THE GENESIS OF XATUiiF. 



27 



That indeed is its kernel-thought, its very mainspring. Eealized 

 or unreahzed, underlying unity is' the only basis upon which any 

 theory of development can possibly rest. AVhether the super- 

 structure 1)6 sound or not, eveiy worker who attempts to build 

 it must of necessity start from this foundation. If evolution 

 claims continuous supremacy over all kinds of life, it is 

 thereby simply asserting the original unity of animated nature. 

 If it goes so far as to demand the identity of lile and non-life, 

 it it claims sway, not only over things material, but over things 

 mental and moral as well, it only thereby the more imperiously 

 proclaims that in all things natural there is an impress of 

 pristine unity. Whether evolution to its full, or indeed to any 

 extent, is to be accepted, is not the question here ; the sole 

 point is that its very employment as a working hypothesis, a 

 possible guide to the history of nature,' implies the a priori 

 acknowledgment of the unity of origin of that nature. Original 

 unity cannot be consistently denied by any evolutionist ; but 

 original unity in things made (whether in fact, as the extreme 

 form of the theory requires, or in conception as any form of it 

 rei|uires)must predicate actual unity in the maker: for it would 

 be an absurdity to imagine two originators setting out to 

 produce Xature, and from their diverse starting points inde- 

 pendently producing unity or uniformity in their twain 

 productions. Moreover even those who reject the theory of 

 evolution, agree with evolutionists in acknowledging this under- 

 lying uniformity, or unity in principle of existing and original 

 nature. And this fact, thus acknowledged on all sides, can 

 mean nothing else than this : that the originator of nature was 

 one, was intrinsic Unity Himself. 



11. We liave then reached thus far— that Xature, that the 

 universe, had one intelligent Originator, one antecedent 

 Creator. But we must ask one more question of our store- 

 house of data. What do they predicate to us with regard 

 to His intelligence, and to His moral character ? Can it 

 be said that the intelligence to be imputed to Him is only 

 sutticient to distinguish Him from chance, a measure of 

 intelligence enough only to produce the most archaic things ? 

 What do we see i One thing we have found to be certain ; the 

 cause must be adequate for the effect, for all the effects that 

 have been produced thereby. The measure of the intelligence 

 of the Producer is not His first production, but His last : not 

 His lowest work but His highest, or rather the sum of all His 

 works taken together from the lowest to the highest. If we 

 see in nature, not only unity, but the working out of that 



