known to exist. Again, if all the various kinds of animals have been gradually developed by natural selection, what reason can be assigned for that sterility of hybrids, by which nature now seems peremptorily to forbid the formation of any new species, and for that impossibility of crossing between animals of different orders, which yet more strongly shows their distinctive peculiarities of structure to have been originally inherent and indelible? The answers which the author attempts to give to these objections are really undeserving of notice.

Your patience has, I fear, been severely tried by this long discussion, but I could not abridge it. The hypothesis against which I have been contending holds so important a place in the pseudo-science of the modern sceptical school, that I have felt obliged to scrutinize it, and the book in which it is propounded, very carefully, for the purpose of showing you that it is altogether unworthy of the favour which has been accorded to it. To what that favour with the public generally, and with some men of high scientific character in particular, is to be attributed, cannot easily be explained. I can only ascribe it to one or other of two causes, or to a combination of them both. The one is, that the multitude of curious and interesting facts of natural history, with which the book abounds, draws off the reader's attention from its argument, and at the same time disposes him to take for granted whatever a writer, who appears to have such a perfect acquaintance with his subject, chooses to assert. The other is, that there exists a credulity of scepticism which makes men who are disposed to reject the authority of the Bible blind to the fallacies of any argument, and ready to accept any theory which may help to confirm them in their unbelief. They have not received the love of the truth; and, therefore, according to the prophetic saying of St. Paul, God sends them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. I would ask those who possess Darwin's book to compare the description of his idea of creation, in its last two paragraphs, with the 104th Psalm, and the 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st chapters of the Book of Job, and then say whether his theory or that of the Bible most commends itself to the natural reason.

Protoplasm.-Another work, entitled "Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life," by Professor Huxley-as it has lately excited much attention, and, in fact, suggested the request that I would deliver this lecture-must not be passed unnoticed by me; but I shall not occupy much time by my remarks upon it, for the aim of its author is not so much to controvert the Bible, as to root out those instinctive convictions of human nature, which are the foundation of all religious belief. I will state to you the result of a careful analysis of his pamphlet. He pro

fesses "to demonstrate that a threefold unity, namely, a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial composition," pervades "the whole living world." This unity is produced by "protoplasm," "a single physical basis of life, underlying all the diversities of vital existence." What this protoplasm is, he illustrates by two particular instances, the hair of a nettle, and a drop of human blood, which he takes occasion to introduce. I will quote his words:-"The whole hair (of a nettle) consists of a very delicate outer case of wood, closely applied to the inner surface of which is a layer of semifluid matter, full of innumerable granules of extreme minuteness. This semi-fluid lining is protoplasm," and, "when viewed with a sufficiently high magnifying power, is scen to be in a condition of unceasing activity." Again, in a drop of blood, similarly viewed, are seen a "number of colourless corpuscles," which likewise "exhibit a marvellous activity. These, also, are a mass of protoplasm." In another passage he states, that "all the forms of protoplasm which have yet been examined contain the four elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in very complex union."

Now, these may be observed facts; and as they are perfectly consistent with the statements of the Bible, that "God made man (and doubtless all plants and other animals) out of the dust of the ground," and that "the blood is the life," I am not concerned about them. But how does he demonstrate the threefold unity that he speaks of? Leaving out all extraneous matter, his argument is simply this:-As to the unity of power and faculty; "all the multifarious and complicated activities of men are comprehensible," he tells us, "under three categories. Either they are immediately directed towards the maintenance and development of the body, or they affect transitory changes in the relative position of parts of the body, or they tend to the continuance of the species.' "But the scheme, which is large enough to embrace the activities of the highest form of life, covers all those of the lower creatures. The lowest plant or animalcule feeds, grows, and reproduces its kind." Therefore (here follows the Q. E. D. of the geometrician) "the acts of all living things are fundamentally one;" and, to use his own illustration, there is "a community of faculty" between "the brightcoloured lichen" on the rock "and the painter to whom it is instinct with beauty, or the botanist whom it feeds with knowledge." Again, as to form; "beast and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusc, worm, and polype," together with plants of every kind, "are all," as he informs us, "composed of structural units of the same character, viz., masses of protoplasm," either with or without "a nucleus." Hence he concludes that there is between all living things, "between the animalcule and the whale," and "between the fungus and the great pine of California," "a

community of form or structure." Lastly, as to substantial composition; his proof of this consists simply in the statement already quoted, that all forms of protoplasm contain the same four elements, and further that "they behave similarly to several re-agents." Hence, according to his conception, there is, as to their substance or material composition, no difference between "the flower which a girl wears in her hair, and the blood which courses through her youthful veins." Such is his mode of demonstrating this threefold unity. Does it not remind you of the reasons by which a horse-chestnut can be most conclusively proved to be a chestnut horse?

