{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16474/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16474","id":"gutenberg_16474","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16474","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Wallace McLean, Hemantkumar N Garach and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLectures and Essays\n\nBY\n\nTHOMAS HENRY HUXLEY\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n\nST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON\n\n1910\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY.\n\n\nTHE LIFE AND WORKS OF THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, F.R.S. _Eversley Series_.\n\nTwelve vols. Globe 8vo, 4s. net each.\n\nVOL. I. METHOD AND RESULTS.\n    II. DARWINIANA.\n   III. SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.\n    IV. SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION.\n     V. SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN TRADITION.\n    VI. HUME, WITH HELPS TO THE STUDY OF BERKELEY.\n   VII. MAN'S PLACE IN NATURE.\n  VIII. DISCOURSES, BIOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL.\n    IX. EVOLUTION AND ETHICS, AND OTHER ESSAYS.\n     X. }\n    XI. } THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF PROFESSOR HUXLEY.\n   XII. }\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAPHORISMS AND REFLECTIONS FROM THE WORKS OF T.H. HUXLEY. Selected by\nHENRIETTA A. HUXLEY. With Portrait. Pott 8vo, _2s. 6d._ net. Also cloth\nelegant, _2s. 6d._ net. Limp Leather, _3s. 6d._ net. _Golden Treasury\nSeries_.\n\nAMERICAN ADDRESSES. 8vo, _6s. 6d._\n\nCRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. 8vo, _10s. 6d._\n\nLESSONS IN ELEMENTARY PHYSIOLOGY. F'cap 8vo, _4s. 6d._ QUESTIONS.\nPott 8vo, _1s. 6d._\n\nLAY SERMONS, ADDRESSES, AND REVIEWS. 8vo, _7s. 6d._\n\nINTRODUCTORY PRIMER OF SCIENCE. Pott 8vo, _1s._\n\nPHYSIOGRAPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NATURE. Crown 8vo,\n_6s._\n\nPHYSIOGRAPHY. A New Edition. Revised and partly re-written by R.A.\nGREGORY. Globe 8vo, _4s. 6d._\n\nSOCIAL DISEASES AND WORSE REMEDIES. Crown 8vo. Sewed, _1s._ net.\n\nLECTURES AND ESSAYS. 8vo. Sewed. _6d._\n\nESSAYS: ETHICAL AND POLITICAL. 8vo, Sewed. _6d._\n\nLIFE OF HUME. Crown 8vo. Library Edition. _2s._ net. Popular Edition,\n_1s. 6d._ Sewed. _1s._ F'cap 8vo. Pocket Edition. _1s._ net. _English\nMen of Letters._\n\n\nBy Prof. T.H. HUXLEY, assisted by Prof. H.N. MARTIN.\n\nA COURSE OF ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTION IN PRACTICAL BIOLOGY. Revised and\nextended by G.B. HOWES and D.H. SCOTT. Crown 8vo, _10s. 6d._\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURES AND ESSAYS\n\n\nBY\n\nTHOMAS HENRY HUXLEY\n\n\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1910\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n                                                  PAGE\n\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY                                       5\n\nLECTURES ON EVOLUTION                              11\n\nON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE                      45\n\nNATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM                     57\n\nTHE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS             71\n\nAGNOSTICISM                                        83\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN TRADITION IN RELATION TO JUDAIC\n  CHRISTIANITY                                     96\n\nAGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY                      108\n\n\n_First Edition, February_ 1902.\n_Reprinted, December_ 1902, 1903, 1904, 1910.\n\n\n\n\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY\n\n\nI was born about eight o'clock in the morning on the 4th of May, 1825,\nat Ealing, which was, at that time, as quiet a little country village\nas could be found within half-a-dozen miles of Hyde Park Corner. Now it\nis a suburb of London with, I believe, 30,000 inhabitants. My father was\none of the masters in a large semi-public school which at one time had a\nhigh reputation. I am not aware that any portents preceded my arrival in\nthis world, but, in my childhood, I remember hearing a traditional\naccount of the manner in which I lost the chance of an endowment of\ngreat practical value. The windows of my mother's room were open, in\nconsequence of the unusual warmth of the weather. For the same reason,\nprobably, a neighbouring beehive had swarmed, and the new colony,\npitching on the window-sill, was making its way into the room when the\nhorrified nurse shut down the sash. If that well-meaning woman had only\nabstained from her ill-timed interference, the swarm might have settled\non my lips, and I should have been endowed with that mellifluous\neloquence which, in this country, leads far more surely than worth,\ncapacity, or honest work, to the highest places in Church and State. But\nthe opportunity was lost, and I have been obliged to content myself\nthrough life with saying what I mean in the plainest of plain language,\nthan which, I suppose, there is no habit more ruinous to a man's\nprospects of advancement.\n\nWhy I was christened Thomas Henry I do not know; but it is a curious\nchance that my parents should have fixed for my usual denomination upon\nthe name of that particular Apostle with whom I have always felt most\nsympathy. Physically and mentally I am the son of my mother so\ncompletely--even down to peculiar movements of the hands, which made\ntheir appearance in me as I reached the age she had when I noticed\nthem--that I can hardly find any trace of my father in myself, except an\ninborn faculty for drawing, which unfortunately, in my case, has never\nbeen cultivated, a hot temper, and that amount of tenacity of purpose\nwhich unfriendly observers sometimes call obstinacy.\n\nMy mother was a slender brunette, of an emotional and energetic\ntemperament, and possessed of the most piercing black eyes I ever saw in\na woman's head. With no more education than other women of the middle\nclasses in her day, she had an excellent mental capacity. Her most\ndistinguishing characteristic, however, was rapidity of thought. If one\nventured to suggest she had not taken much time to arrive at any\nconclusion, she would say, \"I cannot help it, things flash across me.\"\nThat peculiarity has been passed on to me in full strength; it has often\nstood me in good stead; it has sometimes played me sad tricks, and it\nhas always been a danger. But, after all, if my time were to come over\nagain, there is nothing I would less willingly part with than my\ninheritance of mother wit.\n\nI have next to nothing to say about my childhood. In later years my\nmother, looking at me almost reproachfully, would sometimes say, \"Ah!\nyou were such a pretty boy!