached from the\nmass within; indeed, any separation of the parts under such\ncircumstances is inconceivable. Even a rotary motion could not be\nestablished in it, except by an impulse received from without; for there\nis every reason to believe, that the movement of a homogeneous fluid\ntowards its centre, if it could take place without disturbing causes,\nwould be in radial lines, and not in a spiral.\n\nOur author brings into view all the mathematical proportions and uniform\nrelations which exist between the constituent bodies of the solar\nsystem, in order to indicate the probability of their formation from the\nconstant working of one material cause. Thus he remarks, that the\nprimary planets all move nearly in one plane, and \"show a progressive\nincrease of bulk and diminution of density, from the one nearest to the\nsun to that which is most distant.\" But he passes over other\ncharacteristics of these bodies, equally important, which are quite\nirregular, and cannot be traced to the operation of one law. Compare the\nperiods of rotation on their respective axes, and we find no\ncorrespondence, no indication that the revolving motion was imparted to\nall by one inflexible law. The first four planets, counting from the\nsun, perform their rotation in nearly the same time, namely, twenty-four\nhours. But Jupiter's period is a little less, and Saturn's a little\nmore, than ten hours. Again, Jupiter's axis of rotation is nearly\nperpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, while that of Mars is\ninclined at an angle of fifty-nine degrees forty-two minutes. Another\nirregularity, still more fatal to the theory, is found in the number of\nsatellites by which the respective planets are attended. Saturn has\nseven, beside the two rings; Jupiter has four, Mars has none, and the\nearth has but one. On the single hypothesis, that our system was formed\nby rings successively thrown off from a central body by a process of\nrefrigeration and contraction, these irregularities are inexplicable.\nMars, it seems, did not shrink at all, while Jupiter cast off four\nseparate rings, and the earth produced its single moon. The distances of\nthese bodies from their primaries are also quite irregular; in the case\nof Jupiter, the outermost of the satellites revolves at a distance which\nis only twenty-seven times the radius of the primary, and the innermost\nis distant but six times that radius. This planet, consequently, has\nshrunk to one twenty-seventh part of its original diameter, and in so\ndoing, has formed four moons; the earth has shrunk to one sixtieth part\nof its first diameter, and still has produced but one satellite. If the\nsame law had prevailed in the two cases, we ought to have nine or ten\nmoons.\n\nWe need not analyze with any great minuteness the geological facts and\nhypotheses incorporated into this magnificent history of creation. As\nwill be seen hereafter, the violent and sweeping transformations and\nconvulsions that the earth's crust has undergone directly conflict with\nour author's theory, and afford the strongest presumption, that an\nextraneous cause has frequently interfered, at different periods, to\nrepair the desolation produced by the unassisted working of natural\nlaws, to bring order out of chaos, and to people the desert earth anew\nwith animated tribes. The only general fact of much moment, which our\nauthor has drawn from the discoveries of geologists, for the\nconfirmation of his own hypothesis, is, according to his own account,\none of the most questionable doctrines in the whole science,--one of a\nnegative character, on which we can never rely with full assurance, till\nthe researches of man have probed every fold, and examined every thread\nin the texture, of the earth's garment, and thus shown that no evidence\ncan possibly be discovered to the contrary. The alleged fact is that, in\nthe early formations of rock--the first pages in the history of the\nearth's surface--are found the remains of animals and vegetables only of\nthe lowest type and most imperfect development; while, in the later\nstrata, forms more and more advanced are discovered; so that there seems\nto have been a constant progress along the line leading to the higher\nforms of organization. The testimony which goes to support this\nassertion is wholly negative. The geologist reasons thus: The more\nperfect organisms have not been discovered in the earlier strata;\n_therefore_, they do not exist in them. When, in a different connection,\nit suits our author's purpose to throw doubt on the very postulate which\nis here admitted, he holds the following language.\n\n     \"These, it must be owned, are less strong traces of the birds than\n     we possess of the reptiles and other tribes; but it must be\n     remembered, that the evidence of fossils, as to the absence of any\n     class of animals from a certain period of the earth's history, can\n     never be considered as more than negative. Animals, of which we\n     find no remains in a particular formation, may, nevertheless, have\n     lived at the time, and it may have only been from unfavorable\n     circumstances that their remains have not been preserved for our\n     inspection. The single circumstance of their being little liable to\n     be carried down into seas might be the cause of their\n     non-appearance in our quarries.\"--p. 95.\n\nIn truth, the researches of geologists are every day bringing to light\nnew facts, which compel them to modify or abandon many of the positions\nthey formerly held; so that a considerable portion of the science is a\nmere quicksand of shifting theories. We need only allude to the various\nsuppositions respecting the origin of drift, and to the numerous\nmodifications of the glacial theory. Important discoveries have been\nmade within a short time, showing that certain animal tribes had their\norigin much farther back than was at first supposed. A few years ago,\nreptiles were believed to be the highest type of life that existed\nduring the era of the new red sand-stone. But Professor Hitchcock's\nrecent discovery in this stone of the footprints of gigantic birds has\nadded a higher class to the zooelogy of the period; and within a few\nmonths, in the same red sand-stone of the Connecticut valley, tracks of\ntwo or three species of quadrupeds have been found, some of them being\nprobably mammifers of a lower grade. It is true, no fossil remains of\nthese animals have been brought to light; but this want only renders the\ndiscovery more significant for our present purpose. It shows that\ncertain animals must have lived at the period in question, though their\nremains have not yet been found; and from the greater age of the rocks\nthen formed, and the consequent greater number of convulsions of the\nearth's surface to which they have been subjected, these remains may\nhave entirely disappeared. It is a curious fact, also, that the animal\nremains of that period, which have come down to us, belong to genera so\nconstituted, that their bodies might well survive, if we may so speak,\nthe shocks which would have destroyed every trace of some more delicate,\nor more finely organized, beings. We find remains of the flint-shielded\nanimalcules, the hard-shelled mollusca, and the cartilaginous fishes;\nbut the bodies of mammalia, birds, and even the higher species of\nfishes, some of which we may suppose to have been more tender and\ncorruptible, have utterly perished. Here and there, an individual of\ntheir number left the print of its foot on the sand, which subsequently\nhardened into rock, and brought down to our times a faint vestige of its\npast existence.\n\nWe are not attempting to impugn the credit of geological science in\ngeneral, which would be a wholly futile task. The multitude of facts\nrespecting the present constitution of the earth's crust, recently made\nknown by laborers in this department, are among the most curious and\nmost pregnant discoveries of modern times. But when we come to the\nformation of theories respecting the past history of the earth, in order\nto account for the phenomena at present visible on its surface, we are\nevidently afloat on a sea of conjecture, each hypothesis being valid\nonly till a more plausible one is proposed,--which happens very\nfrequently,--or till it is effectually disproved by some new discovery\nin the rocky strata. A fertile imagination and a bold face are among the\nmost striking traits of our more daring geologists. Grant to one of this\ncharacter a few modest postulates,--give him certain millions of years,\na sufficient number of earthquakes, a whole battery of volcanoes, a few\nocean deluges, and the rise and fall of half a dozen continents,--and he\nwill frame a theory off-hand, which will account for the most perplexing\nphenomena. Our author is certainly entitled to take his place at the\nvery head of this class of speculatists.\n\nIn accounting for the work of creation by the natural and unassisted\ndevelopment of the inherent qualities of brute matter, the great\ndifficulty is found at the first link in the chain of animated being.\nHow can we explain the commencement of _life_? We must have a clear idea\nof the whole scope of this problem, before we can make any attempt at\nits solution. Life, then, is _not_ mere organization, though most\nmaterialists, philosophers, like our author, willingly confound the two\nthings; to hear them reason, one would almost suppose that there was no\ndifference between a dead man and a living one. Organization is\nsubservient to life, ministers to it, manifests it,--supports it, if you\nplease,--but does not constitute it. He must be a bolder man than we\nare, who will undertake to say _what it is_; but we can very safely\ndeclare _what it is not_; and in any particular form or aggregation of\nmatter, whether organic or inorganic, we can give a shrewd guess as to\nits presence or absence. It may be said, that we beg the question by\nassuming that organization is not life; it may be so; but it is quite\ntoo much to allow the materialist quietly to take the opposite doctrine\nfor granted. He must know the full extent of his task,--that it is\nnecessary for him not only to construct the machine, but actually to set\nit in motion, so that it shall afterwards run on of its own accord. It\nis very easy to frame a partial definition of life, by merely describing\none or two of its characteristic functions; and then, because some\naction can be detected between the particles of brute matter, which\nresembles the exercise of these functions, boldly to declare that the\nwhole mystery is solved. Thus it is said, that life is nothing but the\naccretion of similar substances, or the addition of like unto like; and\nas this occurs in crystallization, which is confessedly a phenomenon of\ninorganic matter, therefore there is no fundamental difference between\nthe properties of living and dead substances. We deny the first\nproposition; nutrition is not the only characteristic of life, and the\nnutritive process, whether in vegetables or animals, is not mere\naccretion, but assimilation. It has been said, though the assertion is\nby no means fully proved, that assimilation is only a finer kind of\nchemistry, the constituent principles being brought together only by\ntheir natural affinities. Even if this were true, if the stomach and the\ndigestive apparatus were only a well furnished chemical laboratory, fit\nfor conducting the most delicate experiments, the great difficulty would\nstill remain. The question might yet be asked, Where is the chemist? And\nthis is the fundamental question, which the materialists never attempt\nto answer, but quietly evade.