mammal； 〃the roof and crown of things；〃 one of the latest in the
series。 We have no more right； let it be observed； to say that
man； the highest； appeared last； than that the lowest appeared
first。 It was probably so； in both cases； but there is as yet no
positive proof of either； and as we know that species of animals
lower than those which already existed appeared again and again
during the various eras； so it is quite possible that they may be
appearing now； and may appear hereafter： and that for every
extinct Dodo or Moa； a new species may be created； to keep up the
equilibrium of the whole。 This is but a surmise： but it may be
wise； perhaps； just now； to confess boldly； even to insist on； its
possibility； lest any should fancy； from our unwillingness to allow
it； that there would be ought in it； if proved； contrary to sound
religion。
I am； I must honestly confess； more and more unable to perceive
anything which an orthodox Christian may not hold； in those
physical theories of 〃evolution；〃 which are gaining more and more
the assent of our best zoologists and botanists。 All that they ask
us to believe is； that 〃species〃 and 〃families；〃 and indeed the
whole of organic nature； have gone through； and may still be going
through； some such development from a lowest germ； as we know that
every living individual； from the lowest zoophyte to man himself；
does actually go through。 They apply to the whole of the living
world； past； present； and future； the law which is undeniably at
work on each individual of it。 They may be wrong； or they may be
right： but what is there in such a conception contrary to any
doctrine … at least of the Church of England？ To say that this
cannot be true； that species cannot vary； because God； at the
beginning； created each thing 〃according to its kind；〃 is really to
beg the question； which is … Does the idea of 〃kind〃 include
variability or not？ and if so； how much variability？ Now； 〃kind；〃
or 〃species；〃 as we call it； is defined nowhere in the Bible。 What
right have we to read our own definition into the word？ … and that
against the certain fact； that some 〃kinds〃 do vary； and that
widely； … mankind； for instance； and the animals and plants which
he domesticates。 Surely that latter fact should be significant； to
those who believe； as I do； that man was created in the likeness of
God。 For if man has the power； not only of making plants and
animals vary； but of developing them into forms of higher beauty
and usefulness than their wild ancestors possessed； why should not
the God in whose image he is made possess the same power？ If the
old theological rule be true … 〃There is nothing in man which was
not first in God〃 （sin； of course； excluded） … then why should not
this imperfect creative faculty in man be the very guarantee that
God possesses it in perfection？
Such at least is the conclusion of one who； studying certain
families of plants； which indulge in the most fantastic varieties
of shape and size； and yet through all their vagaries retain … as
do the Palms； the Orchids； the Euphorbiaceae … one organ； or form
of organs； peculiar and highly specialized； yet constant throughout
the whole of each family； has been driven to the belief that each
of these three families； at least； has 〃sported off〃 from one
common ancestor … one archetypal Palm； one archetypal Orchid； one
archetypal Euphorbia； simple； it may be； in itself； but endowed
with infinite possibilities of new and complex beauty； to be
developed； not in it； but in its descendants。 He has asked
himself； sitting alone amid the boundless wealth of tropic forests；
whether even then and there the great God might not be creating
round him； slowly but surely； new forms of beauty？ If he chose to
do it； could He not do it？ That man found himself none the worse
Christian for the thought。 He has said … and must be allowed to
say again； for he sees no reason to alter his words … in speaking
of the wonderful variety of forms in the Euphorbiaceae； from the
weedy English Euphorbias； the Dog's Mercuries； and the Box； to the
prickly…stemmed Scarlet Euphorbia of Madagascar； the succulent
Cactus…like Euphorbias of the Canaries and elsewhere； the Gale…like
Phyllanthus； the many…formed Crotons； the Hemp…like Maniocs；
Physic…nuts； Castor…oils； the scarlet Poinsettia； the little pink
and yellow Dalechampia； the poisonous Manchineel； and the gigantic
Hura； or sandbox tree； of the West Indies； … all so different in
shape and size； yet all alike in their most peculiar and complex
fructification； and in their acrid milky juice；… 〃What if all these
forms are the descendants of one original form？ Would that be one
whit the more wonderful than the theory that they were； each and
all； with the minute； and often imaginary； shades of difference
between certain cognate species among them； created separately and