\" whence I had no difficulty in concluding\nthat I had not fulfilled my early promise in the matter of looks. In\nfact, I have a distinct recollection of certain curls of which I was\nvain, and of a conviction that I closely resembled that handsome,\ncourtly gentleman, Sir Herbert Oakley, who was vicar of our parish, and\nwho was as a god to us country folk, because he was occasionally visited\nby the then Prince George of Cambridge. I remember turning my pinafore\nwrong side forwards in order to represent a surplice, and preaching to\nmy mother's maids in the kitchen as nearly as possible in Sir Herbert's\nmanner one Sunday morning when the rest of the family were at church.\nThat is the earliest indication I can call to mind of the strong\nclerical affinities which my friend Mr. Herbert Spencer has always\nascribed to me, though I fancy they have for the most part remained in a\nlatent state.\n\nMy regular school training was of the briefest, perhaps fortunately, for\nthough my way of life has made me acquainted with all sorts and\nconditions of men, from the highest to the lowest, I deliberately affirm\nthat the society I fell into at school was the worst I have ever known.\nWe boys were average lads, with much the same inherent capacity for good\nand evil as any others; but the people who were set over us cared about\nas much for our intellectual and moral welfare as if they were\nbaby-farmers. We were left to the operation of the struggle for\nexistence among ourselves, and bullying was the least of the ill\npractices current among us. Almost the only cheerful reminiscence in\nconnection with the place which arises in my mind is that of a battle I\nhad with one of my classmates, who had bullied me until I could stand it\nno longer. I was a very slight lad, but there was a wild-cat element in\nme which, when roused, made up for lack of weight, and I licked my\nadversary effectually. However, one of my first experiences of the\nextremely rough-and-ready nature of justice, as exhibited by the course\nof things in general, arose out of the fact that I--the victor--had a\nblack eye, while he--the vanquished--had none, so that I got into\ndisgrace and he did not. We made it up, and thereafter I was unmolested.\nOne of the greatest shocks I ever received in my life was to be told a\ndozen years afterwards by the groom who brought me my horse in a\nstable-yard in Sydney that he was my quondam antagonist. He had a long\nstory of family misfortune to account for his position, but at that time\nit was necessary to deal very cautiously with mysterious strangers in\nNew South Wales, and on inquiry I found that the unfortunate young man\nhad not only been \"sent out,\" but had undergone more than one colonial\nconviction.\n\nAs I grew older, my great desire was to be a mechanical engineer, but\nthe fates were against this, and, while very young, I commenced the\nstudy of medicine under a medical brother-in-law. But, though the\nInstitute of Mechanical Engineers would certainly not own me, I am not\nsure that I have not all along been a sort of mechanical engineer _in\npartibus infidelium_. I am now occasionally horrified to think how very\nlittle I ever knew or cared about medicine as the art of healing. The\nonly part of my professional course which really and deeply interested\nme was physiology, which is the mechanical engineering of living\nmachines; and, notwithstanding that natural science has been my proper\nbusiness, I am afraid there is very little of the genuine naturalist in\nme. I never collected anything, and species work was always a burden to\nme; what I cared for was the architectural and engineering part of the\nbusiness, the working out the wonderful unity of plan in the thousands\nand thousands of diverse living constructions, and the modifications of\nsimilar apparatuses to serve diverse ends. The extraordinary attraction\nI felt towards the study of the intricacies of living structure nearly\nproved fatal to me at the outset. I was a mere boy--I think between\nthirteen and fourteen years of age--when I was taken by some older\nstudent friends of mine to the first _post-mortem_ examination I ever\nattended. All my life I have been most unfortunately sensitive to the\ndisagreeables which attend anatomical pursuits, but on this occasion my\ncuriosity overpowered all other feelings, and I spent two or three hours\nin gratifying it. I did not cut myself, and none of the ordinary\nsymptoms of dissection-poison supervened, but poisoned I was somehow,\nand I remember sinking into a strange state of apathy. By way of a last\nchance, I was sent to the care of some good, kind people, friends of my\nfather's, who lived in a farmhouse in the heart of Warwickshire. I\nremember staggering from my bed to the window on the bright spring\nmorning after my arrival, and throwing open the casement. Life seemed to\ncome back on the wings of the breeze, and to this day the faint odour of\nwood-smoke, like that which floated across the farm-yard in the early\nmorning, is as good to me as the \"sweet south upon a bed of violets.\" I\nsoon recovered, but for years I suffered from occasional paroxysms of\ninternal pain, and from that time my constant friend, hypochondriacal\ndyspepsia, commenced his half century of co-tenancy of my fleshly\ntabernacle.\n\nLooking back on my \"Lehrjahre,\" I am sorry to say that I do not think\nthat any account of my doings as a student would tend to edification. In\nfact, I should distinctly warn ingenuous youth to avoid imitating my\nexample. I worked extremely hard when it pleased me, and when it did\nnot--which was a very frequent case--I was extremely idle (unless making\ncaricatures of one's pastors and masters is to be called a branch of\nindustry), or else wasted my energies in wrong directions. I read\neverything I could lay hands upon, including novels, and took up all\nsorts of pursuits to drop them again quite as speedily. No doubt it was\nvery largely my own fault, but the only instruction from which I ever\nobtained the proper effect of education was that which I received from\nMr. Wharton Jones, who was the lecturer on physiology at the Charing\nCross School of Medicine. The extent and precision of his knowledge\nimpressed me greatly, and the severe exactness of his method of\nlecturing was quite to my taste. I do not know that I have ever felt so\nmuch respect for anybody as a teacher before or since. I worked hard to\nobtain his approbation, and he was extremely kind and helpful to the\nyoungster who, I am afraid, took up more of his time than he had any\nright to do. It was he who suggested the publication of my first\nscientific paper--a very little one--in the _Medical Gazette_ of 1845,\nand most kindly corrected the literary faults which abounded in it,\nshort as it was; for at that time, and for many years afterwards,\nI detested the trouble of writing, and would take no pains over it.