\n\nThe difference between an inorganic and an organic body has been\nexplained by Coleridge clearly enough for our purpose. In the former,--a\nsheaf of corn, for instance,--the whole is nothing more than a\ncollection of the individual parts; in the latter,--an animal,--the\nwhole is the effect of, or results from, the parts. In the latter case,\nthe whole is every thing, and the parts are comparatively nothing. One\nof the great effects of life is to keep the parts in subjection to the\nwhole, making them contribute to its support and growth, and thus\nmaintaining the unity of the system. The stomach digests, the lungs\ninhale air, the heart beats, and the blood circulates; and as the joint\neffect, or as the common supporter,--it matters not which,--of these\noperations, _life_ continues, and the animated being is a unit; it has\nnot merely virtual, but essential unity. The reciprocal action of the\nrespiratory, circulating, and nervous systems is absolutely necessary to\nlife. The animal dies, and this unity, this subservience of the parts to\nthe whole, immediately ceases. In the functions of the living body, it\nmay be that the ordinary laws of chemistry are preserved, and that the\nelements of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen combine and separate according\nto their ordinary affinities, and in no unusual proportions. But after\ndeath, at any rate, quite a different set of chemical laws come into\nplay, and produce a result which is the very opposite of that before\neffected. There is no longer any unanimity or cooeperation; instead of\nsustaining or building up the animal tissues, the affinities now in\noperation tear down, destroy, and resolve them into their ultimate\nelements,--each part following out its own law of destruction or\nresolution, irrespectively of the others.\n\n     \"There is in living organic matter a principle constantly in\n     action, the operations of which are in accordance with a rational\n     plan, so that the individual parts which it creates in the body are\n     adapted to the design of the whole; and this it is which\n     distinguishes organism. Kant says, 'The cause of the particular\n     mode of existence of each part of a living body resides in the\n     whole, while in dead masses each part contains this cause within\n     itself.' This explains why a mere part separated from an organized\n     whole generally does not continue to live; why, in fact, an\n     organized body appears to be one and indivisible. And since the\n     different parts of an organized body are heterogeneous members of\n     one whole, and essential to its perfect state, the trunk cannot\n     live after the loss of one of these parts.\"--_Mueller's Physiology_,\n     Vol. I., p. 19.\n\nThe apparent exceptions to this statement--as in the case of the\npolypes, which multiply by fissiparous generation, or by spontaneous\ndivision of their bodies into parts, each part becoming a perfect\nanimal--are only apparent. These creatures, which are low down in the\nscale of being, exemplify what Mr. Owen calls \"the law of vegetative or\nirrelative repetition,\" as they have many organs performing the same\nfunction, and not related to each other by combination for the\nperformance of a higher function. Thus, a Polygastrian has many\nassimilative sacs, each performing the office of a stomach irrespective\nof the rest. In the insect tribe, the respiratory function, instead of\nbeing performed by one set of lungs for the whole body, is carried on\nthrough a series of minute and highly ramified tubes, which traverse\nevery part of the body, and open to the air by a great number of\norifices. In some instances, both respiration and digestion seem to take\nplace over the whole surface of the body; for Trembley found at least\none case, in which the animal digested its food equally well, after it\nhad been turned inside out. A number of similar parts being repeated in\neach segment of the individual, the body can be divided, and the several\nportions, each still containing some of all the organs essential to the\nwhole, will continue to live separately. The severed parts will even\ncontinue to grow, and to develope other organs convenient for individual\nexistence. But most animals, especially the more perfect, do not\nconstitute an aggregate of similar parts united by one trunk, and\ntherefore propagation by division is in them impossible. The ovum, when\nseparated from the parent, is an entire animal only _potentially_;\nduring its development, the essential parts which constitute the\n_actual_ whole are produced. In the case of the polyps, we have only to\nsuppose that the ovum remains connected with the parent being, till all,\nor nearly all, its essential parts are produced. It is then shed not as\na mere ovum, but as an animal nearly or wholly complete.\n\nNow, all the instances adduced by our author, to show similarity of\naction in the organic and the inorganic world, are irrelevant. The\nanalogies are not merely imperfect; they are no analogies at all.\nCrystals increase by the aggregation of new particles on the external\nsurfaces of the parts already formed; there is no consentaneous\noperation of the parts on the whole. The molecules of crystals are\nhomogeneous throughout, and the several aggregates of these molecules\nare independent of each other; while organized bodies are composed of\nparts perfectly dissimilar from each other, but all of which conspire to\none end. \"The growth of organized bodies,\" says Mueller, \"takes place in\nall particles of their substance at the same time, while the increase of\nthe mass in inorganic bodies is produced by external apposition.\"\nFrostwork on the windows may resemble vegetable _forms_; but it has no\nresemblance whatever to vegetable _life_. Electricity may counterfeit\nthe _action of life_, for a moment, on a particular limb, by causing the\nmuscles to twitch; but it does not counterfeit _life itself_, by causing\nall the parts again to contribute to the sustentation of the whole. A\nFrench chemist, by electric action, may have produced _globules_ in\nalbumen; there is nothing very wonderful in that; any one may blow\nbubbles in a viscid fluid. The resemblance between these globules and\nproper germinal vesicles amounts to nothing more than similarity of\noutward shape; there is no more real resemblance between them than\nbetween the oval lump of chalk which farmers sometimes put into a hen's\nnest, in order to deceive poor Dame Partlet, and the real egg which the\nhen deposits by the side of it. Certainly, the imponderable agents,\nheat, light, and electricity, are in some mysterious way _connected\nwith_ life, so as to contribute to its support; there is nothing more in\nthis assertion than in the familiar proposition, that a seed will\ngerminate only under the proper conditions of soil and climate; but\nthat these agents, acting on inorganic matter, ever _create_ or\n_commence_ life is a pure hypothesis, not supported even by the shadow\nof a fact.\n\nHaving thus shown how weak are the general considerations in favor of\nthe theory, that animated beings may be created out of inorganic matter\nby mere natural laws, we should proceed to consider the direct evidence\nadduced to prove that life has actually been produced in this way. Here\nthe whole question is opened respecting the alleged instances of\nequivocal generation, and we have neither space nor ability to discuss\nthem at length. Those who are curious respecting the question may find a\nbrief summary of the evidence on both sides in a former number of this\nJournal.[1] We can mention only a few facts and arguments, which show\nthe extreme improbability of the doctrine supported by our author and a\nfew other theorists.\n\nIn the first place, it is remarkable, that all the races of animated\nbeings, which are entirely within the range of our powers of\nobservation,--which have such a size and locality that we can study and\naccurately determine their organization and habits,--are unquestionably\nproduced from parents of their own kind. Only the minute microscopic\nanimals are now supposed to be generated spontaneously; and this alleged\nfact rests not on direct proof, but only on our inability in certain\ncases to trace the process of their production in the ordinary way. As\nmany of these animals, in their perfect state, are not more than the\ntwelve thousandth part of an inch in diameter, it is not much to be\nwondered at, that we should not be able in all cases to discover their\nova, or to follow these ova through all their stages of development into\nthe complete being. It is farther remarkable, that these animalcules,\nwhen once produced, whether by spontaneous or natural generation, are\nall found to be provided with the organs or requisite means for\ncontinuing their species, and, in fact, for multiplying their number\nfrom themselves with astonishing rapidity. As they certainly have\nchildren, it seems reasonable to suppose, according to the analogy of\nall the higher animated tribes, that they also had parents. The ancients\nsupposed, that the worms and insects which appear in decaying organic\nmatter were generated there by the decomposition of the substance,\nwithout the previous agency of individuals of the same stock. Every\nschoolboy is acquainted with Virgil's mode of obtaining a new swarm of\nbees from the decaying carcass of a heifer. Subsequent researches, made\nwith more care, and perhaps with better instruments of observation, have\nentirely disproved the hypothesis, and show that the maggots were\nproduced in every case from eggs deposited by flies or other insects,\nand were afterwards themselves developed into the state of perfect\ninsects. Then it seems reasonable to believe, that the improved\nobservations of future times will clear up the only remaining\ndifficulty, and show how the infusory animalcules also are generated\nfrom beings of their own kind.