than he always believed them to be?  As for the theory being impossible:  we must leave the discussion of that to physical students.  It is not for us clergymen to limit 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 time shall last.  If it be said that natural selection is too simple a cause to produce such fantastic variety:  that, again, is a question to be settled exclusively by physical students.  All we have to say on the matter is, that we always knew that God works by very simple, or seemingly simple, means; that the whole universe, as far as we could discern it, was one concatenation of the most simple means; that it was wonderful, yea, miraculous in our eyes, that a child should resemble its parents, that the raindrops should make the grass grow, that the grass should become flesh, and the flesh sustenance for the thinking brain of man.  Ought God to seem less or more august in our eyes, when we are told that His means are even more simple than we supposed?  We held Him to be Almighty and Allwise.  Are we to reverence Him less or more, if we hear that His might is greater, His wisdom deeper, than we ever dreamed?  We believed that His care was over all His works; that His Providence watched perpetually over the whole universe.  We were taught—­some of us at least—­by Holy Scripture, to believe that the whole history of the universe was made up of special Providences.  If, then, that should be true which Mr. Darwin writes:  “It may be metaphorically said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up that which is good, silently and incessantly working whenever and wherever opportunity offers at the improvement of every organic being”—­if that, I say, were proven 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 Science if she should show how those words are true?  What, in one word, should we have to say but this?—­We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things make themselves.

But it may be said:  These notions are contrary to Scripture.  I must beg very humbly, but very firmly, to demur to that opinion.  Scripture says that God created.  But it nowhere defines that term.  The means, the How of Creation, is nowhere specified.  Scripture, again, says that organised beings were produced each according to their kind.  But it nowhere defines that term.  What a kind includes, whether it includes or not the capacity of varying (which is just the question in point), is nowhere specified.  And I think it a most important rule in scriptural exegesis, to be most cautious as to limiting the meaning of any term which Scripture itself has not limited, lest we find ourselves putting into the teaching of Scripture our own human theories or prejudices.  And consider, Is not man a kind?  And has not mankind varied, physically, intellectually, spiritually?  Is not the Bible, from beginning to end, a history of the variations of mankind, for worse or for better, from their original type?