Judge' or 'Developing Power'? Can we have _fixed_ articles of faith and morals in this system, any more than in the other? No. '_Unus utrisque error, sed variis ill[=u]det partibus._' There is the same evil in both, but it operates in different ways; in the former, every one develops for himself; in the latter, the Pope develops for every one. You look with fear on the progress of Rationalism; and what hope can any man derive from that of Romanism?"[101] * * * * * We have examined, each on its own peculiar merits, the various forms of the Theory of Development which have been propounded in modern times, and applied to account for the origin of planets and astral systems, of vegetable and animal races, and of the different successive systems of human opinion and belief. We have found that, imposing as it may seem to be, and high as its pretensions are, that theory has no claim to the character of a scientific doctrine; that it is a mere hypothesis, and nothing more; a speculative figment, which may be injurious to those who thoughtlessly dally with it, but which can have no power to hurt any one who will resolutely lay hold of it, and examine its claims. "Gently, softly, touch a nettle, And it stings you for your pains; Grasp it, like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." It is only necessary to add, that _the same general principle_ seems to be involved in _all_ the forms of this theory,--the principle, namely, that we are bound to account for the past _only_ by causes known to be in actual operation at the present day. M. Comte lays it down in the following terms: "Our conjectures on the origin, or formation of our world should evidently be subjected to this indispensable condition,--not to allow of the interposition of any other natural agents than those whose influence we clearly discern in our ordinary phenomena, and whose operations, _then_, would only be on a greater scale. Without this rule, our work can have no truly scientific character, and we shall fall into the inconvenience, so justly made a ground of reproach to the greater number of geological hypotheses,--that of introducing, for the purpose of explaining the ancient revolutions of the globe, agencies which do not exist at the present day, and whose influence it is impossible, for that very reason, to verify or even to comprehend." The same principle is strongly stated, but with due limitation, by Sir Charles Lyell, who insists on the explanation of all terrestrial changes by _means of causes and according to laws known to be in operation at the present day_: "During the progress of Geology, there have been great fluctuations of opinion respecting the nature of the causes to which all former changes in the earth's surface are referable. The first observers conceived that the monuments which the Geologist endeavors to decipher relate to a period when the physical