\n\nThese minute creatures are prolific to a degree that transcends all\ncalculation; and they exist, either in the egg or maturely developed, in\ninconceivable numbers. A single wheel-animalcule, _Hydatina senta_,\nwhich was watched for more than eighteen days, and which lives still\nlonger, is capable of a fourfold increase in twenty-four or thirty\nhours; a rate of propagation which would afford in ten days a million of\nbeings. From their tenacity of life, extraordinary powers of\nreproduction, and incalculable numbers, their united influence may be\nsaid to be far more important, in all the great operations of nature,\nthan that of the larger and more perfectly developed organisms. They\nswarm in all the seas, and play an important part in choking up harbours\nand forming great deposits at the mouths of rivers. The remains of those\nwhich have perished form great beds and strata in the crust of the\nearth. The silicious stone, called Tripoli, is entirely composed of such\nremains; at Bilin, in Bohemia, there is one stratum of this substance,\nfourteen feet thick, one cubic inch of which is estimated to contain\nforty-one thousand millions of individuals. Their extreme tenacity of\nlife is evinced by the fact, that many of them may be entirely\ndesiccated, and preserved in pure sand for several years, after which,\non the application of a drop of water, they may be restored to life. In\nthis dried state, M. Doyere exposed some of them to a heat equal to that\nof boiling water, and afterwards revived them; though, in an active\nstate, if subjected to a much lower temperature, they perish. If, then,\nthe fully developed and mature can resist such powerful extraneous\ncauses of destruction, how much more must the ova possess the power of\nenduring them without losing their latent life! The following extract\nfrom Professor Owen's Lectures shows the bearing of these facts upon the\nquestion of equivocal generation.\n\n     \"The act of oviparous generation, that sending forth of countless\n     ova through the fatal laceration or dissolution of the parent's\n     body, is most commonly observed in the well-fed _Polygastria_,\n     which crowd together as their little ocean evaporates; and thus\n     each leaves, by the last act of its life, the means of perpetuating\n     and diffusing its species by thousands of fertile germs. When the\n     once thickly tenanted pool is dried up, and its bottom converted\n     into a layer of dust, these inconceivably minute and light ova will\n     be raised with the dust by the first puff of wind, diffused through\n     the atmosphere, and may there remain long suspended; forming,\n     perhaps, their share of the particles which we see flickering in\n     the sunbeam, ready to fall into any collection of water, beaten\n     down by every summer shower into the streams or pools which receive\n     or may be formed by such showers, and, by virtue of their tenacity\n     of life, ready to develope themselves wherever they may find the\n     requisite conditions for their existence.\n\n     \"The possibility, or, rather, the high probability, that such is\n     the design of the oviparous generation of the _Infusoria_, and such\n     the common mode of the diffusion of their ova, renders the\n     hypothesis of equivocal generation, which has been so frequently\n     invoked to explain their origin in new-formed natural or artificial\n     infusions, quite gratuitous. If organs of generation might, at\n     first sight, seem superfluous in creatures propagating their kind\n     by gemmation and spontaneous fission, equivocal generation is\n     surely still less required to explain the origin of beings so\n     richly provided with the ordinary and recognized modes of\n     propagation.\"--pp. 31, 32.\n\nRecent accounts show, that the dust collected from the atmosphere at\nsea, many miles from land, generally contains some of these dried\nanimalcules and their ova. Many of these germs can be developed only in\nparticular localities, or under certain conditions which are rarely\nfulfilled. Consequently, if there were but few of them, the species\nmight perish, because those few might not find their appropriate home.\nBut such an accident is guarded against by the vast multiplication of\nthese germs and their wide dispersion; for, unlike all the higher tribes\nof beings except man, the same species is often found in all regions of\nthe globe. Very few, in comparison with the whole number, may find a\nproper _nidus_; but these few then propagate with such marvellous\nrapidity, as fully to replenish, if not to increase, the original stock.\nThus they have been enabled, as species, to survive even those\ndestroying causes which exterminated all the higher forms of animals.\nSeveral species still exist, which were in being at the time of the\ncretaceous formation, though all the other animated races belonging to\nthat period have perished. \"These animalcules,\" says Ehrenberg,\n\"constitute a chain, which, though in the individual it be microscopic,\nyet in the mass is a mighty one, connecting the organic life of distant\nages of the earth.\"\n\nIn view of facts like these, we may surely say, that the existence of\nthe infusory animalcules, and even of the entozoa, is conceivable,\nsupposing they could only have been produced by parents of their own\nkind, and without having recourse to the anomalous and hypothetical\ndoctrine of equivocal generation. We may not be able to trace their line\nof parentage, for our imperfect vision cannot follow the motes which\nplay in the sunbeam, nor track them from their birth-place to their\nfinal home. But we know that they must be deposited in every layer of\ndust that falls from the atmosphere, that they must be inhaled with\nevery breath which an animal draws, and be swallowed with every morsel\nand drop of its food. The experiments which seem to prove that living\nbeings may be produced from pure inorganic matter are all explicable on\nthe supposition, that adequate precautions were not taken to exclude\nevery animal and germ capable of development from the substances\nexperimented upon, and from the air which was admitted into the\napparatus. On this ground, the experiments of Crosse and Weekes, cited\nby our author, have been quite generally rejected by scientific men, as\nhardly deserving of notice. We learn that the former was \"discouraged by\nthe reception of his experiments,\" and \"soon discontinued them\";--with\ngood reason, for it does not appear from our author's account, that he\nadopted any precautions at all. Mr. Weekes seems to have been a little\nmore cautious, and the consequence was, that he did not observe any\nappearance of life among the substances experimented upon for \"eleven\nmonths,\" at the end of which time we may reasonably suppose, that his\nprecautions ceased to have perfect effect. The only experiment, in which\nadequate means to guard against causes of error were taken, was that of\nProfessor Schulze, of Berlin, which had a contrary result. We extract\nMr. Owen's account of it.\n\n     \"He filled a glass flask half full of distilled water, in which\n     were various animal and vegetable substances: he then closed it\n     with a good cork, through which were passed two glass tubes, bent\n     at right angles, the whole being air-tight: it was next placed in a\n     sand bath, and heated until the water boiled violently. While the\n     watery vapor was escaping by the glass tubes, the Professor\n     fastened at each end an apparatus which chemists employ for\n     collecting carbonic acid: that at the one end was filled with\n     concentrated sulphuric acid, and the other with a solution of\n     potash. By means of the boiling heat, it is to be presumed that\n     every thing living, and all germs in the flask or in the tubes were\n     destroyed; whilst all access was cut off by the sulphuric acid on\n     the one side, and by the potash on the other. The apparatus was\n     then exposed to the influence of summer light and heat; at the same\n     time, there was placed near it an open vessel, with the same\n     substances that had been introduced into the flask, and also after\n     having subjected them to a boiling temperature. In order to renew\n     constantly the air within the flask, the experimenter sucked with\n     his mouth several times a day the open end of the apparatus, filled\n     with the solution of potash, by which process the air entered his\n     mouth from the flask through the caustic liquid, and the\n     atmospheric air from without entered the flask through the\n     sulphuric acid. The air was of course not at all altered in its\n     composition by passing through the sulphuric acid in the flask; but\n     all the portions of living matter, or of matter capable of becoming\n     animated, were taken up by the sulphuric acid and destroyed. From\n     the 28th of May until the beginning of August, Professor Schulze\n     continued uninterruptedly the renewal of the air in the flask,\n     without being able, by the aid of the microscope, to discover any\n     living animal or vegetable substance; although, during the whole of\n     the time, observations were made almost daily on the edge of the\n     liquid; and when, at last, the Professor separated the different\n     parts of the apparatus, he could not find in the whole liquid the\n     slightest trace of _Infusoria_ or _Confervae_, or of mould; but all\n     three presented themselves in great abundance a few days after he\n     had left the flask standing open. The vessel which he placed near\n     the apparatus contained on the following day _Vibriones_ and\n     _Monads_, to which were soon added larger Polygastric _Infusoria_,\n     and afterwards _Rotifera_.\"--pp. 32, 33.\n\nFor readers who are not familiar with these subjects, it may be well to\nmention, that the weight of authority is decidedly against this doctrine\nof spontaneous generation. It is rejected by Mueller, who ranks among\nthe first physiologists of Germany; by Ehrenberg, one of the most\ndistinguished microscopists in the world; and by Owen, who stands at the\nhead of the school of comparative anatomy in England, if not in Europe.\nThe remark made by Cuvier, more than thirty years ago, is still true at\nthe present day, that, \"although the impossibility of spontaneous\ngeneration cannot be absolutely demonstrated, yet all the efforts of\nthose physiologists who believe in the possibility of it have not\nsucceeded in showing us a single instance.