\n\nIt was in the early spring of 1846, that having finished my obligatory\nmedical studies and passed the first M.B. examination at the London\nUniversity--though I was still too young to qualify at the College of\nSurgeons--I was talking to a fellow-student (the present eminent\nphysician, Sir Joseph Fayrer), and wondering what I should do to meet\nthe imperative necessity for earning my own bread, when my friend\nsuggested that I should write to Sir William Burnett, at that time\nDirector-General for the Medical Service of the Navy, for an\nappointment. I thought this rather a strong thing to do, as Sir William\nwas personally unknown to me, but my cheery friend would not listen to\nmy scruples, so I went to my lodgings and wrote the best letter I could\ndevise. A few days afterwards I received the usual official circular of\nacknowledgment, but at the bottom there was written an instruction to\ncall at Somerset House on such a day. I thought that looked like\nbusiness, so at the appointed time I called and sent in my card, while I\nwaited in Sir William's ante-room. He was a tall, shrewd-looking old\ngentleman, with a broad Scotch accent--and I think I see him now as he\nentered with my card in his hand. The first thing he did was to return\nit, with the frugal reminder that I should probably find it useful on\nsome other occasion. The second was to ask whether I was an Irishman. I\nsuppose the air of modesty about my appeal must have struck him. I\nsatisfied the Director-General that I was English to the backbone, and\nhe made some inquiries as to my student career, finally desiring me to\nhold myself ready for examination. Having passed this, I was in Her\nMajesty's Service, and entered on the books of Nelson's old ship, the\n_Victory_, for duty at Haslar Hospital, about a couple of months after I\nmade my application.\n\nMy official chief at Haslar was a very remarkable person, the late Sir\nJohn Richardson, an excellent naturalist, and far-famed as an\nindomitable Arctic traveller. He was a silent, reserved man, outside the\ncircle of his family and intimates; and, having a full share of youthful\nvanity, I was extremely disgusted to find that \"Old John,\" as we\nirreverent youngsters called him, took not the slightest notice of my\nworshipful self either the first time I attended him, as it was my duty\nto do, or for some weeks afterwards. I am afraid to think of the lengths\nto which my tongue may have run on the subject of the churlishness of\nthe chief, who was, in truth, one of the kindest-hearted and most\nconsiderate of men. But one day, as I was crossing the hospital square,\nSir John stopped me, and heaped coals of fire on my head by telling me\nthat he had tried to get me one of the resident appointments, much\ncoveted by the assistant-surgeons, but that the Admiralty had put in\nanother man. \"However,\" said he, \"I mean to keep you here till I can get\nyou something you will like,\" and turned upon his heel without waiting\nfor the thanks I stammered out. That explained how it was I had not been\npacked off to the West Coast of Africa like some of my juniors, and why,\neventually, I remained altogether seven months at Haslar.\n\nAfter a long interval, during which \"Old John\" ignored my existence\nalmost as completely as before, he stopped me again as we met in a\ncasual way, and describing the service on which the _Rattlesnake_ was\nlikely to be employed, said that Captain Owen Stanley, who was to\ncommand the ship, had asked him to recommend an assistant surgeon who\nknew something of science; would I like that? Of course I jumped at the\noffer. \"Very well, I give you leave; go to London at once and see\nCaptain Stanley.\" I went, saw my future commander, who was very civil to\nme, and promised to ask that I should be appointed to his ship, as in\ndue time I was. It is a singular thing that, during the few months of my\nstay at Haslar, I had among my messmates two future Directors-General of\nthe Medical Service of the Navy (Sir Alexander Armstrong and Sir John\nWatt-Reid), with the present President of the College of Physicians and\nmy kindest of doctors, Sir Andrew Clark.\n\nLife on board Her Majesty's ships in those days was a very different\naffair from what it is now, and ours was exceptionally rough, as we were\noften many months without receiving letters or seeing any civilised\npeople but ourselves. In exchange, we had the interest of being about\nthe last voyagers, I suppose, to whom it could be possible to meet with\npeople who knew nothing of fire-arms--as we did on the south Coast of\nNew Guinea--and of making acquaintance with a variety of interesting\nsavage and semi-civilised people. But, apart from experience of this\nkind and the opportunities offered for scientific work, to me,\npersonally, the cruise was extremely valuable. It was good for me to\nlive under sharp discipline; to be down on the realities of existence by\nliving on bare necessaries; to find out how extremely well worth living\nlife seemed to be when one woke up from a night's rest on a soft plank,\nwith the sky for canopy and cocoa and weevilly biscuit the sole prospect\nfor breakfast; and, more especially, to learn to work for the sake of\nwhat I got for myself out of it, even if it all went to the bottom and I\nalong with it. My brother officers were as good fellows as sailors ought\nto be and generally are, but, naturally, they neither knew nor cared\nanything about my pursuits, nor understood why I should be so zealous in\npursuit of the objects which my friends, the middies, christened\n\"Buffons,\" after the title conspicuous on a volume of the \"Suites a\nBuffon,\" which stood on my shelf in the chart room.\n\nDuring the four years of our absence, I sent home communication after\ncommunication to the \"Linnean Society;\" with the same result as that\nobtained by Noah when he sent the raven out of his ark. Tired at last of\nhearing nothing about them, I determined to do or die, and in 1849 I\ndrew up a more elaborate paper and forwarded it to the Royal Society.\nThis was my dove, if I had only known it. But owing to the movements of\nthe ship, I heard nothing of that either until my return to England in\nthe latter end of the year 1850, when I found that it was printed and\npublished, and that a huge packet of separate copies awaited me. When I\nhear some of my young friends complain of want of sympathy and\nencouragement, I am inclined to think that my naval life was not the\nleast valuable part of my education.\n\nThree years after my return were occupied by a battle between my\nscientific friends on the one hand and the Admiralty on the other, as to\nwhether the latter ought, or ought not, to act up to the spirit of a\npledge they had given to encourage officers who had done scientific work\nby contributing to the expense of publishing mine. At last the\nAdmiralty, getting tired, I suppose, cut short the discussion by\nordering me to join a ship, which thing I declined to do, and as\nRastignac, in the \"Pere Goriot,\" says to Paris, I said to London, \"_a\nnous deux_.