223 
the miraeubus, if not quite inconsistent with philosophy, is 
at least to be restricted within the narrowest limits, and that 
any special act of creation is a miracle, it is expedient to 
reduce creation if possible, to the smallest possible number of 
acts • and which ends by concluding, that what elsewhere has 
v L f I V f endJ6SS CaUSation ' is merely a law of 
that t, " i W l 01 ' 1 no * has no definite beginning 
lr„f e tt ra0 u eTen T tO ° De S P ecial act creation ! This if 
wish tn I th ? u ^ as 1 conceive, only suited to those who 
wish to evade all acknowledgment of a final cause, or the 
esign of an intelligent and omnipotent Creator, and not to 
“ hv W arS S ^ tlsfled fkat the Creator has revealed to man, that 
by His word were all things created that are in heaven, and 
abt tn r6 th n u ’ T S ; ble and iwisible ” It cannot be palat- 
crit^u h ° Se T h n bel j. ev ® that th ere were consecutive acts of 
creation, m which God said “Let there be,” and there was,— 
that rwf S al m rrf S rr Wer6 created in a perfect state, (so 
l f HlS works and Pronounce them wry 
good,) and not imperfect works, left to perfect themselves by 
accidental laws of natural selection and emendation, carried 
on through aeons of ages. 
that I am not misinterpreting the tone of Mr. 
ove s address, I will quote from it some few passages : — 
“To suppose a zoophyte the progenitor of a mammal, or to suppose at 
some particular period of time a highly developed auimal to have come out of 
nothing, or suddenly grown out of inorganic matter, would appear at first 
ght equally extravagant hypotheses. As an effort of Almighty creative 
power, neither of these alternatives presents more difficulty than the other ; 
ut as we have no means of ascertaining how creative power worked, but by 
an examination and study of the works themselves, we are not likely to get 
either side proved to ocular demonstration.” 
Now, does not this passage ignore the revelation that God 
ias made to us, that He did act in a manner which is here de- 
signated as an apparently extravagant hypothesis ? and allege 
tftat in a matter where we cannot have demonstration, the 
same kind of faith by which we arrive at so many truths, even 
ot science, which do not admit of ocular demonstration, cannot 
lead us up to a rational, that is not an extravagant, hypothesis ? 
1 will quote another passage : — • 
“ The more the gaps between species are filled up by the discovery of inter- 
mediate varieties, the stronger becomes the argument for transmutation, and 
tlic weaker that for successive creations, because the former view then 
becomes more and more consistent with experience, the latter more discordant 
s 2 
