developmental view of the cosmos combining stellar evolution with progressive transmutation of species in the same spirit as the late Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck had been discredited among intellectuals by this time, and evolutionary (or development) theories were exceedingly unpopular, except among political radicals, and materialists. Chambers, however, tried to explicitly distance his own theory from that of Lamarck's by denying Lamarck's evolutionary mechanism any plausibility. "Now it is possible that wants and the exercise of faculties have entered in some manner into the production of the phenomena which we have been considering; but certainly not in the way suggested by Lamarck, whose whole notion is obviously so inadequate to account for the rise of the organic kingdoms, that we only can place it with pity among the follies of the wise." Additionally, his work was far more sweeping in scope than any of his predecessors. "The book, as far as I am aware," he writes in his concluding chapter, "is the first attempt to connect the natural sciences in a history of creation." Robert Chambers was certainly aware of the storm that would probably be raised at the time by his treatment of the subject, and most importantly he did not wish to get his and his brother's publishing firm involved in any kind of scandal that could potentially ruin or severely impact their business venture. The arrangements for publication, therefore, were made through a friend named Alexander Ireland, of Manchester. To further prevent the possibility of any unwanted revelations, Chambers only disclosed the secret to four people: his wife, his brother William, Ireland, and George Combe's nephew, Robert Cox. All correspondence to and from Chambers passed through Ireland's hands first, and all letters and manuscripts were dutifully transcribed in Mrs. Chamber's hand to prevent the possibility of anyone recognizing Robert's handwriting. By implying that God might not actively sustain the natural and social hierarchies, the book threatened the social order and could provide ammunition to Chartists and revolutionaries. Anglican clergymen and naturalists attacked the book, with the geologist Adam Sedgwick predicting "ruin and confusion in such a creed" which, if taken up by the working classes, "will undermine the whole moral and social fabric" bringing "discord and deadly mischief in its train". The book was liked by many Quakers and Unitarians. The Unitarian physiologist William Benjamin Carpenter called it "a very beautiful and a very interesting book", and