\"\n\nPassing over, then, our author's theory of the origination of life from\ninorganic matter as utterly untenable, we come to the next point in his\nsystem,--the most chimerical of all,--the gradual development of the\nhigher orders of being out of those next beneath them in the scale. It\nis not pretended, that there is _any known instance_ of the\ntransmutation of species, or of the evolution, in the ordinary way, of\nany being specifically different from its parents. The same animal,\nindeed, may pass through different grades of development; but these\nchanges affect only the individual, not the race. The progeny of this\nanimal must begin at the same point where its parent did, and run\nprecisely the same cycle. The tadpole becomes a frog, but the young of\nthat frog are tadpoles; the worm becomes a winged insect, but the eggs\nof that insect are hatched into nothing but worms. These changes in the\nlife of the individual, like the successive periods of the embryotic\nstate, of infancy, and manhood in the human being, are perfectly\nconsistent with persistence of type in the race, and do not indicate\neven the possibility that a new species may be developed out of an old\none. On the contrary, the germ must be considered as _potentially_\nequivalent to the whole future being, for it is invariably developed\ninto that being. If there be any one fact unquestionably established by\nobservation, it is that each species invariably produces its like. \"All\nthe phenomena,\" says Mueller, \"at present observed in the animal kingdom,\nseem to prove that the species were originally created distinct, and\nindependent of each other. There is no remote possibility of one species\nbeing produced from another.\"\n\nThe doctrine of our author, then, is confessedly a pure hypothesis, and,\nas such, it might be summarily dismissed into the region of cloud-land\nand dreams, where it had its origin. The burden of proof is upon him,\nand as he has failed to produce a single instance in which his theory is\nexemplified, he may be rightfully debarred the privilege of discussion.\nBut waiving this point, if we look into the grounds of his conjecture,\nwe find bold assumptions more than once substituted for the plain\nstatement of facts, which would destroy every shade of credibility in\nhis doctrine. True, there is an appearance, both in the animal and\nvegetable kingdoms, of an ascending scale of being, from simply\norganized forms and imperfect developments up to the complex\narrangements and nice adaptations of the advanced tribes. But the\nprogress is not regular, nor are the intervals of constant length. The\nline is often broken and doubled, and, in fact, the individuals are far\nmore naturally arranged in a number of parallel lines, beginning\nsuccessively at a somewhat lower point, than in a single series. Man, of\ncourse, is placed at the head of the animal tribes; but the interval\nwhich separates him from the chimpanzee cannot easily be cleared at one\nbound. He forms but one genus, and that genus is the only one of its\norder. But even if the line of gradation were single and perfect, the\nfact would be of no service to the hypothesis we are now considering;\nfor the interval between two species most nearly allied to each other\nseems to be quite as impassable as the broadest gulf of separation.\n\nThe point chiefly relied upon to show the credibility of this doctrine\nis the fact, according to our author, that the higher animals pass\nthrough a series of changes resembling the permanent forms of the lower\ntribes. The first form of man himself \"is that which is permanent in the\nanimalcule\"; and thence he comes to resemble successively a fish, a\nreptile, a bird, and the lower mammifers, before he attains his specific\nmaturity. It is held, then, that a premature birth from an animal of a\nhigher kind might have instituted a new race of a lower type; and that a\nbirth unusually delayed, permitting an embryo to be still farther\nadvanced in the line of organization, might have created a new species\nof a higher order than the parent. Here, every thing depends on the\n_absolute identity_ of the germs of all animals, in the lower stages of\ntheir growth. General resemblances and analogies are of no weight\nwhatever; the essential internal organization of the ova of different\nspecies must be the same; otherwise, however ripened into a mature\nbeing, whether the birth be advanced or postponed, the individual must\nstill belong to its parents' species, of which it possesses the\ndistinctive peculiarity. Now, this point of _the identity of germs is a\nmere assumption_; not only is it destitute of proof,--the whole evidence\nis against it. There is a degree of outward resemblance, but there is no\nsameness. When we trace the origin of life back to the remotest point to\nwhich our powers of observation extend, when we come to microscopic\nvesicles that can be discerned only by the highest magnifiers, general\nsimilarity of outward shape is all that can be predicated of them. The\nspecific differences lie below this general resemblance of outward form;\nwe cannot discern them, but we _know_ that they must exist, and that\nthey are _essential_ differences, for each one of these vesicles is\ninvariably developed, if at all, into an individual of the species to\nwhich its parent belongs. The germinal vesicles of a tree and a\nquadruped are somewhat alike, outwardly; so, to the hen's eyes, there is\nno difference between her own eggs and the duck's eggs which the\nfarmer's wife has put into her nest. But when she has hatched her brood,\npart of them are found to be web-footed, and these, to her great\nastonishment and distress, immediately take to the water. Our author\ncommits the same blunder as the poor hen. This want of consciousness\nthat he has got to the end of his tether, this inability to believe that\nany difference can exist where he is not able to see it, though it is\ninvariably indicated by future consequent differences of the most\nstriking nature, is perfectly characteristic of the rash theorist in\nscience.\n\nThe assertion, that man's \"first form _is_ that which is permanent in\nthe animalcule,\"--even if we do not look to the potentiality of\ndevelopment into a higher being, which experience shows to exist in the\nhuman germ, but not in the infusorial,--is a positive misstatement. The\nlowest monad has a mouth and means for propagating its kind, which do\nnot belong to the primitive ovum of any higher animal. About the\nsucceeding stages in the growth of the embryo our author's language is\nmore cautious. He only says, that they _resemble_, or _typify_, some of\nthe lower orders of being; and this is virtually admitting a specific\ndifference, and giving up his own theory for all the conditions\nposterior to that of the germ. The brain and heart of the embryo\nsuccessively _resemble_ the corresponding organs in a fish, a reptile, a\nbird, and a quadruped; but they are not identical, _even in outward\nappearance_, with those organs. Of course, if arrested at any stage of\nits growth, and prematurely born, the embryo would not be one of the\nlower animals, but only something resembling it in outward shape; and\nconversely, if it were possible for the birth of a bird to be delayed\ntill it had reached a higher stage of development in the same line in\nwhich it was proceeding, it would not become a quadruped, but it would\nbe an anomalous creature somewhat like one. Consequently, no one species\nnow on the earth can have been evolved out of any other existing race;\nbecause the germs of any two, at a very early stage in their history,\naccording to our author's own confession, are specifically unlike.\n\nTo avoid this difficulty, he is driven to a further supposition, still\nmore gratuitous and improbable; namely, that the germ destined to become\none of a different race from its parents, having advanced along its\nusual line of development so far as that line coincides with the one\nbelonging to the new species, there diverges, and follows a different\npath up to the period of its birth into a new creature; that is, the\nembryo of a reptile, having grown for a certain time as if it were to be\na reptile, suddenly turns aside, like a young man changing his mind\nabout the choice of a profession, and for the rest of its foetal life\nfollows the proper line of progress in order to be developed into a\nbird. This is mere dreaming, and reminds one only of the wonderful\ntransformations effected by enchantment in an Arabian tale. We might\njust as plausibly suppose, that the reptile, after it became mature, was\nsuddenly transformed into a bird, as that it underwent this change\nbefore it was hatched. All the evidence attainable goes to show, that\nthe law of development is as immutable before as after birth, the\nseveral stages of progress succeeding each other in a constant order,\nand affecting the individual only, not the race. A young monkey is no\nmore likely to be transmuted into a man than an old one; nor is such a\nmetamorphosis at all more probable in the course of its foetal life.\n\nThe view we have now obtained of the specific differences between\ndistinct races of being at separate periods of their existence is\nprecisely what might have been anticipated from the law of gradual\ndevelopment, which holds throughout the organic kingdoms. Between two\nmature animals, these differences are perfectly obvious and well\nmarked. As we go a step back in their history, the distinction becomes a\nlittle more obscure; two worms may resemble each other very closely,\nthough the two winged insects subsequently produced from them may be\nvery unlike. Receding still farther, some of these specific differences\nmay entirely disappear, the organs or parts which should exhibit them\nbeing not yet developed. And when we come to the primitive germs, so\nminute as to be visible only through the microscope, no outward\ndistinction, perhaps, is any longer perceptible, and the radical\ndifference of their internal organization is indicated only by the fact,\nto be verified by subsequent observation, that the two are invariably\ndeveloped into perfectly distinct animals, belonging respectively to the\nsame races with their parents. A theorist, whose whole system is based\nupon the invariable operation of natural agencies, cannot reasonably\nobject to this conclusion.\n\nThat our statements in the course of this argument may not appear of the\nsame questionable character as those advanced by our author, we will\nfortify them with a few brief citations from a work of such\nunquestionable authority as the Lectures of Professor Owen.