Analyses of Books, 
1883.J 
481 
definition of the creature, inseparable from its existence, and yet 
forming no part of its acflive life.” 
Now, these useless organs are already accounted for in a 
satisfactory manner. Why, then, should we go forth in search 
of an explanation which has in its favour no tittle of evidence, 
save similes drawn from totally alien orders of fadts? We admit 
that “ the human mind can see the necessity of the existence of 
the useless branch of the hyperbola,” but, we add, as a mere 
abstraction, not as a concrete reality. The author's mathe- 
matical necessities and possibilities exist at all time and in every 
place, but the organic world has changed and is constantly 
changing. Species have disappeared and are disappearing, 
either entirely or from certain parts of the world. How, then, 
can we pronounce their existence necessarily involved in that of 
man ? What necessity is that which holds good in Britain, but 
not in Ireland ; in Australia, but not in New Zealand ? 
It seems to us that the views which the author puts forward 
throw a novel light on the commonly-received distinction be- 
tween necessary and contingent truth, exhibiting, indeed, all 
truth as necessary. They further seem to warrant the conclu- 
sion that evil is necessary, and that its avoidance or prevention 
do not lie within the scope of the wisdom and power of God. If 
the existence of man involves the necessity of poisonous serpents, 
may it not be contended with equal force that the existence of 
virtue involves the necessity of vice and crime ? These questions, 
however, are beyond the scope of the naturalist. 
The question of a fundamental principle or law of organic 
existence, however, is one which it is impossible to set aside. 
We see much to which, accepting the doCIrine of Evolution in 
its entirety, we find no clue. We have very grave doubts 
whether natural selection, or sexual selection, or the conflict of 
parts within the organism, or the influence of environment can 
satisfactorily explain the one great facft that no vertebrate animal 
has more than two pair of limbs. Other such questions will 
suggest themselves to the thoughtful naturalist. Hence the 
search after some law which has not yet come in sight is far 
from vain or needless. 
The third essay in this volume, “ God and Nature,” has been 
to some extent already noticed in the “Journal of Science” 
(1880, p. 559). We must reiterate what was then said, that the 
author’s remarks on the alleged atheistic tendencies of Science 
are exceedingly happy. We quote the passage : “ If I might 
coin a word, I should say that Science was atheous , and therefore 
could not be atheistic ; that is to say, its investigations and 
reasonings are by agreement conversant simply with observed 
faCts and conclusions drawn from them, and in this sense it is 
atheous , or without recognition of God. And because it is so, it 
does not in any way trench upon theism or theology , and cannot 
be atheistic , or in the condition of denying the being of a God.” 