\" I desired to obtain a Professorship of either Physiology or\nComparative Anatomy, and as vacancies occurred I applied, but in vain.\nMy friend, Professor Tyndall, and I were candidates at the same time, he\nfor the Chair of Physics and I for that of Natural History in the\nUniversity of Toronto, which, fortunately, as it turned out, would not\nlook at either of us. I say fortunately, not from any lack of respect\nfor Toronto, but because I soon made up my mind that London was the\nplace for me, and hence I have steadily declined the inducements to\nleave it, which have at various times been offered. At last, in 1854, on\nthe translation of my warm friend Edward Forbes, to Edinburgh, Sir Henry\nDe la Beche, the Director-General of the Geological Survey, offered me\nthe post Forbes vacated of Paleontologist and Lecturer on Natural\nHistory. I refused the former point blank, and accepted the latter only\nprovisionally, telling Sir Henry that I did not care for fossils, and\nthat I should give up Natural History as soon as I could get a\nphysiological post. But I held the office for thirty-one years, and a\nlarge part of my work has been paleontological.\n\nAt that time I disliked public speaking, and had a firm conviction that\nI should break down every time I opened my mouth. I believe I had every\nfault a speaker could have (except talking at random or indulging in\nrhetoric), when I spoke to the first important audience I ever\naddressed, on a Friday evening: at the Royal Institution, in 1852. Yet,\nI must confess to having been guilty, _malgre moi_, of as much public\nspeaking as most of my contemporaries, and for the last ten years it\nceased to be so much of a bugbear to me. I used to pity myself for\nhaving to go through this training, but I am now more disposed to\ncompassionate the unfortunate audiences, especially my ever-friendly\nhearers at the Royal Institution, who were the subjects of my oratorical\nexperiments.\n\nThe last thing that it would be proper for me to do would be to speak of\nthe work of my life, or to say at the end of the day whether I think I\nhave earned my wages or not. Men are said to be partial judges of\nthemselves. Young men may be; I doubt if old men are. Life seems\nterribly foreshortened as they look back, and the mountain they set\nthemselves to climb in youth turns out to be a mere spur of immeasurably\nhigher ranges when, with failing breath, they reach the top. But if I\nmay speak of the objects I have had more or less definitely in view\nsince I began the ascent of my hillock, they are briefly these: To\npromote the increase of natural knowledge and to forward the application\nof scientific methods of investigation to all the problems of life to\nthe best of my ability, in the conviction which has grown with my growth\nand strengthened with my strength, that there is no alleviation for the\nsufferings of mankind except veracity of thought and of action, and the\nresolute facing of the world as it is when the garment of make-believe\nby which pious hands have hidden its uglier features is stripped off.\n\nIt is with this intent that I have subordinated any reasonable, or\nunreasonable, ambition for scientific fame which I may have permitted\nmyself to entertain to other ends; to the popularisation of science; to\nthe development and organisation of scientific education; to the\nendless series of battles and skirmishes over evolution; and to untiring\nopposition to that ecclesiastical spirit, that clericalism, which in\nEngland, as everywhere else, and to whatever denomination it may belong,\nis the deadly enemy of science.\n\nIn striving for the attainment of these objects, I have been but one\namong many, and I shall be well content to be remembered, or even not\nremembered, as such. Circumstances, among which I am proud to reckon the\ndevoted kindness of many friends, have led to my occupation of various\nprominent positions, among which the Presidency of the Royal Society is\nthe highest. It would be mock modesty on my part, with these and other\nscientific honours which have been bestowed upon me, to pretend that I\nhave not succeeded in the career which I have followed, rather because I\nwas driven into it than of my own free will; but I am afraid I should\nnot count even these things as marks of success if I could not hope that\nI had somewhat helped that movement of opinion which has been called the\nNew Reformation.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURES AND ESSAYS\n\nLECTURES ON EVOLUTION\n\n[NEW YORK; 1876]\n\n\nI\n\nTHE THREE HYPOTHESES RESPECTING THE HISTORY OF NATURE\n\nWe live in and form part of a system of things of immense diversity and\nperplexity, which we call Nature; and it is a matter of the deepest\ninterest to all of us that we should form just conceptions of the\nconstitution of that system and of its past history. With relation to\nthis universe, man is, in extent, little more than a mathematical point;\nin duration but a fleeting shadow; he is a mere reed shaken in the winds\nof force. But as Pascal long ago remarked, although a mere reed, he is a\nthinking reed; and in virtue of that wonderful capacity of thought, he\nhas the power of framing for himself a symbolic conception of the\nuniverse, which, although doubtless highly imperfect and inadequate as a\npicture of the great whole, is yet sufficient to serve him as a chart\nfor the guidance of his practical affairs. It has taken long ages of\ntoilsome and often fruitless labour to enable man to look steadily at\nthe shifting scenes of the phantasmagoria of Nature, to notice what is\nfixed among her fluctuations, and what is regular among her apparent\nirregularities; and it is only comparatively lately, within the last few\ncenturies, that the conception of a universal order and of a definite\ncourse of things, which we term the course of Nature, has emerged.\n\nBut, once originated, the conception of the constancy of the order of\nNature has become the dominant idea of modern thought. To any person who\nis familiar with the facts upon which that conception is based, and is\ncompetent to estimate their significance, it has ceased to be\nconceivable that chance should have any place in the universe, or that\nevents should depend upon any but the natural sequence of cause and\neffect. We have come to look upon the present as the child of the past\nand as the parent of the future; and, as we have excluded chance from a\nplace in the universe, so we ignore, even as a possibility, the notion\nof any interference with the order of Nature. Whatever may be men's\nspeculative doctrines, it is quite certain that every intelligent person\nguides his life and risks his fortune upon the belief that the order of\nNature is constant, and that the chain of natural causation is never\nbroken.