\n\n     \"No doubt the minute infusoria, which seem to have their\n     development arrested at the first or nearest stage from the\n     primitive cell formation, offer close and striking analogies to the\n     primitive cells out of which the higher animals and all their\n     tissues are developed; but the very [first] step which the\n     infusoria take beyond the primitive cell stage invests them with a\n     specific character as independent and distinct in its nature as\n     that of the highest and most complicated organisms. No mere organic\n     cell, destined for ulterior changes in a living organization, has a\n     mouth armed with teeth, or provided with long tentacula; I will not\n     lay stress on the alimentary canal and appended stomachs, which\n     many still regard as 'sub judice'; but the endowment of distinct\n     organs of generation, for propagating their kind by fertile ova,\n     raises the polygastric infusoria much above the mere organic\n     cell.\"--pp. 25, 26.\n\n     \"In comparing the several stages in the very interesting\n     development of the _cyanaea aurita_ to the infusoria and polypes, it\n     must be understood that such comparisons are warranted only by a\n     similarity of outward form, and of the instruments of locomotion\n     and prehension. The essential internal organization of the\n     persistent lower forms of the _zooephyta_ is entirely wanting in the\n     transitory states of the higher ones. A progress through the\n     inferior groups is sketched out, but no actual transmutation of\n     species is effected. The young medusa, before it attains its\n     destined condition of maturity, successively resembles, but never\n     becomes, a polygastrian, a rotifer, and a bryozoon.\"--p. 112.\n\n     \"Thus every animal in the course of its development typifies or\n     represents some of the permanent forms of animals inferior to\n     itself; but it does not represent all the inferior forms, nor\n     acquire the organization of any of the forms which it transitorily\n     represents. Had the animal kingdom formed, as was once supposed, a\n     single and continuous chain of being, progressively ascending from\n     the monad to the man, unity of organization might then have been\n     demonstrated to the extent in which the theory has been maintained\n     by the disciples of the Geoffroyan school.\"--p. 370.\n\nIf these similarities of structure in the germ had any bearing on the\nsubject, they would indicate the possibility only of retrogression in\nthe scale. Of course, the immature ovum, arrested in its development,\ncould not form a more perfect being than its parent. There is no\npretence that the embryo, at any stage of its progress, images an animal\nof a higher grade than its own family. Then what aid do these\nsimilarities of structure afford to the theory, that all the higher\norganisms have been evolved by successive steps out of the lowest monad?\nAt the best, you have only shown, that a _retreat_ is possible; you have\nstill to point out any likelihood, even the remotest, of an _advance_ in\nthe scale of being. There is no fact whatever to confirm the\nsupposition, that birth may possibly be delayed till the animal be\ndeveloped into one of a higher species; and the law of immature births\nseems to be, that, if the offspring escapes at all--for there is great\nrisk consequent on such an accident,--it becomes as perfect as its\nprogenitors. Nature seems to guard the distinctions between the several\nraces with peculiar care; so far as we know, monsters either do not\nsurvive their birth, or are incapable of continuing their kind, or in\nthe course of a single generation are reunited to the original family.\n\nTo say that these laws, distinct and invariable as far as the\nobservation of man has extended, may possibly have been superseded in\nthe lapse of ages by a higher principle, manifesting itself only at\nlong intervals, is again to have recourse to a blank hypothesis,\nincapable alike of proof or disproof, and unsupported by the faintest\nintimations from the world of experience. To build up a theory in this\nway is not to account for the work of creation by the natural agencies\nand inherent qualities of matter, _as at present observable_, but to fly\noff to the wild supposition, that matter and life were more richly\nendowed ages ago than they are in our own day. You affirm, that this\nhigher principle of development did not override the inferior laws at\nthe earlier periods in time's history, because, in the infancy of the\nuniverse, the conditions were wanting which are requisite for its\nmanifestation,--because the earth was not ready, the atmosphere was not\npurified, for the nobler races of being. Very well; but these conditions\nare answered _now_. All things are ready at the present day for the\ninnate energies of matter to put forth their utmost strength. Why do not\nfishes generate reptiles, and birds produce mammifers, _now_? Ah! but\n\"the earth being now supplied with both kinds of tenants in great\nabundance, we could only expect to find the life-originating power at\nwork in some very special and extraordinary circumstances.\" It seems,\nthen, that these inherent qualities of matter, once supposed to be\nblind, absolute, and invariable in their operation, are really very\njudicious and reasonable; they suit the supply to the demand, and\nactually cease working when the market is likely to be overstocked. The\nresults of such \"_natural_ agencies\" as these are very like the effects\nproduced by the volitions of a wise and thinking being.\n\nIt happens that we are not obliged to grant to our author an indefinite\nlapse of ages for the sake of bringing all his higher principles into\naction. One of the latest events in the geological history of the earth\nwas a great submersion of the land, by which \"terrestrial animal life\nwas extensively, if not universally, destroyed\"; so that the creation of\nthe species now in being--at least, all the higher species--was \"a\ncomparatively recent event, and one posterior, generally speaking, to\nall the great natural transactions chronicled by geology.\" Science does\nnot contradict, it rather confirms, that voice of revelation or\ntradition, which assigns about six thousand years as the period of man's\nresidence upon the earth. The action of the drama, then, is restricted\nwithin moderate limits as to time, and the \"natural agencies\" and\n\"higher principles\" must work fast in order to accomplish their task\nwithin the prescribed period. One condition for the creation of a new\nand permanent species, belonging to any of the higher orders, seems to\nhave escaped our author's notice; at least two individuals, a male and a\nfemale, must have been evolved out of the next lower race, before the\nnew species could continue its kind. Apply these considerations to the\ncreation of man, who, according to our author's Scripture, was born of a\nmonkey. To suppose, that, at the first trial, an Adam and an Eve were\nborn near each other, so that they might have a chance of meeting in the\ncourse of their lives, would look too much like the operation of\nintelligence and design. On the theory of an organic creation by law, as\nthe monkey race is spread over large regions of the globe, we must\nsuppose that many of each sex were produced, and died childless, before\nany Adam was happy enough to find an Eve. Then, at no very distant\nperiod, within a few thousand years, the birth of a man from an animal\nof a lower type was no very strange event. Probably it occurred so\noften, that the monkeys themselves ceased to be astonished at it. And\nyet, this tribe of animals, with all the benefit of large experience,\nwith increased numbers, and with all the requisite conditions fulfilled\nat least as perfectly as they were at the earlier period of their\nhistory, have not succeeded, in the three or four thousand years during\nwhich they have been subject to the observation of intelligent beings,\nin producing even a decent semblance of a man.\n\nWith the exposure of this crowning absurdity, we must close our direct\nexamination of this \"History of Creation.\" We have not room to consider\nsome of the appendages to the theory, such as the assertion of the\nessential unity of the human and the brute intellect, the denial of the\nimmaterial nature of mind, and the advocacy of the system of phrenology.\nThese absurd and degrading doctrines are naturally connected with the\natheistic hypothesis we have been considering. They are its legitimate\nchildren. But they have already been refuted so often and so\nconclusively, that any revival of them at the present day is hardly\ndeserving of notice. If we should stop here, then, it may fairly be left\nto the judgment of our readers, whether we have not fulfilled the pledge\ngiven at the outset, by showing that this theory is faulty at every\npoint, even when viewed from the author's own ground. The proposal of it\nis no new thing. In one or another form, varying in particulars, but\nagreeing in substance, it has been before the world ever since the days\nof Democritus, and more especially of his follower, Epicurus. Lucretius\nclothed it in sonorous and majestic verse, for it is a theme fitted\nabove all others to excite the fancy, and to receive the richest\nembellishments from the imagination. Modern authors have promulgated it\nagain and again, with little other change than what was requisite to\nadapt it to recent improvements in science, and to engraft upon it some\nof their own favorite hypotheses and fancies. The version of it by the\nFrench naturalist Lamarck was the latest and the most in vogue, till the\nappearance of the present volume. So frequently has it been confuted,\nthat the revival of it at this late period seems little more than a\nharmless exercise of ingenuity, a poetical and scientific dream, and one\nneed hardly take the pains to expose its assumptions and fallacies. The\nviolent suppositions which it involves only remind one of the remark\nquoted from Pascal on a former page, that \"unbelievers are the most\ncredulous persons in the world.\" If set forth only as a novel and\npleasing fancy, it may be classed with other ingenious fictions, that\nare published without a thought of deception. But if seriously proposed,\nit can be fitly characterized only by borrowing the homely but energetic\nlanguage of Dr. Bentley.