122 
displayed in the creation of structures and instincts having 
primary reference to the species which present them.” But 
if we take the ground that beneficent design works through 
the processes of evolution, in a world where the struggle 
for existence exercises a never-ceasing influence, the divine 
action will operate in accordance with the conditions laid 
down, and with the laws framed, by an infinite wisdom. 
The phenomenon which we are asked to discover could not 
be produced in nature : it could only be brought about by 
miraculous intervention—an hypothesis not to be enter 
tained in scientific discussion. I have been proceeding on 
the supposition that this arrangement, if possible, would be 
beneficial. I cannot discuss that point here at length, but 
I venture to affirm that a self-sacrifice which paid no 
attention to self-preservation and self-development in the 
highest as well as the lowest sense of those terms, would 
be neither good for the devotee, for the object of his 
beneficence, or for society at large. And what I believe 
to be true of human society, I see no reason for thinking 
untrue when applied to the animal world. 
Surely all that the theory of beneficent design can 
reasonably require under these circumstances is that 
certain structures and instincts which are primarily useful 
to one species, should have a secondary importance 
through the co-operation of one species with another. 
Hence the only question which remains to be answered 
is as to whether there is in nature this co-operation which 
beneficent design may reasonably be supposed to have 
foreseen and provided for. So far as I am able to under 
stand Mr. Romanes, he gives two diametrically opposite 
answers to this question. On the one hand he says, 
“ Every species is for itself and for itself alone—an out 
come of the always and everywhere fiercely raging struggle 
for life.” And yet in the next sentence he refers to