DESIGN. 245 



Now this was not so to any one of the other evolu- 

 tionists whom we have already seen named. That was 

 not so to Charles Kingsley. He believed in a majestic 

 in volution at the will of God, which, necessarily of design, 

 was followed in turn by a no less majestic evolution at 

 the will of God. Nay, is there not reason to surmise 

 that this may be the position of the greater number of 

 evolutionists, even of those that believe themselves 

 Darwinians? Mr. Darwin, in the Historical Sketch 

 that begins the Origin, refers to no less than twenty- 

 eight names of naturalists whom it is understood that we 

 shall assume to be less or more in sympathy with him- 

 self. The less or more is a less or more, however, of a 

 very considerable latitude. Buffon may have been less 

 or more inclined to mere nature both for Design and 

 Divinity ; but what of his (Darwin's) own grandfather 

 what of Geoflrey Saint Hilaire, Wells, Herbert, 

 Chambers, V. Baer, Owen what of these, not to name 

 the others, though I fancy even of them, even of the 

 whole list, as regards Design and Deity, one or other, or 

 both, we may with perfect security put the same ques- 

 tion. Why, Mr. Darwin seeks to claim Aristotle as all 

 for necessity him who was the deepest and most com- 

 prehensive thinker that ever lived and he, Aristotle, 

 was the purest theist of the whole of Pagandom, while 

 of him, Aristotle, Design was absolutely the principle ! 



But there were evolutionists, even before Lamarck, even 

 before Dr. Erasmus Darwin. There was the celebrated 

 Newtonian, Maupertius, 1697-1759: transmutation by 

 breeding or even selection may be read into his " Venus 

 Physique :" but he was a teleologist, and " stood firm by 

 the necessary assumption of a First Originator of all 

 things a supramundane and extramundane God." There 

 was Bonnet, 1720-1793. Bonnet was opposed to suc- 

 cessive acts of creation ; he believed simply in evolution 