\n\nIn fact, no belief which we entertain has so complete a logical basis as\nthat to which I have just referred. It tacitly underlies every process\nof reasoning; it is the foundation of every act of the will. It is based\nupon the broadest induction, and it is verified by the most constant,\nregular, and universal of deductive processes. But we must recollect\nthat any human belief, however broad its basis, however defensible it\nmay seem, is, after all, only a probable belief, and that our widest and\nsafest generalisations are simply statements of the highest degree of\nprobability. Though we are quite clear about the constancy of the order\nof Nature, at the present time, and in the present state of things, it\nby no means necessarily follows that we are justified in expanding this\ngeneralisation into the infinite past, and in denying, absolutely, that\nthere may have been a time when Nature did not follow a fixed order,\nwhen the relations of cause and effect were not definite, and when\nextra-natural agencies interfered with the general course of Nature.\nCautious men will allow that a universe so different from that which we\nknow may have existed; just as a very candid thinker may admit that a\nworld in which two and two do not make four, and in which two straight\nlines do inclose a space, may exist. But the same caution which forces\nthe admission of such possibilities demands a great deal of evidence\nbefore it recognises them to be anything more substantial. And when it\nis asserted that, so many thousand years ago, events occurred in a\nmanner utterly foreign to and inconsistent with the existing laws of\nNature, men who without being particularly cautious are simply honest\nthinkers, unwilling to deceive themselves or delude others, ask for\ntrustworthy evidence of the fact.\n\nDid things so happen or did they not? This is a historical question, and\none the answer to which must be sought in the same way as the solution\nof any other historical problem.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo far as I know, there are only three hypotheses which ever have been\nentertained, or which well can be entertained, respecting the past\nhistory of Nature. I will, in the first place, state the hypotheses, and\nthen I will consider what evidence bearing upon them is in our\npossession, and by what light of criticism that evidence is to be\ninterpreted.\n\nUpon the first hypothesis, the assumption is, that phenomena of Nature\nsimilar to those exhibited by the present world have always existed; in\nother words, that the universe has existed, from all eternity, in what\nmay be broadly termed its present condition.\n\nThe second hypothesis is that the present state of things has had only a\nlimited duration; and that, at some period in the past, a condition of\nthe world, essentially similar to that which we now know, came into\nexistence, without any precedent condition from which it could have\nnaturally proceeded. The assumption that successive states of Nature\nhave arisen, each without any relation of natural causation to an\nantecedent state, is a mere modification of this second hypothesis.\n\nThe third hypothesis also assumes that the present state of things has\nhad but a limited duration; but it supposes that this state has been\nevolved by a natural process from an antecedent state, and that from\nanother, and so on; and, on this hypothesis, the attempt to assign any\nlimit to the series of past changes is, usually, given up.\n\nIt is so needful to form clear and distinct notions of what is really\nmeant by each of these hypotheses that I will ask you to imagine what,\naccording to each, would have been visible to a spectator of the events\nwhich constitute the history of the earth. On the first hypothesis,\nhowever far back in time that spectator might be placed, he would see a\nworld essentially, though perhaps not in all its details, similar to\nthat which now exists. The animals which existed would be the ancestors\nof those which now live, and similar to them; the plants, in like\nmanner, would be such as we know; and the mountains, plains, and waters\nwould foreshadow the salient features of our present land and water.\nThis view was held more or less distinctly, sometimes combined with the\nnotion of recurrent cycles of change, in ancient times; and its\ninfluence has been felt down to the present day. It is worthy of remark\nthat it is a hypothesis which is not inconsistent with the doctrine of\nUniformitarianism, with which geologists are familiar. That doctrine was\nheld by Hutton, and in his earlier days by Lyell. Hutton was struck by\nthe demonstration of astronomers that the perturbations of the planetary\nbodies, however great they may be, yet sooner or later right themselves;\nand that the solar system possesses a self-adjusting power by which\nthese aberrations are all brought back to a mean condition. Hutton\nimagined that the like might be true of terrestrial changes; although no\none recognised more clearly than he the fact that the dry land is being\nconstantly washed down by rain and rivers and deposited in the sea; and\nthat thus, in a longer or shorter time, the inequalities of the earth's\nsurface must be levelled, and its high lands brought down to the ocean.\nBut, taking into account the internal forces of the earth, which,\nupheaving the sea bottom, give rise to new land, he thought that these\noperations of degradation and elevation might compensate each other; and\nthat thus, for any assignable time, the general features of our planet\nmight remain what they are. And inasmuch as, under these circumstances,\nthere need be no limit to the propagation of animals and plants, it is\nclear that the consistent working-out of the uniformitarian idea might\nlead to the conception of the eternity of the world. Not that I mean to\nsay that either Hutton or Lyell held this conception--assuredly not;\nthey would have been the first to repudiate it. Nevertheless, the\nlogical development of some of their arguments tends directly towards\nthis hypothesis.\n\nThe second hypothesis supposes that the present order of things, at some\nno very remote time, had a sudden origin, and that the world, such as it\nnow is, had chaos for its phenomenal antecedent. That is the doctrine\nwhich you will find stated most fully and clearly in the immortal poem\nof John Milton--the English _Divina Commedia_--\"Paradise Lost.