316 
design before the reproduction commenced ? ” what is the obvious answer ? 
If the thing itself can grow, how can the parent get the idea of making a new 
production, unless through a scheme of design commensurate with the begin- 
ning of species, and going on until it comes to an end ? There is the evidence 
of design in the beginning — there is no break in it ; and, if there be only 
that design governing the whole system of reproduction, it is manifest that 
new species could not be produced ; that is to say, it could not in itself 
invent the growth of anything else ; for, even if it had its own evolution, 
that evolution must come to an end with itself. It cannot regulate, after it 
is dead and buried, the evolution of something else ; and, consequently, if 
anything else came without pre-ordained design, it would be an especially 
wonderful proceeding, because there would be no connecting link. The 
more you examine this, the more do you bring home to your mind the 
conviction that there must be design regulating continuity of life and species. 
It is very interesting, I think, when persons of great intellect and knowledge 
arrive at different ideas, to ask yourselves the question, “ How does the 
difference begin ? Where did it begin ? ” And the way in which it began 
is this : a certain class of philosophers took a very narrow view of what is 
called “ species.” They gave to species very definite limits, and these defined 
limits arose out of what is called the science of natural history, that is the 
classification of living creatures according to some selected feature, and 
from this a very narrow view of species was arrived at. Then, things are 
discovered which do not consist with the view that has been adopted, and 
hence there is contention through which some new fantasy arises. But the 
source of error appears to be, that the definition of species is much larger 
and more complicated than you will find in any book of natural history. 
It is not a thing that has a certain head or tail which makes it easy to grasp ; 
on the contrary, it is a very complicated thing, and the definition of it con- 
sists in a great number of conditions peculiar to its own species. Moreover, 
every species is not exact in its reproduction and continuity. It is in the 
nature of species that it should be liable and subject to natural and external 
influences which will produce divergencies, both internal and external, 
and yet not destroy the characteristics which constitute the species itself. 
This may arise from climate and from a great many other things ; but 
divergence is in the nature of every species, because we find no such thing as 
complete exactness in life. No two things are ever found exactly alike. If 
you examine a tree, you will see that no two of its leaves are exactly similar, 
and yet each has the characteristics of the parent plant on which it grows. 
The whole condition of nature is marked by variation, within certain limits 
and subordinated to certain rules applicable to species ; but, nevertheless, there 
is continuity of the species itself ; and, if you take a large and comprehen- 
sive view, you will find that the whole of Darwin’s writings are confined to 
the development of the one principle raised in the book I first read — his 
Origin of Species. I remember saying to myself, 11 This man is really a 
very clever and skilful observer; but he does not seem to have a large 
