286 
They have therefore hailed, as the rising of a new sun, the 
theory of natural selection as a means for constructing the 
worlds of life and organism, without the intervention of a 
Creator. For the use they make of it it is possible that its 
author will owe them little thanks ; but they are almost ready 
to forgive Mr. Darwin for his postulate of the original inter- 
vention of a God to infuse into inorganic matter the principle 
of life, in consideration of the greatness of his discovery. He 
is with them, the founder of the new age, in which the belief 
in the being of a God is destined to become an old wife s 
fable. _ . . Al 
62. Let it be observed, however, that the Darwinian theory, 
whatever be its merits or defects, is only a special form of a 
theory of creation by evolution. It assumes, in the first 
instance, a creative act, by which some cells had infused into 
them the principle of life. It then proceeds to account for 
the existence of every living form by the aid of two principles, 
designated natural and sexual selection, without any subsequent 
intervention of Divine power. Whatever may be thought of 
this particular theory, it is evident that a principle of evolution, 
by which I mean that all existing organisms have been gradu- 
ally evolved from one another by the Creator’s wisdom and 
power, through certain forces of which He possesses the absolute 
control, is as consistent with Theism as any other theory of 
creation. The only theories which are essentially atheistic and 
pantheistic are those which lay down that God is not the author 
of the laws of nature, nor their contriver, nor the director of 
their operations, and that blind forces can produce the phe- 
nomena which result from the operation of intelligence, and 
that forces can exist independently of His constant energy. 
The old theory of creation was, that each species was produced 
by a separate creative act, the idea being that its progenitors 
must have started into being entire and complete. I his 
may or may not have been the modus operandi employed 
by the Creator ; but, as a theory, it leaves us in the dark how 
creation was effected, except that it was the result of the exer- 
tion of the divine will. A theory of development professes to 
give the law of progress and to account for some of 'the means 
through which creation has been accomplished. Whether it 
has been effected in this way, or in that, can only be deter- 
mined by the facts of nature which throw light on the subject. 
To speak of creation out of nothing as an adequate solution of 
how creation has been effected is only a confession of our 
ignorance. The real point is, is the theory suggested an 
adequate account of the facts of nature? Are the means 
