Let them not shut their eyes to the danger which is obviously coming. The battle of the Evidences will have as certainly to be fought on the field of physical science, as it was contested in the last age on that of the metaphysics. And on this new arena the combatants will have to employ new weapons, which it will be the privilege of the challenger to choose. The old, opposed to these, would prove but of little avail. In an age of muskets and artillery, the bows and arrows of an obsolete school of warfare would be found greatly less than sufficient, in the field of battle, for purposes either of assault or defence. “There are two kinds of generation in the world,” says Professor Lorenz Oken, in his “Elements of Physio-philosophy;” “the creation proper, and the propagation that is sequent thereupon—or the _generatio originaria_ and _secundaria_. Consequently, no organism has been created of larger size than an infusorial point. No organism is, nor ever has one been created, which is not microscopic. Whatever is larger has not been created, but developed. Man has not been created, but developed.” Such, in a few brief dogmatic sentences, is the development theory. What, in order to establish its truth, or even to render it in some degree probable, ought to be the geological evidence regarding it? The reply seems obvious. In the first place, the earlier fossils ought to be very _small_ in size; in the second, very _low_ in organization. In cutting into the stony womb of nature, in order to determine what it contained mayhap millions of ages ago, we must expect, if the development theory be true, to look upon mere embryos and fœtuses. And if we find, instead, the full grown and the mature, then must we hold that the testimony of Geology is not only _not in accordance_ with the theory, but in positive opposition to it. Such, palpably, is the _principle_ on which, in this matter, we ought to decide. What are the _facts_?