account of the other, it would have been simpler not to have created either. Mr Spencer puts a difficulty,Should any one allege, in conformity with the old method of interpretation, that there is in each case a providential interposition to rectify the disturbed balance, he commits himself to the supposition, that of the millions of species inhabiting the earth, each one is yearly regulated in its degree of fertility by a miracle; since in no two years do the forces which foster, or the forces which check, each species, remain the same; and therefore in no two years is there required the same fertility to balance the mortality. Few if any will say that God continually alters the reproductive activity of every parasitic fungus and every tapeworm or trichina, so as to prevent its extinction or undue multiplication; which they must say if they adopt the hypothesis of a supernatural adjustment.1

To all this we would say, in the first place, that the sort of perspective view of the struggle for existence necessarily given us in works like those of Mr Darwin and Mr Wallace, crowds the difficulties too closely together. When we rise up from reading the history of Europe, we have an uneasy feeling that the nations have done nothing but fighting; but this results from the way in which history is written-all the horrors of many centuries compressed into a few hundred pages. In reality, there were long intervals of peace for each nation, when the arts flourished, and people pursued literature and enjoyed domestic comfort; and even when war was raging, every nation was not engaged in the struggle, and of those which were so there were still many individuals remaining in their homes. It is much the same 2 Prin. of Biol., ii. 398.

BENEFIT OF THE STRUGGLE.

185

with nature the battle is not usually more intense than we see it to-day; and we know that the bees sip their nectar, the birds carol their joy, and many animals live to a good old age. When we reflect on this struggle, as remarked by Mr Darwin himself, we may console ourselves with the belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.

The creature that struggles is often stronger for the conflict-improved in every faculty and power-becomes almost a new animal, and transmits the improvement to its offspring. The cause of this struggle, the occasion of this improvement, is the scarcity of food; for if every creature could procure without effort an abundant supply of nutriment it would not exert itself, and there would be no competition of individual with individual, of species with species. Perhaps it may not seem impossible to conceive that all animals should have been exclusively vegetable feeders, and that the vegetation should have been sufficient for all, at anyrate if their powers of multiplying had been restricted; but then the various species would never have improved; or rather, as species originate through Natural Selection, none but the very lowest types would ever have been formed at all. Whatever reason therefore existed for the immense distribution of life through space and time, existed also for creating competition and struggle, and for that restriction in the food supply which leads to the struggle. Thus, even from the apparent difficulty of hunger and conflict, we extract an evidence of wisdom and a proof of beneficence.

Death.

Because of the manifold sorrows and cala

mities of life, and the universal reign of death, the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhaur, maintains that this is the worst of all possible worlds.1 It is not, however, the mere whim of an eccentric philosopher which in the present day has raised a renewed attention to this problem. To reconcile the imperfection of the worldits suffering and death—with faith in an almighty, allwise, and infinitely perfect God, has been long aimed at by the dogmatic theology of the Christian Church; but the solutions offered are now found to be inadequatethey cannot stand before the lessons of philosophy, and the discoveries in geology and palæontology. Mr Spencer puts the difficulty strongly-" Omitting the human race, whose defects and miseries the current theology professes to account for, and limiting ourselves to the lower creation, what must we think of the countless different pain-inflicting appliances and instincts with which animals are endowed? Not only now, and not only ever since men have lived, has the earth been a scene of warfare among all sentient creatures; but paleontology shows us that, from the earliest eras geologically recorded, there has been going on this universal carnage. Fossil structures, in common with the structures of existing animals, show us elaborate weapons for destroying other animals. We have unmistakable proof that throughout all past time there has been a perpetual preying of the superior on the inferior, a ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong. How is this to animals were so

be explained? How happens it that designed as to render this bloodshed necessary? How happens it that in almost every species the number of

1 Optimism and Pessimism, by Prof. Frohshammer, Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1871.

EVOLUTION EXPLAINS DEATH.

187

individuals annually born is such that the majority die of starvation or by violence before arriving at maturity? Whoever contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, must assert either that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce these results, or that there was an inability to prevent them: Which alternative does he prefer? To cast an imputation on the Divine character, or assert a limitation of the Divine power ?"1

Theologians have scarcely aimed at more than showing that the Creator has a right to take away the life He had bestowed, and that there are certain alleviations of the case it was reserved for Evolution to prove that death is a necessity, and a necessary prelude to higher life, and so "to justify the ways of God to man." But for death the first forms of life would have been the only forms; but for death man could not have been evolved, and therefore man has no reason to complain of death. Let us look at the dilemma presented to us by Mr Spencer "Whoso. contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, asserts either a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce these results, or an inability to prevent them." Surely whoever believes that the present order of things is God's work at all is driven to this alternative. We therefore accept it, and contend that the nature of things, the conditions of all work, limit the Creator to work by method, to use appropriate means, to wait for results, and to take some incidental evil with the good. This seems a limitation of His power; but omniscience means the power to dober i all things that are possible, not to make contradictions agree; and if this view seems to limit the power, it 1 Prin. of Biol., i. 341.

makes the wisdom more manifest, and frees the character from imputation.

It has been remarked that Natural Selection acts by killing, not by creating: "Natural Selection endows the woodpecker with its instrument a striking instance of adaptation'-i.e., it does not give one woodpecker its instrument; it has nothing to do with that; it only kills off another woodpecker who has not got it. Natural Selection forms the flying squirrel with its parachute, i.e., it makes away with another squirrel who has not got a parachute, and is at a disadvantage in the locality. Natural Selection has reduced the wing' of some species That means that those species

of beetles in Madeira. which had reduced or shortened wings were naturally selected or survived, whereas others with full wings, by reason of this very completeness of them, perished, because they flew, and flying, they flew over the sea, and flying over the sea, got carried away by winds, and could not get back again to land." 1 All this is true. A frosty night "selects" the hardy plants in a plantation from among the tender ones as effectually as if the intelligence of a gardener had been operative in cutting the weaker organisms down; and whether you say that the strong are selected to live, or the weak selected to die, makes no difference. But this is not a method of trial and error, as Professor Huxley calls it; nor is it fatal to teleology, as he appears to think. He says,— For the notion that every organism has been created as it is, and launched straight at a purpose, Mr Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may fairly be termed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet

1 Quarterly Review, July 1869.