270 DARWINIANA. 



produced bj a confessed tlieist, and based, as we have 

 seen, ii]3on thoroughly orthodox fundamental concep- 

 tions. Even if we may not hope to reconcile the dif- 

 ference between the theologian and the naturalist, it 

 may be well to ascertain where their real divergence 

 begins, or ought to begin, and what it amounts to. 

 Seemingly, it is in their proximate, not in their ulti- 

 mate, principles, as Dr. Hodge insists when he declares 

 that the whole di'ift of Darwinism is to prove that 

 everything " may be accounted for by the blind opera- 

 tion of natural causes, without any intention, pui'pose, 

 or cooperation of God " (page 64). '' Why don't he 

 say," cries the theologian, ^' that the complicated or- 

 gans of plants and animals are the product of the di- 

 vine intelhgence ? If God made them, it makes no 

 difference, so far as the question of design is concerned, 

 how he made them, whether at once or by process of 

 evolution" (page 58). But, as we have seen, Mr. Dar- 

 win does say that, and he over and over implies it 

 when he refers the production of species "" to second- 

 ary causes," and likens their origination to the origi- 

 nation of individuals ; species being series of individuals 

 with greater difference. It is not for the theologian 

 to object that the power which made individual men 

 and other animals, and all the differences which the 

 races of mankind exhibit, through secondary causes, 

 could not have originated congeries of more or 

 less greatly differing individuals through the same 

 causes. 



Clearly, then, the difference between the theologian 

 and the naturalist is not fundamental, and evolution 

 may be as profoundly and as particularly theistic as it is 



