404 The Critics of Evolution. [June, 
evolution by doing away with the theory of creation does away 
with that of final causes,’ let us boldly answer, ‘ Not in the least.’ 
We might accept all that Mr. Darwin, all that Prof. Huxley, &c., 
have written, and yet preserve our natural theology on the same 
basis as that on which Butler and Paley left it. That we should 
have to develop it I do not deny. Let us look rather with calm- 
ness and even with hope and good-will on these new theories ; 
they surely mark a tendency towards a more or less scriptural 
view of nature. Of old it was said of Him without whom noth- | 
ing is made, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ Shall 
we quarrel with science if she should show how these words are 
true? What, in one word, should we have to say but this, ‘We 
know of old that God was so wise that He could make all things, 
but behold, He is so much more than even that, that he can make 
all things make themselves.’ ” 
Kingsley was wise in his generation. He well knew that 
theologians had always been worsted in their conflicts with sci- 
ence, and he would ward off the injury to religion that invariably 
follows the defeat of her teachers. Moreover, his acquaintance 
with natural science gave him an extraordinary advantage over 
such divines as Dr. Hodge, Herbert Morris, et td omne genus. 
Kingsley knew the force of the position taken by Prof. White, of 
Cornell University, in his “ Warfare of Science,” and the truth of 
which he has incontestably proved in that excellent and pithy 
work ; that “In all modern history, interference with science in 
the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious 
such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils, 
both to religion and science, izvaridély, And on the other hand 
all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous 
to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, 
has invariably resulted in the highest good of religion and of 
science.” 
Origin of Species.—The opponents of evolution sometimes 
quote a passage from Huxley, as follows, it is “ my clear convic- 
` tion that as the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely proven 
that a group of animals having all the characteristics exhibited 
by a species in nature, has ever been originated by selection 
whether artificial or natural.” (“Lay Sermons,” p. 295.) They 
evidently forget Huxley’s demonstration of the evolution of the 
horse. ‘This demonstration does not admit of a doubt,” says an 
excellent authority. Dr. McCosh, as already quoted, says “ I do 
fully believe that those old horse forms were preparations for the 