But it may be said, What has all this to do with the Bible, or with our religious belief? Nothing whatever. But the author, whose object evidently is, not to teach science, but to propagate infidelity, grounds upon it the inference, that all vegetable and animal life, including therein what we usually call spiritual life, is "the product of a certain disposition of material molecules," and that "matter and law have swallowed up spirit and spontaneity." At the same time he assures us that he is "no materialist;" for that, in fact, he does not believe in the real existence of either matter or spirit. Neverthelessso inconsistent are writers of this kind with themselves-he does not hesitate to use such phrases as, "I do not think he has any right to call me a sceptic," "I conceive that I am simply honest and truthful." What does it signify that a man calls him a sceptic, or what is to be honest and truthful, if "spirit, gesture, and every form of human action are," as he tells us, "resolvable into muscular contraction, and muscular contraction is but a transitory change in the relative positions of the parts of a muscle"? Again, he says that "our volition counts for something as a condition of the course of events." But what is volition, if law have devoured spontaneity? I will only remark further that, although I could not undertake to prove the existence of matter and spirit, there is certainly nothing in his pamphlet to shake my belief in the Bible statement, that not only did God form "man of the dust of the ground," but He also "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," and so "man became a living soul."

I now gladly turn from this painful branch of my subject. If I have spoken of these three works with severity, it has been because the object of the writers obviously is to produce in their readers a disbelief of the Bible; and, therefore, it appears to be a plain duty for the lovers of the Bible to point out that herein-observe, I only speak of them in reference to this particular matter-herein they have shown themselves, to use the language of the apostle Paul, "fools."

FRERE'S ANTIPODES AND ROUND THE WORLD.

The Antipodes, and Round the World. By Alice M. Frere (Mrs. Godfrey Clerk). London: Hatchards. 1870.

WE hardly think that Mrs. Godfrey Clerk-or, if she prefers it as a "nom de plume," Miss Frere-need have made any kind of apology for publishing an account of her travels. It is not, even in these days of incessant locomotion, every lady who contrives to make a journey round the world, or who can communicate the results in so pleasant a fashion. We think a good deal of the success of her volume may be fairly attributable to the fact that she has furnished a resumé of her notes, and has not interlarded them with subsequent additions from scientific, œconomic, and antiquarian works, to the confusion of her readers. One portentous note has been inserted from the Sydney Morning Herald, about the "Great Western Extension Railway;" but fortunately it is a note. We shuddered as we looked at it, and passed on and over. It may be that a sense of what might have been in the volume, and which is not there, has impressed us so favourably.

The book, then, as it stands, is manifestly the production of an intelligent and high-spirited English lady, who, generally, has the good sense to confine her remarks to subjects within the scope of her powers and information. Where, in one or two instances, she has transgressed them, we think she has gone astray. In the companionship of her father, and bearing his honoured name, she enjoyed unusual facilities for her adventurous exploit. Although she has not to tell

"of most disastrous chances,

Of moving accidents by flood and field,"

her powers of endurance were, no doubt, sorely taxed, and the amount of discomfort she experienced must have been at times extreme; but all seems to have been encountered with cheerfulness, and a kindly recognition of hospitality, even when most rude and uncouth.

Bombay was the point of departure from whence the travellers, via Galle, made their way to Melbourne. A lively account is furnished of that wonderful city, which, thirty years ago, was a dreary swamp, and the site of which was bought "from the aborigines for two blankets and a bottle of whiskey." The gold mines at Ballarat were duly visited. There is nothing remarkable in the account of Sydney, but the description of Brisbane and bush-travelling in Queensland is interesting. We have no wish to discourage emigration; but as no good is likely

to result from attempting it in ignorance, we extract a statement which may be interesting in the families of many of our readers :

"There was also a young man learning colonial experience,' which is considered the best and cheapest way, for one who has had no previous experience of manual labour, to begin a squatter's life. The arrangement is as follows: they pay about 100l. a-year to some squatter, and live as one of the family, doing whatever work may be required of them. In the course of a year or so, they have acquired sufficient knowledge to take some post on the station, for which they receive wages. Afterwards, if they go on well, they often become partners in the run.

"Many young men, who know nothing of colonial life, and have only heard of its pleasant side, go out to Australia with a few hundred pounds, upon which they think to live until something 'turns up.' They soon find that here money melts like ice in the sun, and that they are left at the end of a few months without a shilling in their pockets, and glad to take even menial employment to save themselves from starvation. When we were in Brisbane we were told that a gentleman, who had been a captain in the Guards, and major in a Dragoon regiment, was then head-waiter at an hotel far up country, in one of the most 'rowdy,' rough places in the whole colony. A short time before our arrival two English baronets were driving vehicles for hire about the streets.

"This young man at Pilton had given up his commission in the army to try and better his fortunes by emigration. He seemed trying to like getting up at five in the morning, chasing his horse, saddling him, and then, with one of the sons, riding off to seek, and drive back, strayed cattle, which sometimes involved the necessity of camping out all night, with only a blanket for covering, and a loaf and some tea by way of dinner. But it appeared to be a very hard lesson for him, and one which would take years to learn." (pp. 90, 91.)

New Zealand was next visited, where the party met with a hospitable reception at Bishop Selwyn's. Some account is given of the scenery, and the extreme discomfort arising from the lack of servants; but all the vexed questions of New Zealand politics are wisely left alone.

The estimate formed of Tasmania as a place of residence is very favourable. She says,

"Were I obliged to live in the colonies, I should wish my lot to be cast in Tasmania. There is something homelike in the gentlemen's places here; very different from the other colonies. The houses are good, substantial stone buildings, standing in parks, kept in good order, and well laid out; and near the houses are grounds and gardens, exactly like those of a fine country place at home, and with all the dear old English flowers in the borders, and such may hedges in the fields-forty feet high!-with, at this time,