\" I\nbelieve it is largely to the influence of that remarkable work, combined\nwith the daily teachings to which we have all listened in our childhood,\nthat this hypothesis owes its general wide diffusion as one of the\ncurrent beliefs of English-speaking people. If you turn to the seventh\nbook of \"Paradise Lost,\" you will find there stated the hypothesis to\nwhich I refer, which is briefly this: That this visible universe of ours\ncame into existence at no great distance of time from the present; and\nthat the parts of which it is composed made their appearance, in a\ncertain definite order, in the space of six natural days, in such a\nmanner that, on the first of these days, light appeared; that, on the\nsecond, the firmament, or sky, separated the waters above, from the\nwaters beneath, the firmament; that, on the third day, the waters drew\naway from the dry land, and upon it a varied vegetable life, similar to\nthat which now exists, made its appearance; that the fourth day was\nsignalised by the apparition of the sun, the stars, the moon, and the\nplanets; that, on the fifth day, aquatic animals originated within the\nwaters; that, on the sixth day, the earth gave rise to our four-footed\nterrestrial creatures, and to all varieties of terrestrial animals\nexcept birds, which had appeared on the preceding day; and, finally,\nthat man appeared upon the earth, and the emergence of the universe from\nchaos was finished. Milton tells us, without the least ambiguity, what a\nspectator of these marvellous occurrences would have witnessed. I doubt\nnot that his poem is familiar to all of you, but I should like to recall\none passage to your minds, in order that I may be justified in what I\nhave said regarding the perfectly concrete, definite, picture of the\norigin of the animal world which Milton draws. He says:--\n\n    \"The sixth, and of creation last, arose\n    With evening harps and matin, when God said,\n    'Let the earth bring forth soul living in her kind,\n    Cattle and creeping things, and beast of the earth,\n    Each in their kind!' The earth obeyed, and, straight\n    Opening her fertile womb, teemed at a birth\n    Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms,\n    Limbed and full-grown. Out of the ground uprose,\n    As from his lair, the wild beast, where he wons\n    In forest wild, in thicket, brake, or den;\n    Among the trees in pairs they rose, they walked;\n    The cattle in the fields and meadows green;\n    Those rare and solitary; these in flocks\n    Pasturing at once, and in broad herds upsprung.\n    The grassy clods now calved; now half appears\n    The tawny lion, pawing to get free\n    His hinder parts--then springs, as broke from bonds,\n    And rampant shakes his brinded mane; the ounce,\n    The libbard, and the tiger, as the mole\n    Rising, the crumbled earth above them threw\n    In hillocks; the swift stag from underground\n    Bore up his branching head; scarce from his mould\n    Behemoth, biggest born of earth, upheaved\n    His vastness; fleeced the flocks and bleating rose\n    As plants; ambiguous between sea and land,\n    The river-horse and scaly crocodile.\n    At once came forth whatever creeps the ground,\n    Insect or worm.\n\nThere is no doubt as to the meaning of this statement, nor as to what a\nman of Milton's genius expected would have been actually visible to an\neye-witness of this mode of origination of living things.\n\nThe third hypothesis, or the hypothesis of evolution, supposes that, at\nany comparatively late period of past time, our imaginary spectator\nwould meet with a state of things very similar to that which now\nobtains; but that the likeness of the past to the present would\ngradually become less and less, in proportion to the remoteness of his\nperiod of observation from the present day; that the existing\ndistribution of mountains and plains, of rivers and seas, would show\nitself to be the product of a slow process of natural change operating\nupon more and more widely different antecedent conditions of the mineral\nframework of the earth; until, at length, in place of that framework, he\nwould behold only a vast nebulous mass, representing the constituents of\nthe sun and of the planetary bodies. Preceding the forms of life which\nnow exist, our observer would see animals and plants, not identical with\nthem, but like them, increasing their differences with their antiquity\nand, at the same time, becoming simpler and simpler; until, finally, the\nworld of life would present nothing but that undifferentiated\nprotoplasmic matter which, so far as our present knowledge goes, is the\ncommon foundation of all vital activity.\n\nThe hypothesis of evolution supposes that in all this vast progression\nthere would be no breach of continuity, no point at which we could say\n\"This is a natural process,\" and \"This is not a natural process;\" but\nthat the whole might be compared to that wonderful operation of\ndevelopment which may be seen going on every day under our eyes, in\nvirtue of which there arises, out of the semi-fluid comparatively\nhomogeneous substance which we call an egg, the complicated organisation\nof one of the higher animals. That, in a few words, is what is meant by\nthe hypothesis of evolution.\n\nI have already suggested that, in dealing with these three hypotheses,\nin endeavouring to form a judgment as to which of them is the more\nworthy of belief, or whether none is worthy of belief--in which case our\ncondition of mind should be that suspension of judgment which is so\ndifficult to all but trained intellects--we should be indifferent to all\n_a priori_ considerations. The question is a question of historical\nfact. The universe has come into existence somehow or other, and the\nproblem is, whether it came into existence in one fashion, or whether it\ncame into existence in another; and, as an essential preliminary to\nfurther discussion, permit me to say two or three words as to the nature\nand the kinds of historical evidence.\n\nThe evidence as to the occurrence of any event in past time may be\nranged under two heads which, for convenience' sake, I will speak of as\ntestimonial evidence and as circumstantial evidence. By testimonial\nevidence I mean human testimony; and by circumstantial evidence I mean\nevidence which is not human testimony. Let me illustrate by a familiar\nexample what I understand by these two kinds of evidence, and what is to\nbe said respecting their value.\n\nSuppose that a man tells you that he saw a person strike another and\nkill him; that is testimonial evidence of the fact of murder. But it is\npossible to have circumstantial evidence of the fact of murder; that is\nto say, you may find a man dying with a wound upon his head having\nexactly the form and character of the wound which is made by an axe,\nand, with due care in taking surrounding circumstances into account, you\nmay conclude with the utmost certainty that the man has been murdered;\nthat his death is the consequence of a blow inflicted by another man\nwith that implement. We are very much in the habit of considering\ncircumstantial evidence as of less value than testimonial evidence, and\nit may be that, where the circumstances are not perfectly clear and\nintelligible, it is a dangerous and unsafe kind of evidence; but it must\nnot be forgotten that, in many cases, circumstantial is quite as\nconclusive as testimonial evidence, and that, not unfrequently, it is a\ngreat deal weightier than testimonial evidence. For example, take the\ncase to which I referred just now. The circumstantial evidence may be\nbetter and more convincing than the testimonial evidence; for it may be\nimpossible, under the conditions that I have defined, to suppose that\nthe man met his death from any cause but the violent blow of an axe\nwielded by another man. The circumstantial evidence in favour of a\nmurder having been committed, in that case, is as complete and as\nconvincing as evidence can be. It is evidence which is open to no doubt\nand to no falsification. But the testimony of a witness is open to\nmultitudinous doubts. He may have been mistaken. He may have been\nactuated by malice. It has constantly happened that even an accurate man\nhas declared that a thing has happened in this, that, or the other way,\nwhen a careful analysis of the circumstantial evidence has shown that it\ndid not happen in that way, but in some other way.