not　a　mere　brute　necessity；　a　Law　（absurd　misnomer）　without　a
  Lawgiver；　and　to　it　（strangely　enough　coinciding　here　and　there
  with　the　Platonic　doctrine　of　Eternal　Ideas　existing　in　the　Divine
  Mind）　all　fresh　inductive　discovery　seems　to　point　more　and　more。
  Let　me　speak　freely　a　few　words　on　this　important　matter。　　Geology
  has　disproved　the　old　popular　belief　that　the　universe　was　brought
  into　being　as　it　now　exists　by　a　single　fiat。　　We　know　that　the
  work　has　been　gradual；　that　the　earth
  〃In　tracts　of　fluent　heat　began；
  The　seeming　prey　of　cyclic　storms；
  The　home　of　seeming　random　forms；
  Till；　at　the　last；　arose　the　man。〃
  And　we　know；　also；　that　these　forms；　〃seeming　random〃　as　they　are；
  have　appeared　according　to　a　law　which；　as　far　as　we　can　judge；　has
  been　on　the　whole　one　of　progress；　…　lower　animals　（though　we
  cannot　yet　say；　the　lowest）　appearing　first；　and　man；　the　highest
  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　substitutin