Sometimes this meeting of serial lines is determined beforehand by the nature of things: it sometimes occurs that they happen to meet together. "Dict: des "This kind of coincidence is what is called chance. Chance is not a cause, but it is the coincidence of causes."-(Cournot. sciences philosophiques-Art: Hazard") "It sometimes occurs-often even-that two series of phenomena happen to meet together, yet without our being able to say that they have any action upon each other; and it is even a pleasure to our mind to find out what will happen in this case. For instance, if, in the game of rouge-et-noir, I beg that the black will win, and it wins accordingly, it is clear that my desire and my word could not have had any influence on the winning of one colour or the other, and likewise that the arrangement of the cards, which I did not know, could not have had any influence on the choice I have made. In this case two series of facts, absolutely independent of each other, have happened to coincide with each other, and to harmonize without any mutual influence. This kind of coincidence is what is called Chance ; and it is upon the very uncertainty of this coincidence that the pleasure and, at the same time, the terrible temptation of games of hazard rests."(Paul Janet. Final Causes. pp. 18-19.) Now with regard to these three definitions, all are ready to admit there is no such thing as chance in the sense that there is any one event which has no cause, or that a single phenomenon can be produced without a cause. The reign of law is universal; so far all are perfectly agreed with what Mr. Huxley says on that subject. "But probably the best answer to those who talk of Darwinism meaning the reign of chance, is to ask them what they themselves understand by chance. Do they believe that anything in this universe happens without reason or without a cause? Do they really conceive that any event has no cause, and could not have been predicted by anyone who had a sufficient insight into the order of nature? If they do, it is they who are the inheritors of antique superstition and ignorance, and whose minds have never been illumined by a ray of scientific thought. The one act of faith in the convert to science, is the confession of the universality of order and of the absolute validity, in all times and under all circumstances, of the law of causation. "This confession is an act of faith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions is not susceptible of proof. But such faith is not blind, but reasonable; because it is invariably confirmed by experience, and constitutes the sole trustworthy foundation for all action. If one of these people, in whom the 'chance-worship' of our remoter ancestors thus strangely survives, should be within reach of the sea when a heavy gale is blowing, let him betake himself to the shore and watch the scene. Let him note the infinite variety of form and size of the tossing waves out at sea; or of the curves of their foamcrested breakers, as they dash against the rocks; let him listen to the roar and scream of the shingle as it is cast up and torn down the beach; or look at the flakes of foam as they drive hither and thither before the wind; or note the play of colours, which answers a gleam of sunshine as it falls upon their myriad bubbles. Surely here, if anywhere, he will say that chance is supreme, and bend the knee as one who has entered the very penetralia of his divinity. But the man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect order is manifested; that there is not a curve of the waves, not a note in the howling chorus, not a rainbow-glint on a bubble, which is other than a necessary consequence of the ascertained laws of nature; and that with a sufficient knowledge of the conditions, competent physicomathematical skill could account for, and indeed predict, every one of these 'chance' events."—(Life and Letters. vol. ii., pp. 199-201.) To the same effect Mr. Mackay wrote long ago: "Wildest wind that shakes the blossoms, Or on ocean chafes and swells, Blows not uncontrolled and wanton, But as Law compels. Streams that wander and meander, Loitering in the meads to play, Fires that rage in Etna's breast, All obey the same behest. Law releases, Law restrains them." -(Freedom and Law.) And no variation of the organic frame any more than any other physical phenomenon, can be the result of chance, in the sense of being without an adequate cause. If we could know all, we should be able to see at once how every variation came to be exactly what it was. We should find out what the law or the condition was which brought about each particular modification. It should also be remembered that when an opponent of Natural Selection talks of chance in this sense, he is not necessarily asserting his own belief that the transmutation of species does take place in this way but that according to his interpretation of the language of its advocates, the supposed transmutation of species by Natural Selection must take place in this way. With regard to the second definition, we may remark that it does not alter the essential character of the phenomenon: it only expresses our present relation towards it. Moreover it is misleading to use the word chance in this way, unless we are very explicit in stating what we mean. Surely it would be clearer to say that this phenomenon takes place through a law at present unknown to us, than to say that it takes place by chance. In this sense, the scientific man cannot say that there is no such thing as chance, unless he means to say that there is no law of nature, of whose action he is ignorant. And there is always a danger in making a mystery of an unknown cause, of being understood to mean, either that the event has no physical cause or that the physical cause is inscrutable, and must always remain so. We come now to the third definition of chance-the accidental emergence of the favourable variation. Let us be careful to note what these words exactly mean. They do not signify that the colour of the objects in a given district is accidental; they do not mean that the colour exhibited by some few insects of a given group is accidental, because there is little doubt that, if we knew all, we should be able to explain the exact causes which brought about these phenomena. But the emphasis must be placed on the accident of the resemblance, for it is only by a happy coincidence that any variations necessarily associated with reproduction could resemble the colour of any given objects in a given locality. It is not the variations which are accidental in the sense of occuring without cause it is the resemblance between the colour of certain objects and the colour of the variants necessary for the safety of the animal which is accidental or fortuitous. And now why do these favourable variations arise by the principle of a game of chance? The answer is that the variations which are necessarily associated with reproduction are assumed to be indefinite in direction, diverging to all the points of the compass, and that the favourable variations must therefore occur through a happy coincidence. These explanations afford, it is to be hoped, a complete answer to those who say that there is no such thing as chance and that it is superstitious to believe in such a thing. However much we may argue as to the existence or nonexistence of chance, it is certain that games of chance exist; and it is equally certain that the theory of Natural Selection is fittingly described as no other than a game of chance. But if this is so, how little likely it is that the transmutation of species should be effected by Natural Selection. It might be said, however, that Natural Selection is not only a law of nature but a method of the Divine Providence. But that fact would not influence the result so long as the method was not tampered with. The omniscient God might be conceived as knowing every detail of a game of chance, but that fore-knowledge would not affect the issue. The Divine Being could not overrule the principle of creation by the accidental occur rence of favourable variations except by acting contrary to the rule of the game, and this no scientific man or enlightened theist would believe to be possible, for this would be to substitute miracle for law, as the method of progressive development. Another difficulty which presents itself at the first glimpse is the enormous cost of the process. The fact that favourable variations are supposed to arise and as limited by the theory probably can only arise in a few individuals, demands that there should be an enormous output of life, which is provided for by the tendency of all organisms to increase in a geometrical ratio. The great output of life must be met with a great discriminative slaughter, or the strict isolation of the few favourably endowed variants would be impossible. And this process must go on for millions of years. Lest it should be thought that this representation is greatly exaggerated, let us hear the sort of mandate which the theory makes upon the resources of nature. Mr. Darwin, speaking of the evolution of the human eye, says:— "We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and Natural Selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?"—(Origin of Species. p. 146.) The kind of slaughter which would take place in one generation by anything approaching to a real survival of the fittest, may be seen from the following illustration : "On the night of May 24th, 1864, there was a severe frost in Kent, and two rows of scarlet runners (P. multiflorus) in my garden, containing 390 plants of the same age and equally exposed, were с |