elemental forces of Nature are working for them. Not a star comes to
the meridian at its calculated time but testifies to the justice of
their methods--their beliefs are "one with falling rain and with the
growing corn." By doubt they are established, and open inquiry is
their bosom friend. Such men have no fear of traditions however
venerable, and no respect for them when they become mischievous and
obstructive; but they have better than mere antiquarian business in
hand, and if dogmas, which ought to be fossil but are not, are not
forced upon their notice, they are too happy to treat them as
non-existent.

The hypotheses respecting the origin of species which profess to stand
upon a scientific basis, and, as such, alone demand serious attention,
are of two kinds. The one, the "special creation" hypothesis, presumes
every species to have originated from one or more stocks, these not
being the result of the modification of any other form of living
matter--or arising by natural agencies--but being produced, as such, by
a supernatural creative act.

The other, the so-called "transmutation" hypothesis, considers that all
existing species are the result of the modification of pre-existing
species, and those of their predecessors, by agencies similar to those
which at the present day produce varieties and races, and therefore in
an altogether natural way; and it is a probable, though not a necessary
consequence of this hypothesis, that all living beings have arisen from
a single stock. With respect to the origin of this primitive stock, or
stocks, the doctrine of the origin of species is obviously not
necessarily concerned. The transmutation hypothesis, for example, is
perfectly consistent either with the conception of a special creation
of the primitive germ, or with the supposition of its having arisen, as