This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884. Excerpt: ... But we may say, in conclusion, we have uttered and recorded anew our protest against Sir John Lubbock's theory, which was our own in earlier years, and which we defended earnestly till the end of 1842. It was the discovery of its unscientific character, its utter untenableness, that converted us from the rabid radicalism which we had defended all our life, to conservatism, and prepared the way by divine grace for a further conversion, that to the Catholic, the Christian, faith. We learned then that the spirit of the age is not necessarily divine, nor always an infallible criterion of truth and error, or of right and wrong; that, if popular sentiment is in general on the side of justice, popular opinion is not seldom simply a popular delusion. We have in this article combated a nular delusion, not with any hope of recovering the desd, for no one can be reasoned out of a delusion, but in the hope of guarding those yet in their senses from losing them. The recovery of the deluded can be effected only by divine grace. DARWIN'S DESCENT OF MAN. From Browuson's Quarterly Review for July, 1873. Mb. Darwin's theory of the descent of man from the ape or some other of the monkey tribe depends on his theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection. Which in its turn depends on the theory of progress, which we refuted in our review of Sir John Lubbock s theory of the origin of civilization; or, perhaps, more remotely on Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution as set forth in his First Principles of a A/ew System of Philosophy, which itself depends on the theory of the correlation of forces. If Sir John's theory of the origin of civilization is untenable, or if Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution is evidently false, unproved, and unprovable, Darwin's theo...