d for the arches, flat stones for the roof, &c.; and if
the use of each part and of the whole building were pointed out, it would
be unreasonable if he declared that nothing had been {431} made clear to
him, because the precise cause of the shape of each fragment could not be
given. But this is a nearly parallel case with the objection that selection
explains nothing, because we know not the cause of each individual
difference in the structure of each being.

The shape of the fragments of stone at the base of our precipice may be
called accidental, but this is not strictly correct; for the shape of each
depends on a long sequence of events, all obeying natural laws; on the
nature of the rock, on the lines of deposition or cleavage, on the form of
the mountain which depends on its upheaval and subsequent denudation, and
lastly on the storm or earthquake which threw down the fragments. But in
regard to the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be
strictly said to be accidental. And here we are led to face a great
difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my
proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence
which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably
maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in
any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain
shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws
which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for
the builder's sake, can it with any greater probability be maintained that
He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable
variations in our domestic animals and plants;--many of these variations
being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious,
to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers
of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his
grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental
qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of
indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's
brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,--if we do not
admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in
order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and
vigour, might be formed,--no shado