\n\n     \"And now that I have finished all the parts which I proposed to\n     discourse of, I will conclude all with a short application to the\n     atheists. And I would advise them, as a friend, to leave off this\n     dabbling and smattering in philosophy, this shuffling and cutting\n     with atoms. It never succeeded well with them, and they always come\n     off with the loss. Their old master, Epicurus, seems to have had\n     his brains so muddled and confounded with them, that he scarce ever\n     kept in the right way; though the main maxim of his philosophy was\n     to trust to his senses, and follow his nose. I will not take notice\n     of his doting conceit, that the sun and moon are no bigger than\n     they appear to the eye, a foot or half a yard over; and that the\n     stars are no larger than so many glow-worms. But let us see how he\n     manages his atoms, those almighty tools that do every thing of\n     themselves, without the help of a workman. When the atoms, says he,\n     _descend_ in infinite space (very ingeniously spoken, to make high\n     and low in infinity), they do not fall plumb down, but decline a\n     little from the perpendicular, either obliquely or in a curve; and\n     this declination, says he, from the direct line is the cause of our\n     liberty of will. But, I say, this declination of atoms in their\n     descent was itself either necessary or voluntary. If it was\n     necessary, how then could that necessity ever beget liberty? If it\n     was voluntary, then atoms had that power of volition before; and\n     what becomes then of the Epicurean doctrine of the fortuitous\n     productions of worlds? The whole business is contradiction and\n     ridiculous nonsense.\"--_Bentley's Works_, Vol. III., pp. 47, 48.\n\nCustom and convenience lead us to speak of the \"laws\" of nature, and of\nthe \"powers and forces\" of brute matter; and few persons, in adopting\nthese phrases, are aware that they are using a figure of speech. Yet\nnothing is more certain than that all the researches of science have not\nbeen able to point out with certainty a single active cause apart from\nthe operation of mind. We discern nothing but regularity and similarity\nof sequences; and the attribution of these effects to some occult\nqualities in the atoms or molecules in which they are manifested is\nwholly hypothetical, and even, when closely examined, is inconceivable.\nFor this reason we affirm, that the theory of our author, professing to\naccount for the whole work of creation \"by the operation of law,\" is not\nonly unsound and baseless in its particulars, but, when scrutinized as a\nwhole, is absolutely unintelligible. _He attempts to account for a\nstring of hypothetical effects, such as spontaneous generation and the\ntransmutation of species, by a series of hypothetical and inconceivable\ncauses, such as the energies of lifeless matter._ Let any one conceive,\nif he can, of any _power_, _energy_, or _force_ inherent in a lump of\nmatter,--a stone, for instance,--except this merely negative one, that\nit always and necessarily remains in its present state, whether this be\nof rest or motion. Let him point out, if he can, the _nexus_ between\nwhat are usually denominated cause and effect in matter,--as when two\nbodies are drawn towards each other, if they are in opposite states of\nelectricity. When he says that it is the _nature_, or _law_, of bodies\nthus electrified to attract each other, he offers no explanation of the\nphenomenon; he only refers it to a class of other results, of a similar\ncharacter, previously observed. It is not pretended, that all or any of\nthese results, formerly known, are more intelligible or explicable than\nthe one in question. But the latter is classed with them, because, from\ntheir general similarity, from their taking place under the same\noutward circumstances, it is reasonably supposed that _one_ cause,\nwhatever it may be, is common to them all. And this is the whole\nbusiness of the student of nature, to place together results which are\nso similar, that we may attribute them to a common cause, without\nassuming to know what that cause is. The sole office of science is the\ntheory, not of causation, but of classification. It is all reducible to\nnatural history, the essence of which consists in arrangement.\n\nWe are not attempting to perplex a plain matter of science by\nintroducing into its discussion a metaphysical subtilty. The principle\nhere contended for is one of the first dictates of the inductive\nphilosophy, and as such it has been frankly acknowledged and acted upon\nby all the great improvers of science in modern days. When Newton\ndiscovered that the planets circle round the sun in the same manner in\nwhich a stone thrown by the hand describes a curve before reaching the\nearth, he may be said to have _explained_ the former phenomenon by\nbringing it into the same class with certain results which have long\nbeen familiar to us. But the explanation was only relative, not\nabsolute. The latter phenomenon is, in reality, no more explicable than\nthe former; he did not pretend to know the _cause_ of the stone's\nfalling to the ground, any more than of the revolution of the planets.\nIt was something to be able to arrange these apparently heterogeneous\nresults in the same class, and gravity was a convenient name to apply to\nthe whole. But the supposition, that gravity was an occult cause,\ninherent in matter, he earnestly repelled, and declared that it was\n\"inconceivable.\"[2] Franklin showed, that a thunder-cloud and the\ncharged conductor of an electrical machine manifested the same\nphenomena, and might therefore be classed together; sparks were obtained\nfrom both, Leyden jars were charged from them, other bodies were\nattracted and repelled in a similar way, so that it was reasonable to\nbelieve that the same agency was acting in both cases. What this agency\nwas he did not even guess. The _cause_ of electric action, whether in\nthe excited cloud, or the excited tube, was just as obscure as ever.\nChemists observed, that different substances, when brought into close\ncontact, sometimes remained distinct, and sometimes united with each\nother in various but regular proportions; and these capacities of\ncoalescing with one class of bodies, and of remaining unaffected by\nanother, are called chemical \"affinities.\" This is a convenient\ngeneralization, and has properly received a specific name; though the\ncommon appellation throws no light on the _cause_ of the phenomena,\nwhich remains an impenetrable secret. To say that certain action is\n_caused_ by the operation of chemical affinities is only to arrange it\nwith a large class of other observed appearances, equally obscure as to\ntheir origin and essential character.\n\nLet us go a step further, and suppose that the progress of discovery has\nmade known certain facts lying behind the phenomena in question, to\nwhich they may all be referred. Let us suppose, that all bodies which\ngravitate towards each other are found to be embosomed in a subtile,\nambient fluid, which connects them, as it were, into one system; that\nthe positive and negative states of electricity are resolvable into the\npresence of two fluids standing in certain relations to each other; and\nthat substances show chemical affinity for each other only when they are\nin opposite electrical conditions. Still, we have only advanced a step\nin the generalization, and the real, efficient _cause_ of the\nappearances is still hidden from us by an impenetrable veil. Gravitation\nis now referred to the communication of motion by impulse; electricity,\nto the combination and separation of different fluids; affinity, to the\nattraction or repulsion of these fluids. The latter classes of phenomena\nare more general, but not a whit more explicable, than the former. We\nhave now fewer causes to seek for, but not one of these few has been\ndiscovered. When we have resolved electricity or gravitation into the\npresence of an elastic medium, it is a mere figure of speech to say,\nthat we have discovered the _cause_ of the electric phenomena or of\ngravity. That is just as far off as ever; for we have yet to discover\nthe principle whence flow _necessarily_ all the phenomena observable in\nfluids. It is the sole end and the highest ambition of science to\ndiscover as many as possible of the relationships which bind facts\ntogether, and thus to carry the generalization to the farthest point.\nIts office is not to discover causes, but to generalize effects. The\ninvestigation of real causes is quite given up, as a hopeless\nundertaking.\n\nObserve, now, how all the phraseology employed in speaking of these\nsuccessive generalizations of science is borrowed from the action of\nmind. The word _action_ itself has no real significance, except when\napplied to the _doings_ of an intelligent agent; we cannot speak of the\ndoings of matter, as we could if the word _action_ were applicable to it\nin any other than a figurative sense. Again, in speaking of the\nsimilarity of facts and the regularity of sequences, we refer them to a\n_law_ of nature, just as if they were sentient beings acting under the\nwill of a sovereign. Parts of pure matter--the chemical elements, for\ninstance--do not _act_ at all; being brute and inert, it is only by a\nstrong metaphor that they are said to be subject to law. Again, we\nattribute _force_, _power_, &c., to the primitive particles of matter,\nand speak of their natural _agencies_. Just so, we talk of _tone_ in\ncoloring, and of a _heavy_ or _light_ sound; though, of course, in their\nproper significance, tone belongs only to sound, and heaviness to\ngravitating bodies. These modes of speech are proper enough, if their\nfigurative character be kept in view; but it is a little too bad, when a\nwhole scientific theory is made to rest upon a metaphor as its sole\nsupport. _Agency_ is the employment of one intelligent being to act for\nanother; _force_ and _power_ are applicable only to will; they are\ncharacteristic of volition. It is a violent trope to apply either of\nthese words to senseless matter. Chemical _affinities_ are spoken of, as\nif material elements were united by family ties, and manifested choice,\nand affection or aversion.