one living form is more like God than another; we must hold all
equally like Him, inasmuch as they "keep ever," as Buffon says,
"the same fundamental unity, in spite of differences of detail-
nutrition, development, reproduction" (and, I would add,
"memory") "being the common traits of all organic bodies." The
utmost we can admit is, that some embodiments of the Spirit of
Life may be more important than others to the welfare of Life as
a whole, in the same way as some of our organs are more important
than others to ourselves.

But the above resemblances between the language which we can
adopt intelligently and that which Theologians use vaguely, seem
to reduce the differences of opinion between the two contending
parties to disputes about detail. For even those who believe
their ideas to be the most definite, and who picture to
themselves a God as anthropomorphic as He was represented by
Raffaelle, are yet not prepared to stand by their ideas if they
are hard pressed in the same way as we are by ours. Those who say
that God became man and took flesh upon Him, and that He is now
perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting, will yet not mean that Christ has a heart, blood, a
stomach, etc., like man's, which, if he has not, it is idle to
speak of him as "perfect man." I am persuaded that they do not
mean this, nor wish to mean it; but that they have been led into
saying it by a series of steps which it is very easy to
understand and sympathise [sic] with, if they are considered with
any diligence.

For our forefathers, though they might and did feel the existence
of a Personal God in the world, yet could not demonstrate this