valves also in the blood-vessels, could never be formed in the manner which our theorist proposes. The blood, in its right and natural course, has no tendency to form them. When obstructed or refluent, it has the contrary. These parts could not grow out of their use, though they had eternity to grow in.

"The senses of animals appear to me altogether incapable of receiving the explanation of their origin which this theory affords. Including under the word "sense" the organ and the perception, we have no account of either. How will our philosopher get at vision, or make an eye? How should the blind animal effect sight, of which blind animals, we know, have neither conception nor desire? Affecting it, by what operation of its will, by what endeavor to see, could it so determine the fluids of its body, as to inchoate the formation of an eye; or suppose the eye formed, would the perception follow? The same of the other senses. And this objection holds its force, ascribe what you will to the hand of time, to the power of habit, to changes too slow to be observed by man, or brought within any comparison which he is able to make of past things with the present: concede what you please to these arbitrary and unattested suppositions, how will they help you? Here is no inception. No laws, no course, no powers of nature which prevail at present, nor any analogous to these, could give commenceAnd it is in vain to inquire how that might

ment to a new sense.

proceed, which could never begin.

'I think the senses to be the most inconsistent with the hypothesis before us, of any part of the animal frame. But other parts are sufficiently so. The solution does not apply to the parts of animals which have little in them of motion. If we could suppose joints and muscles to be gradually formed by action and exercise, what action or exercise could form a skull, or fill it with brains? No effort of the animal could determine the clothing of its skin. What conatus could give prickles to the porcupine or hedgehog, or to the sheep its fleece?

In the last place: What do these appetencies mean when applied to plants? I am not able to give a signification to the term, which can be transferred from animals to plants; or which is common to both. Yet a no less successful organization is found in plants, than what obtains in animals. A solution is wanted for one as well as the other.

'Upon the whole, after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity, The marks of design, are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God.'

The infinite folly of these vagaries,—and they are precisely similar to those advanced by the evolutionists of to-day,—is here most thoroughly exposed. For they are a series of senseless guesses unsupported by a single fact; even the apology of a fact offered, that of worms in the intestines, being selfevidently without foundation, as has since been proven. And such guesses are made, although we know from a million facts, or indeed untold millions, that things are created through the action of a power infinitely more remarkable and wonderful, that of intelligence.

XLI.

"ELLEN has no controversy with those who do not believe

in a God, if there are any such; but those who do, believe that He is eternal. Then His power to create is eternal, nor is it to be supposed that such a power would exist and not be used.

"Besides, to any intelligent person who seriously considers the subject, it is self-evident not only that mind is the sole creative power, but also that it is necessary to the continuance of any material creation in working order. This Ellen has referred to before. For every material thing is constantly getting out of repair, and cannot repair itself any more than it can make itself. We know that this is true in our experience, and, the laws of nature being universal, we know it is equally true throughout the universe.

But

“And again, any possible creation is special creation. creation is by design, and design is limit. Hence all special creation is limited. And therefore the statement of the Bible is, in principle, the only possible explanation of the universe:

'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

'And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

'And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

'And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.