\n\nAn obvious corollary from these remarks is, that all _causation_ is an\nexertion of mind, and is only figuratively applied to matter. It\nnecessarily implies power, will, and action. An efficient cause--we are\nnot speaking now of a mere antecedent--is that which is necessarily\nfollowed by the effect, so that, if it were known, the effect might be\npredicted antecedently to all experience. Cicero describes it with\nphilosophical accuracy. \"_Causa ea est, quae id efficit, cujus est\ncausa._ _Non sic causa intelligi debet, ut quod cuique antecedat, id ei\ncausa sit; sed quod cuique_ EFFICIENTER _antecedat. Causis enim\nefficientibus quamque rem cognitis, posse denique sciri quid futurum\nesset._\" Now, in the world of matter, we discover nothing but\nantecedents and consequents; the former are the mere signs, not the\ncauses, of the latter; no necessary connection--no connection at all,\nexcept sequence in time--can be discerned between them. Consequently,\nfrom an examination of the former, we could not determine _a priori_,\nthat they must be followed by the latter, or by any other result\nwhatever. Our knowledge here, if knowledge it can be called, is wholly\nempirical, or founded on experience. As we have seen, it is absurd to\nsay, that one atom of matter literally _acts_ on another. On the other\nhand, in the world of mind, we are directly conscious of action, and\neven of causation. All mental exertion is true action; every\ndetermination of the will implies _effort_, or the direction and use of\npower. The result to be accomplished is preconsidered, or meditated, and\ntherefore is known _a priori_, or before experience; the volition\nsucceeds, which is a true effort, or a power in action; and this, _if\nthe power be sufficient_, is _necessarily_ followed by the effect.\nVolition is a true cause; but in a finite mind it is not always an\n_adequate_ cause. If I will to shut my eyes, the effect immediately\nfollows as a necessary consequence. But if I will to stop the beating of\nmy heart, or to move a paralyzed limb, the effect does not follow,\nbecause the power exerted is inadequate to the end proposed. The action\nof the will is still _causative_, but it is _insufficient_.\n\nIt was from overlooking the distinction here made, that Hume, Kant, and\nother metaphysicians were led to deny all knowledge of causation even in\nthe action of mind. They confounded sufficiency with efficiency, and\nsupposed, because the power did not always accomplish the end proposed,\nthat it did not tend towards it, or exert any effect upon it. As the\nsufficiency of the volition can only be known _a posteriori_, or after\nexperience, they imagined that there could be no cause but that which is\ninfinite, or one which is invariably followed by the whole effect\ncontemplated. They overlooked the fact, that, in the consciousness of\n_effort_,--as in the attempt to control the action of mind, to command\nthe attention, &c.,--we have direct and full evidence of _power in\naction_, which is necessarily causal in its nature. The mental _nisus_\nis true force, exerted with a foreknowledge of the effect to be\nproduced, and necessarily followed by a result,--a partial one it may\nbe,--but one which is a true effect, whether it answers the whole\nintention, or not. Here, then, we discern that necessary connection\nbetween two events, that absolute efficient agency, which was vainly\nsought in the world of matter.\n\nIf these considerations are well founded, the whole framework of what\nare called \"secondary causes\" falls to pieces. The laws of nature are\nonly a figure of speech; the powers and active inherent properties of\nmaterial atoms are mere fictions. Mind alone is active; matter is wholly\npassive and inert. There is no such thing as what we usually call the\ncourse of nature; it is nothing but the will of God producing certain\neffects in a constant and uniform manner; which mode of action, however,\nbeing perfectly arbitrary, is as easy to be altered at any time as to be\npreserved. All events, all changes, in the external world, from the\nleast even unto the greatest, are attributable to his will and power,\nwhich, being infinite, is always and necessarily adequate to the end\nproposed. The laws of motion, gravitation, affinity, and the like, are\nonly expressions of the regularity and continuity of one infinite cause.\nThe order of nature is the effect of divine wisdom, its stability is the\nresult of divine beneficence.\n\n    \"Estne Dei sedes nisi terra, et pontus, et aer,\n    Et coelum, et virtus? Superos quid quaerimus ultra?\n    Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque moveris.\"\n\nIt may be asked, if divine power, instead of operating immediately\nthroughout the universe, might not have endowed material atoms at the\noutset with certain properties and energies, the gradual evolution of\nwhich in after ages would produce all the phenomena of nature, without\nthe necessity of his incessant presence, agency, and control. Certainly,\nwe may not put bounds to omnipotence; though we may assert of a given\nhypothesis respecting its exercise, that it is inconceivable, or\ninvolves wholly incongruous ideas. The necessary attributes of matter,\naccording to our conception of it, are extension, figure,\nimpenetrability, and inertness; the properties of mind are thought,\nsensation, activity, and will. These attributes are essential, not\narbitrary or contingent; for they make up our whole idea of the\nsubstances in which they inhere. We can no more suppose them to be\ninterchangeable, than we can literally attribute dimensions to an odor,\nor capacity to a sound. To speak of an extended thought, an impenetrable\nsensation, an inert activity, is to talk nonsense; it is equally absurd\nto attribute thought to extension, sensation to figure, activity to\ninertness,[3] or causal agency to matter. True, mind may be superadded\nto matter, without being confounded with it, and without any exchange of\nproperties. And in fact, this is the only conceivable form of the\nhypothesis now before us; namely, the theory of the ancient\nmetaphysicians, that every particle of matter and every aggregate of it\nis accompanied, or animated, by a distinct mind. \"_Ea quoque [sidera]\nrectissime et animantia esse, et sentire atque intelligere, dicantur._\"\nIf this be a more intelligible and plausible supposition than that of\none infinite mind, pervading the universe, and producing all physical\nchanges by its irresistible power, the materialist is welcome to the\nbenefit of it.\n\nAs respects the manner in which all physical effects are produced by the\ndirect action of the Deity, we are not bound to offer any explanation,\nas the subject confessedly transcends the limit of the human faculties.\nIt is enough for us, that the supposition is the only conceivable one,\nthe only mode of accounting for the phenomena of the material world. But\nas man is made in the image of his Creator, in the union for a time of\nhis spirit with his corporeal frame we may find at least an intelligible\nillustration of the connection of God with the universe. Discarding the\nword _mind_, as the fruitful source of vague speculation and error, let\nus look for a moment at that of which it is a mere synonyme,--at the man\nhimself. The sentient, thinking being, which I call _self_, is an\nabsolute unit. Duality or complexity cannot be predicated of it in any\nintelligible sense. Personality is indivisible; _I_ am _one_. This being\nis capable of acting in different ways; and for convenience of speech\nand classification, these modes of action have been arranged as the\nresults of different faculties; though, in truth, it is no more proper\nto attribute to the person distinct powers and organs for comparison,\nmemory, and judgment, than to give to the body separately a walking\nfaculty, a lifting faculty, a jumping faculty, and so on. In the one\ncase, these faculties are but different aspects of mental power; in the\nother, but different applications of muscular strength. Of course, the\ncomplex material frame, with its numberless adaptations and\narrangements, in which this being is lodged, is truly foreign from the\nman himself, having a kind of connection with him, in reality, but one\ndegree more intimate than that of his clothes. The body is the curiously\ncontrived machine through which the man communicates with the material\nworld. The eye is but his instrument to see with, the ear is his trumpet\nfor communicating sound to him, the leg is his steed, and the arm his\nsoldier. Many of these instruments and parts may be removed, or become\nunfit for use, without impairing, in the slightest degree, his distinct\npersonality and intelligence. The particles of all of them are in a\nstate of constant flux and renovation, so that man changes his body only\na little more frequently than he does his coat. His whole corporeal\nframe is connected with him but for a while, and is then thrown aside,\nlike an old garment, for which he has no farther use.\n\nBut during the period of its existence, how close and intimate in\nappearance is this union with the body! Sensation extends to every part\nof it, every fibre is instinct with life, and the direction of the will\nis absolute and immediate over every muscle and joint, as if the whole\nfabric and its tenant were one homogeneous system. The will tires not of\nits supremacy, and is not wearied with the number of volitions required\nof it to keep every joint in action, and every organ performing its\nproper function. It would not delegate the control of the fingers to an\ninferior power, nor contrive mechanical or automatic means for moving\nthe extremities. Within its sphere, it is sole sovereign, and is not\nperplexed with the variety and constant succession of its duties,\nextending to every part of the complex structure of which it is the\nanimating and directing spirit. Sensation is not cumbered with the\nmultitude of impressions it receives, nor is the fineness of perception\ndulled by repeated exercise. The sharpness of its edge rather improves\nby use, and we become more heedful of its lightest intimations. Is it\nirreverent, then, to suppose that this union of body and soul shadows\nforth the connection between the material universe and the Infinite One?\nHow else, indeed, can we attach any meaning to the attributes of\nomnipresence and omnipotence? The unity of action, the regularity of\nantecedence and consequence in outward events, which we commonly\ndesignate by the lame metaphor of _law_, then become the fitting\nexpression of the consistent doings of an all-wise Being, in whom there\nis no variableness, neither shadow of turning. The Creator, then, is no\nlonger banished from his creation, nor is the latter an orphan, or a\ndeserted child. It is not a great machine, that was wound up at the\nbeginning, and has continued to run on ever since, without aid or\ndirection from its artificer. As well might we conceive of the body of a\nman moving about, and performing all its appropriate functions, without\nthe principle of life, or the indwelling of an immortal soul. The\nuniverse is not lifeless or soulless. It is informed by God's spirit,\npervaded by his power, moved by his wisdom, directed by his beneficence,\ncontrolled by his justice.\n\n    \"Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus\n    Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.\"\n\nThe harmony of physical and moral laws is not a mere fancy, nor a forced\nanalogy; they are both expressions of the same will, manifestations of\nthe same spirit.