1868. ] Darwin and Pangenesis, 311 
and variable in its nature, that man might select and perpetuate 
a ferocious type to pander to his cruel taste of bull-fighting ?” 
“Certainly not,” is supposed to be our answer. 
“Then,” says the author triumphantly, “ you must at the same 
time admit that this plasticity and law of natural selection could 
not have been pre-ordained for the purpose of producing the most 
symmetrical and perfect of dogs, the greyhound; and now, if the 
law did net contemplate the formation of the ugly and useless, nor 
yet that of the symmetrical and vigorous, it could not have con- 
templated anything at all, and all the results found in nature are 
accidental, so to speak !” 
Does the author forget that Man has a free-will and the power 
to control nature as well as God? and that in his folly, fancy, or 
caprice, he often misapplies materials and misdirects natural forces 
for his own selfish ends? And are we on that account to close 
our eyes to every manifestation of design, arrangement, and co- 
ordination which presents itself in nature, and to say that the abuse 
shall explain the use, the exception shall constitute the rule? Shall 
we measure God’s wisdom by our folly? His knowledge by our 
ignorance ? 
But the author has sufficiently pointed out elsewhere in his 
work, that “nature” has modified living types with purposes widely 
different from those of man, namely, for the benefit of the creature 
itself. “ What does the breeder care,” he says,* “about any slight 
change in the molar teeth of his pigs, or for an additional molar 
tooth in the dog, or for any change in the intestinal canal, or other 
internal organ? ‘The breeder cares for the flesh of his cattle being 
well marbled with fat, and for an accumulation of fat within the 
abdomen of his sheep, and this he has effected.” “‘ Natural species, 
on the other hand, have been modified exclusively for their own 
good, to fit them for infinitely diversified conditions of life,” &c. 
What would the author say if we adopted his method of 
reasoning thus :—“ The plasticity of the ox was not designed with 
a view to its being fattened for man’s use: this application was an 
accidental one. In like manner, and with still greater force, it 
may be added that the refuse of oil seeds, known as cattle-cake, has 
been accidentally applied to the fattenmg of the ox, for the husk 
and exhausted tissue were designed for a different purpose.” And 
so the whole scheme of Providence would vanish, and natural forces, 
divinely and designedly guided, would give place to a beautiful, 
well-regulated, co-ordinated chapter of accidents! ! 
All he proves by his reasoning is that whilst our knowledge 
and power over nature are limited, those of God are unlimited ; 
that whilst God operates for the benefit of all his living creatures, 
* See ‘ Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ p, 412. { Ibid., p. 413. 
VOL. V. Z 