\n\nWe may now consider the evidence in favour of or against the three\nhypotheses. Let me first direct your attention to what is to be said\nabout the hypothesis of the eternity of the state of things in which we\nnow live. What will first strike you is, that it is a hypothesis which,\nwhether true or false, is not capable of verification by any evidence.\nFor, in order to observe either circumstantial or testimonial evidence\nsufficient to prove the eternity of duration of the present state of\nnature, you must have an eternity of witnesses or an infinity of\ncircumstances, and neither of these is attainable. It is utterly\nimpossible that such evidence should be carried beyond a certain point\nof time; and all that could be said, at most, would be, that so far as\nthe evidence could be traced, there was nothing to contradict the\nhypothesis. But when you look, not to the testimonial evidence--which,\nconsidering the relative insignificance of the antiquity of human\nrecords, might not be good for much in this case--but to the\ncircumstantial evidence, then you find that this hypothesis is\nabsolutely incompatible with such evidence as we have; which is of so\nplain and simple a character that it is impossible in any way to escape\nfrom the conclusions which it forces upon us.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--IDEAL SECTION OF THE CRUST OF THE EARTH.]\n\nYou are, doubtless, all aware that the outer substance of the earth,\nwhich alone is accessible to direct observation, is not of a homogeneous\ncharacter, but that it is made up of a number of layers or strata, the\ntitles of the principal groups of which are placed upon the accompanying\ndiagram. Each of these groups represents a number of beds of sand, of\nstone, of clay, of slate, and of various other materials.\n\nOn careful examination, it is found that the materials of which each of\nthese layers of more or less hard rock are composed are, for the most\npart, of the same nature as those which are at present being formed\nunder known conditions on the surface of the earth. For example, the\nchalk, which constitutes a great part of the Cretaceous formation in\nsome parts of the world, is practically identical in its physical and\nchemical characters with a substance which is now being formed at the\nbottom of the Atlantic Ocean, and covers an enormous area; other beds of\nrock are comparable with the sands which are being formed upon\nsea-shores, packed together, and so on. Thus, omitting rocks of igneous\norigin, it is demonstrable that all these beds of stone, of which a\ntotal of not less than seventy thousand feet is known, have been formed\nby natural agencies, either out of the waste and washing of the dry\nland, or else by the accumulation of the exuviae of plants and animals.\nMany of these strata are full of such exuviae--the so-called \"fossils.\"\nRemains of thousands of species of animals and plants, as perfectly\nrecognisable as those of existing forms of life which you meet with in\nmuseums, or as the shells which you pick up upon the sea-beach, have\nbeen imbedded in the ancient sands, or muds, or limestones, just as they\nare being imbedded now, in sandy, or clayey, or calcareous subaqueous\ndeposits. They furnish us with a record, the general nature of which\ncannot be misinterpreted, of the kinds of things that have lived upon\nthe surface of the earth during the time that is registered by this\ngreat thickness of stratified rocks. But even a superficial study of\nthese fossils shows us that the animals and plants which live at the\npresent time have had only a temporary duration; for the remains of such\nmodern forms of life are met with, for the most part, only in the\nuppermost or latest tertiaries, and their number rapidly diminishes in\nthe lower deposits of that epoch. In the older tertiaries, the places of\nexisting animals and plants are taken by other forms, as numerous and\ndiversified as those which live now in the same localities, but more or\nless different from them; in the mesozoic rocks, these are replaced by\nothers yet more divergent from modern types; and, in the palaeozoic\nformations the contrast is still more marked. Thus the circumstantial\nevidence absolutely negatives the conception of the eternity of the\npresent condition of things. We can say, with certainty, that the\npresent condition of things has existed for a comparatively short\nperiod; and that, so far as animal and vegetable nature are concerned,\nit has been preceded by a different condition. We can pursue this\nevidence until we reach the lowest of the stratified rocks, in which we\nlose the indications of life altogether. The hypothesis of the eternity\nof the present state of nature may therefore be put out of court.\n\nWe now come to what I will term Milton's hypothesis--the hypothesis that\nthe present condition of things has endured for a comparatively short\ntime; and, at the commencement of that time, came into existence within\nthe course of six days. I doubt not that it may have excited some\nsurprise in your minds that I should have spoken of this as Milton's\nhypothesis, rather than that I should have chosen the terms which are\nmore customary, such as \"the doctrine of creation,\" or \"the Biblical\ndoctrine,\" or \"the doctrine of Moses,\" all of which denominations, as\napplied to the hypothesis to which I have just referred, are certainly\nmuch more familiar to you than the title of the Miltonic hypothesis. But\nI have had what I cannot but think are very weighty reasons for taking\nthe course which I have pursued. In the first place, I have discarded\nthe title of the \"doctrine of creation,\" because my present business is\nnot with the question why the objects which constitute Nature came into\nexistence, but when they came into existence, and in what order. This is\nas strictly a historical question as the question when the Angles and\nthe Jutes invaded England, and whether they preceded or followed the\nRomans. But the question about creation is a philosophical problem, and\none which cannot be solved, or even approached, by the historical\nmethod. What we want to learn is, whether the facts, so far as they are\nknown, afford evidence that things arose in the way described by Milton,\nor whether they do not; and, when that question is settled, it will be\ntime enough to inquire into the causes of their origination.