\n\nThe objection, that it is beneath the dignity of the Almighty--[Greek:\nautourgein hapanta]--to put his hand to every thing--is founded on a\nfalse analogy, as is seen by the form in which Aristotle states it. \"If\nit befit not the state and majesty of Xerxes, the great king of Persia,\nthat he should stoop to do all the meanest offices himself, much less\ncan this be thought suitable for God.\" The two cases do not correspond\nin the very feature essential to the argument. An earthly potentate,\nunable to execute with his own hand all the affairs of which he has\ncontrol, is obliged to delegate the larger portion of them to his\nservants; selecting the lightest part for himself, he gratifies his\npride by calling it also the noblest, though the distinction is\nfactitious, there being no real difference, in point of honor or\ndignity, between them. Omnipotence needs no minister, and is not\nexhausted or wearied by the cares of a universe. Power in action is more\ntruly sublime than power in repose; and surely it is not derogatory to\ndivine energy to sustain and continue that which it was certainly not\nbeneath divine wisdom to create and appoint. Rightly considered, to\nguide the falling of a leaf from a tree is an office as worthy of\nomnipotence, as the creation of a world. \"Are not two sparrows sold for\na farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your\nFather. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.\"\n\nEqually lame is the oft-repeated comparison of the universe to a machine\nof man's device, which is considered the more perfect the less mending\nor interposition it requires. A machine is a labor-saving contrivance,\nfitted to supply the weakness and deficiencies of him who uses it. Where\nthe want does not exist, it is absurd to suppose the creation of the\nremedy. Human conceptions of the Deity are for ever at fault in imputing\nto him the errors and deficiencies which belong to our own limited\nfaculties and dependent condition. Hence the idea of the Epicureans,\nthat sublime indifference and unbroken repose are the only states of\nbeing worthy of the gods. Viewed in the light of true philosophy, no\nless than of Christianity, how base and grovelling does this conception\nappear! The sublime description of the pagan poet becomes the fitting\nexpression and defence of the very theory it was designed to\ncontrovert:--\n\n    \"Nam (proh sancta Deum tranquilla pectora pace,\n    Quae placidum degunt aevum, vitamque serenam!)\n    Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi\n    Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas?\n    Quis pariter coelos omneis convertere? et omneis\n    Ignibus aetheriis terras suffire feraceis?\n    Omnibus inque locis esse omni tempore presto?\n    Nubibus ut tenebras faciat, coelique serena\n    Concutiat sonitu? tum fulmina mittat, et aedeis\n    Saepe suas disturbet?\"\n\nReturning to the theory of our author, may we not now characterize it as\nat once unfounded in its details, inconceivable in its operation, and\nvulgar and mechanical in its design? Considered in their proper aspect,\nand by the light of a sound philosophy, whatever well accredited facts\nor legitimate deductions he has gleaned from the whole field of modern\nscience afford the most striking evidence and illustration of that view\nof creation which is directly at variance with his own hypothesis. He\nhas, in fact, exposed the insufficiency of what are called organic or\nmechanical laws to supply the losses, and bridge over the interruptions,\nthat have occurred in the world's history. Geology has rendered at\nleast one signal service to the cause of natural religion, by\neffectually doing away with the old atheistic objection, that, for aught\nwe know, the present constitution of things never had a beginning, but\nhas gone on for ever renewing itself in an endless series of\ngenerations. Science now tells us distinctly, that time was when \"the\nearth was without form and void,\" no animated thing appearing \"upon the\nface of the deep\"; that afterwards, \"the waters were gathered together\nunto one place, and the dry land appeared.\" Then \"the earth brought\nforth grass, and herb yielding seed _after his kind_, and the tree\nyielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.\" Next was\nfulfilled the command, \"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving\ncreature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the\nopen firmament of heaven.\" Then appeared \"the beast of the earth after\nhis kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth\nupon the earth after his kind.\" Last of all, \"God created man in his own\nimage, male and female created he them.\" We are not merely quoting\nScripture; we are repeating the facts positively affirmed by the\ngeologists, and incorporated by our author into his \"history\"--as\nauthentic leaves taken from the \"stone book\"--_in the same order_ in\nwhich they are narrated in the first chapter of Genesis. The coincidence\nin the order of succession is certainly remarkable.\n\nGeology farther informs us, that, at different times, all the animated\ntribes which had peopled the earth's surface passed away, or became\nextinct, and were replaced by new species of different organization and\ncharacteristics; and probably at many other periods, as well as on\noccasions of some great catastrophe in the earth's crust, races wholly\nunlike any that had preceded them were introduced, from time to time, as\nnew inhabitants of the globe. Here, then, was an absolute necessity for\nthe continuous operation of an intelligent creative power, apart from\nthe blind mechanical laws, which, at the utmost, could only allow each\nspecies, once introduced, to continue its kind. The marvellous\nadaptations of these new races to the altered conditions of the earth's\nsurface when they appeared, then, become additional proofs of the wisdom\nand constant oversight of a designing Creator. They came not till all\nthings were ready; they appeared when the extinction of former tribes\nhad left a gap for them in the scale of being. The gradual development\nof what are called the powers of nature,--or, to speak more\nintelligibly, the successive improvements in the habitations intended\nfor higher and higher races of animated life,--and the similarity of\nplan on which these races were organized, the scheme being preserved in\nall its essential features through countless generations, show unity of\ndesign, and prove that the works of creation, however separated in time,\nmust be attributed to _one_ intelligent author. The same conclusion\nfollows almost irresistibly from the gradations at present observable\nboth in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, so that all the races may be\narranged, not indeed in a linear series, but in families or groups,\nbearing analogous relations to each other, and showing a general\nprogress from the more simple to the more complex forms. Surely, these\nfacts, so clearly explained by our author, instead of sustaining the\ncorpuscular philosophy, directly militate with it, and afford the most\nsatisfactory proof of the doctrine of the theist, and the theory of\ncontinuous divine agency. We have hardly ever met with a book that\nfurnished more complete materials for its own refutation.\n\nAfter all, the question is a very simple one. We have only to decide\nwhether it is more likely, that the complex system of things in the\nmidst of which we live,--the beautiful harmonies between the organic and\ninorganic world, the nice arrangements and curious adaptations that\nobtain in each, the simplicity and uniformity of the general plan to\nwhich the vast multitude of details may be reduced,--was built up, and\nis now sustained, by one all-wise and all-powerful Being, or by\nparticles of brute matter, acting of themselves, without direction,\ninterference, or control. We cannot now say, that possibly the system\nnever had a beginning, but has always existed under the form in which it\nnow appears to us; geology has disproved _that_ supposition most\neffectually. Choose ye, then, between mind and matter, between an\nintelligent being and a stone, for the parentage and support of this\nwonderful system. For our own part, we will adopt the conclusion of one\nof the most eloquent of those old pagan philosophers, on whose eyes the\nlight of immediate revelation never dawned:--\"_Hic ego non mirer esse\nquemquam, qui sibi persuadeat, corpora quaedam solida atque individua vi\net gravitate ferri, mundumque effici ornatissimum et pulcherrimum ex\ncorum corporum concursione fortuita? Quod si mundum efficere potest\nconcursus atomorum, cur porticum, cur templum, cur domum, cur urbem non\npotest, quae sunt minus operosa, et multo quidem faciliora? Certe ita\ntemere de mundo effutiunt, ut mihi quidem nunquam hunc admirabilem\ncoeli ornatum, qui locus est proximus, suspexisse videantur._\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _N. A. Review_, Vol. LVI., pp. 339-351.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should,\nwithout the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate\nupon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must, if\ngravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it.\nAnd this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate\ngravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to\nmatter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a\n_vacuum_, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which\ntheir action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so\ngreat an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical\nmatters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity\nmust be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain\nlaws.\"--_Newton's letter in Bentley's Works_, Vol. III., pp. 211, 212.]\n\n[Footnote 3: And yet, so strong is the propensity to metaphor, that\nscientific men talk of the _vis inertiae_ as a true force, though the\nideas expressed by the two Latin words are certainly incongruous. The\nmistake here arises from confounding inertness, or resistance to\nforce,--a merely negative idea,--with the true force which is necessary\nto overcome it; or rather, since force can only be measured by its\nresults, and must always be adequate to the effect produced, inquirers\nhave adopted the convenient hypothesis of two antagonistic forces, not\nalways recollecting that one of them is merely passive.]","title":"A Theory of Creation: A Review of 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation'","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":22301}