allowance for the circumstance that the speed of the ball is a lessening quantity. We find it to be a fact, that, the farther a derived animal form is removed from its progenitor, the less and less rapidly variations proceed. It follows, therefore, that these lessening variations may be fitly represented by a sphere, the original progenitor being the centre, from which there may be variations in all directions, and to which there may be reversions in any direction (North British Review, vol. xlvi., art. on “The Origin of Species"). The variations are like the throwing-up of a cannon-ball from the earth; the motion away from the central point is slower and slower as the distance between the ball and the central point is greater and greater. We assuredly know that it is a truth of science that variability is a lessening quantity; and we therefore do know mathematically that there are limits to variability; for every lessening number is a finite quantity. Thus, gentlemen, there are broad distinctions to be made between so-called species of a variable and real species of an unvarying kind. If we are to be abreast of our modern science, we shall be shy of saying that there is nothing which has been called a species which may be transmuted into another species.

I would confine the definition of species to the limits of ascertained variability. Here is the sphere of variation; and we know that the more any descendant varies from its progenitor, the more likely it is to revert. It may go back in a single generation. The law of science is, that variability, being a lessen

ing, is a finite quantity. If you will draw a circle around the outermost sphere of variability, you will have what Häckel calls a "good species" in distinction from a merely nominal species. The thing we need most in the discussion of evolution is a new definition of species. A real species will be conterminous with the outermost limits of the sphere of ascertained variability. Grant me this definition, and I will stand with established science on the fact that we have no direct evidence that any real species, thus defined, has ever been transmuted into another species. [Applause.] It is notorious that evolutionists concede,

28. That the cubic capacity of the brain of the highest apes is thirty-four inches, and of the lowest men sixty-eight.

29. That the brain of man is by much larger than he needed in the struggle for existence.

30. That the struggle for existence, or natural selection, does not account for the brain of man. 31. That the eye of the trilobite, one of the oldest of fossil forms, is fully developed and perfect.sta 32. That the trilobites appear suddenly in the geological record; that there are no premonitions of their approach; and that there is as yet no direct evidence that they had any ancestry.

33. That the use of an organ may account for its modification, but not for its formation, since it cannot be used until it is formed.

34. That in many cases, like those of the eye of the trilobite and the brain of man, not only the theory of natural selection, but that of sexual selection, breaks down completely.

35. That in some cases it is impossible to imagine what has produced useful variations in animal forms. 36. That, in certain instances, the adaptation of means to ends cannot be accidental, but must be referred, not to natural, but to supernatural law; that is, not to the habitual, but to unusual divine action. 1

These, gentlemen, are startling concessions; and the most startling of them all is the last, that there are instances in which the adaptation of means to ends "cannot be accidental." But those are Darwin's words. You will remember that in his delicious book on the "Fertilization of Orchids," at the end of its first chapter he speaks of a marvellous arrangement by which, in one species of these flowers, the sipping-moths are "purposely delayed in obtaining nectar." He says, "If this is accidental, it is a fortunate accident for the plant. If this be not accidental, and I cannot believe it to be accidental, what a singular case of adaptation!" Professor Mivart

(Lessons from Nature, 1876, chaps. ix. and x.) quotes several similar admissions from Darwin's later writings; and he regards them as a virtual, though not . explicit, retraction of the theory of natural selection. You say these are all careless expressions on the part of Darwin? I beg pardon: they are not so understood by men of scientific competence, some of whom watch him more closely than the tiger watches its prey.

The

I am not one of those who lie in wait to find fallacies in Darwin; for it matters little to me, as a

student of religious science, which one of the three or four theistic systems of evolution is proven to be the best. If there is a change, I know that every change must have an adequate cause. If there is order in the universe, I know there must have been an Ordainer; for every change must have had an adequate cause. Based upon incontrovertible axiomatic truth, any man may stand in the yeasting seas of speculation, and feel that victorious reef tremorless beneath him; ay, and fall asleep on it, while the rock, in muffled stern thunders, speaks to the waste, howling midnight surge, "Aha! thus far ye come, but no farther." Men can never give up belief in causation. If we know there has been evolution in the universe, we know that there has been an Evolver; and, if design, a Designer; for every change must have a sufficient cause. It will not be to-morrow, nor the day after, that men will give up self-evident, axiomatic truths. Of course not.

Owen, Parsons, Mivart, Dana, and Darwin himself, all admit that useless characteristics and organs cannot be explained by natural selection; and Darwin has made lately many admissions of his oversights on this point.

Dana, to the latest date, disagrees completely with Huxley and Häckel as to the origin of man, and agrees with Owen, Gray, Mivart, Parsons, and the whole long, stately, and growing list of the theistic

school.

It is not denied anywhere, that a certain extent of variation may be experimentally produced by ex

ternal conditions, as in the brine shrimp and the axiolott. What is denied is, that external conditions can account for the difference between the not-living and the living.

It seems to be the policy of atheistic and agnostic evolutionists to obscure the distinction between a theory and the theory of evolution. The tendency of science is in favor of the former, and against the latter; that is, for Dana and Hermann Lotze, and against Herbert Spencer and Häckel. The different schools of evolutionists must be distinguished, or there can be no clearness of discussion on this theme.

You will allow me to read one passage from Professor Dana on the great contrast between the brain of man and that of apes. Professor Dana, with respect be it said, is not a Darwinian; it is hardly fair to call him, without qualification, an evolutionist. He believes that evolution explains much; he does not believe that it explains every thing. He does not account for man by evolution. He agrees with Wallace, Darwin's great coadjutor, with regard to the origin of the human will and conscience. Professor Dana, in justifying his significant concessions, says (Geology, p. 603), "In the case of man, the abruptness of transition from preceding forms' is still more extraordinary, and especially because it occurs so near to the present time. In the highest man-ape, the nearest allied of living species has the capacity of the cranium but thirty-four cubic inches; while the skeleton throughout is not fitted for an erect position, and the fore-limbs are essential to locomo