The sentence you quote from it seems very true, but I do not agree with the theological conclusion.

I think he quotes from Asa Gray, certainly not from me; but I have neither A.Gray nor "Origin" with me.
Indeed, I have over and over again said in the "Origin" that Natural Selection does nothing without variability; I have given a whole chapter on laws, and used the strongest language how ignorant we are on these laws.

But I agree that I have somehow (Hooker says it is owing to my title) not made the great and manifest importance of previous variability plain enough.

Breeders constantly speak of Selection as the one great means of improvement; but of course they imply individual differences, and this I should have thought would have been obvious to all in Natural Selection; but it has not been so.
I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you honestly tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the shape of my nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent cause ?" (132/3.

It should be remembered that the shape of his nose nearly determined Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to H.M.S.