at once？ But if it be so … which I cannot allow … what would the
theologian have to say； save that God's works are even more
wonderful than he always believed them to be？ As for the theory
being impossible … that is to be decided by men of science； on
strict experimental grounds。 As for us theologians； who are we；
that we should limit； ？priori； the power of God？ 'Is anything too
hard for the Lord？' asked the prophet of old； and we have a right
to ask it as long as the world shall last。 If it be said that
'natural selection；' or； as Mr。 Herbert Spencer better defines it；
the 'survival of the fittest；' is too simple a cause to produce
such fantastic variety … that； again； is a question to be settled
exclusively by men of science； on their own grounds。 We；
meanwhile； always knew that God works by very simple； or seemingly
simple； means； that the universe； as far as we could discern it；
was one organization of the most simple means。 It was wonderful …
or should have been … in our eyes； that a shower of rain should
make the grass grow； and that the grass should become flesh； and
the flesh food for the thinking brain of man。 It was … or ought to
have been … more wonderful yet to us that a child should resemble
its parents； or even a butterfly resemble； if not always； still
usually； its parents likewise。 Ought God to appear less or more
august in our eyes if we discover that the means are even simpler
than we supposed？ We held Him to be Almighty and All…wise。 Are we
to reverence Him less or more if we find Him to be so much
mightier； so much wiser； than we dreamed； that He can not only make
all things； but … the very perfection of creative power … MAKE ALL
THINGS MAKE THEMSELVES？ We believed that His care was over all His
works； that His providence worked perpetually over the universe。
We were taught … some of us at least … by Holy Scripture； that
without Him not a sparrow fell to the ground； and that the very
hairs of our head were all numbered； that the whole history of the
universe was made up； in fact； of an infinite network of special
providences。 If； then； that should be true which a great
naturalist writes； 'It may be metaphorically said that natural
selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing； throughout the world；
every variation； even the slightest； rejecting that which is bad；
preserving and adding up all that is good； silently and insensibly
working； whenever and wherever opportunity offers； at the
improvement of each organic being； in relation to its organic and
inorganic conditions of life；' … if this； I say； were proved to be
true； ought God's care and God's providence to seem less or more
magnificent in our eyes？ Of old it was said by Him without whom
nothing is made … 'My Father worketh hitherto； and I work。' Shall
we quarrel with physical science； if she gives us evidence that
those words are true？〃
And … understand it well … the grand passage I have just quoted
need not be accused of substituting 〃natural selection for God。〃
In any case natural selection would be only the means or law by
which God works； as He does by other natural laws。 We do not
substitute gravitation for God； when we say that the planets are
sustained in their orbits by the law of gravitation。 The theory
about natural selection may be untrue； or imperfect； as may the
modern theories of the 〃evolution and progress〃 of organic forms：
let the man of science decide that。 But if true； the theories seem
to me perfectly to agree with； and may be perfectly explained by；
the simple old belief which the Bible sets before us； of a LIVING
GOD： not a mere past will； such as the Koran sets forth； creating
once and for all； and then leaving the universe； to use Goethe's
simile； 〃to spin round his finger；〃 nor again； an 〃all…pervading
spirit；〃 words which are mere contradictory jargon； concealing；
from those who utter them； blank Materialism： but One who works in
all things which have obeyed Him to will and to do of His good
pleasure； keeping His abysmal and self…perfect purpose； yet
altering the methods by which that purpose is attained； from aeon
to aeon； ay； from moment to moment； for ever various； yet for ever
the same。 This great and yet most blessed paradox of the
Changeless God； who yet can say 〃It repenteth me；〃 and 〃Behold； I
work a new thing on the earth；〃 is revealed no less by nature than
by Scripture； the changeableness； not of caprice or imperfection；
but of an Infinite Maker and 〃Poietes；〃 drawing ever fresh forms
out of the inexhaustible treasury of His primaeval Mind； and yet
never throwing away a conception to which He has once given actual
birth in time and space； （but to compare reverently small things
and great） lovingly repeating it； re…applying it； producing the
same effects by endlessly different methods； or so delicately
modifying the method that； as by t