48 
ample, are Darwin's “ laws of variation ” but just Darwin's 
ideas ? And, as we shall see, there is nothing among all the 
changing thoughts of humanity more self-contradictory than 
these same ideas. What are Sir Charles Lyell's laws im- 
pressed on the materials out of which the earth itself is con- 
structed, but just the ideas of that very amiable geologist ? 
And when we compare the first and the last of the ten editions 
of his “ Principles,” how perfectly does one set of these ideas 
destroy the other ! But it is the same all through the wide 
world of what are called “ laws of nature.” How marvellous 
that men should mistake their own ever-changing notions for 
Divine Pule ! 
Uniformity represents an idea only : and when the term is 
used as expressive of the relation of one change to another in 
nature, its meaning is loose in the extreme. To a child at a 
certain stage of his knowledge any man is his father — a little 
further on, and only some men call forth his exclamation of 
“ papa !” — by-and-by only one man does so. To an untutored 
observer all green things growing on the surface of a grassy 
field are simply “ grass ” — when that same mind has learned 
a little more, there are some green things that are “ weeds,” 
and not grass — to that mind, when highly educated botanically, 
there appears a vast variety of plants” in that field. But 
to the most cultivated botanist on earth there is a variety of 
constantly changing forms among these plants almost infinitely 
beyond his utmost powers of discrimination. No two blades are 
exactly alike, nor is one bud or seed produced with precisely 
the same germinal character as another. What then does 
“ uniformity” mean when applied to such changes as issue in 
that variety ? Only something very like that which makes a 
young child call every man his father. We have the faculty 
of observing certain points in nature which have a certain 
degree of sameness in their relation to each other; and the 
faculty is of great practical value ; but it falls immeasurably 
short of what those imagine who speak of exactness in human 
thought. We shall see the bearing of such remarks as these 
when we direct our attention to the much-agitated questions 
that relate to the likenesses and diversities which give rise to 
such abstractions as those expressed by “ species ” and such- 
like terms. 
In dealing, then, abstractly with forms, and types, and 
laws of life, it is necessary to remember that we are dealing 
with states of mind only. Our field is one of thoughts rather 
than of things. In this field all about which we reason is 
constantly and strangely changing, for all consists of the ever- 
fluctuating notions of men. Certain of these notions are no 
