60 
additional species, all referable to the same great classes as 
those now existing, and mostly referable to the same orders 
also It shows us that these species were most like m those 
periods of the earth's past existence nearest to each other in 
point of time, most unlike in those most remote. It gives us 
the clearest proof of gradual alteration in the predominant 
species from period to period, or even within the same period, 
each strata and each layer of strata being on the whole inter- 
mediate in character between those immediately above and 
below. It gives us especially a number of most valuable 
additional links in the chain of being, which tend to bring 
genus and genus, order and order, class and class, ever nearer 
and nearer to each other. In a word, its whole evidence is, 
considering its imperfect character, precisely what the Dar- 
winian hypothesis would have led us to expect. 
Thus on every hand, and in every possible way, the consist- 
ency of the theory is tried, and still it stands the test. In 
many respects, no doubt, the evidence at our disposal is 
insufficient to warrant definite conclusions ; m others the con- 
sistency is rather hypothetically possible than demonstrably 
certain ; but in no respect does there seem the slightest reason 
to pronounce it certainly inconsistent. 
4. It remains only now to apply the last inquiry concerning 
the hypothesis ; — is it harmonious ? It is of course conceivable 
for an hypothesis to be both possible, adequate, and sufficien , 
so far as our evidence goes, and yet not be true. It is asked, 
then, is there any ground of analogy to render it probable 
that Darwinism, if it eventually answers these three mam 
requirements, is the true explanation of the phenomena in 
question? In other words, is the method in which it asserts 
species to have originated one which there is reason to regar 
as in accordance with the ordinary and known workings o 
God ? Here, then, we come to the Theology of Darwinism. 
Its relations to Scripture I purposely pass by, for I do not 
believe that Scripture was ever meant to teach us science, and 
hence that the less they are brought into comparison, me 
better for each. But as regards its Theology, I make two 
remarks. In the first place, it assumes no cause, torce, or 
influence other than those known to be at work at the present 
day. By growth and reproduction, all living beings now 
propagate themselves, by inheritance they communicate their 
characteristics to their descendants, by uatural selection the 
predominance of race and individual are determine , v 
these, co-working with variation, some changes at all events, 
be they few or many, be they great or small, are unquestion- 
ably produced. All that Darwinism requires of us is to be- 