\n\nIn the second place, I have not spoken of this doctrine as the Biblical\ndoctrine. It is quite true that persons as diverse in their general\nviews as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated Jesuit Father Suarez,\neach put upon the first chapter of Genesis the interpretation embodied\nin Milton's poem. It is quite true that this interpretation is that\nwhich has been instilled into every one of us in our childhood; but I do\nnot for one moment venture to say that it can properly be called the\nBiblical doctrine. It is not my business, and does not lie within my\ncompetency, to say what the Hebrew text does, and what it does not\nsignify; moreover, were I to affirm that this is the Biblical doctrine,\nI should be met by the authority of many eminent scholars, to say\nnothing of men of science, who, at various times, have absolutely denied\nthat any such doctrine is to be found in Genesis. If we are to listen to\nmany expositors of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so\nclearly defined in Genesis--as if very great pains had been taken that\nthere should be no possibility of mistake--is not the meaning of the\ntext at all. The account is divided into periods that we may make just\nas long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to understand\nthat it is consistent with the original text to believe that the most\ncomplex plants and animals may have been evolved by natural processes,\nlasting for millions of years, out of structureless rudiments. A person\nwho is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the\nmarvellous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse\ninterpretations. But assuredly, in the face of such contradictions of\nauthority upon matters respecting which he is incompetent to form any\njudgment, he will abstain, as I do, from giving any opinion.\n\nIn the third place, I have carefully abstained from speaking of this as\nthe Mosaic doctrine, because we are now assured upon the authority of\nthe highest critics, and even of dignitaries of the Church, that there\nis no evidence that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, or knew anything\nabout it. You will understand that I give no judgment--it would be an\nimpertinence upon my part to volunteer even a suggestion--upon such a\nsubject. But, that being the state of opinion among the scholars and the\nclergy, it is well for the unlearned in Hebrew lore, and for the laity,\nto avoid entangling themselves in such a vexed question. Happily, Milton\nleaves us no excuse for doubting what he means, and I shall therefore be\nsafe in speaking of the opinion in question as the Miltonic hypothesis.\n\nNow we have to test that hypothesis. For my part, I have no prejudice\none way or the other. If there is evidence in favour of this view, I am\nburdened by no theoretical difficulties in the way of accepting it; but\nthere must be evidence. Scientific men get an awkward habit--no, I won't\ncall it that, for it is a valuable habit--of believing nothing unless\nthere is evidence for it; and they have a way of looking upon belief\nwhich is not based upon evidence, not only as illogical, but as immoral.\nWe will, if you please, test this view by the circumstantial evidence\nalone; for, from what I have said, you will understand that I do not\npropose to discuss the question of what testimonial evidence is to be\nadduced in favour of it. If those whose business it is to judge are not\nat one as to the authenticity of the only evidence of that kind which is\noffered, nor as to the facts to which it bears witness, the discussion\nof such evidence is superfluous.\n\nBut I may be permitted to regret this necessity of rejecting the\ntestimonial evidence the less, because the examination of the\ncircumstantial evidence leads to the conclusion, not only that it is\nincompetent to justify the hypothesis, but that, so far as it goes, it\nis contrary to the hypothesis.\n\nThe considerations upon which I base this conclusion are of the simplest\npossible character. The Miltonic hypothesis contains assertions of a\nvery definite character relating to the succession of living forms. It\nis stated that plants, for example, made their appearance upon the third\nday, and not before. And you will understand that what the poet means\nby plants are such plants as now live, the ancestors, in the ordinary\nway of propagation of like by like, of the trees and shrubs which\nflourish in the present world. It must needs be so; for, if they were\ndifferent, either the existing plants have been the result of a separate\norigination since that described by Milton, of which we have no record,\nnor any ground for supposition that such an occurrence has taken place;\nor else they have arisen by a process of evolution from the original\nstocks.\n\nIn the second place, it is clear that there was no animal life before\nthe fifth day, and that, on the fifth day, aquatic animals and birds\nappeared. And it is further clear that terrestrial living things, other\nthan birds, made their appearance upon the sixth day and not before.\nHence, it follows that, if, in the large mass of circumstantial evidence\nas to what really has happened in the past history of the globe we find\nindications of the existence of terrestrial animals, other than birds,\nat a certain period, it is perfectly certain that all that has taken\nplace, since that time, must be referred to the sixth day.\n\nIn the great Carboniferous formation, whence America derives so vast a\nproportion of her actual and potential wealth, in the beds of coal which\nhave been formed from the vegetation of that period, we find abundant\nevidence of the existence of terrestrial animals. They have been\ndescribed, not only by European but by your own naturalists. There are\nto be found numerous insects allied to our cockroaches. There are to be\nfound spiders and scorpions of large size, the latter so similar to\nexisting scorpions that it requires the practised eye of the naturalist\nto distinguish them. Inasmuch as these animals can be proved to have\nbeen alive in the Carboniferous epoch, it is perfectly clear that, if\nthe Miltonic account is to be accepted, the huge mass of rocks extending\nfrom the middle of the Palaeozoic formations to the uppermost members of\nthe series, must belong to the day which is termed by Milton the sixth.\nBut, further, it is expressly stated that aquatic animals took their\norigin on the fifth day, and not before; hence, all formations in which\nremains of aquatic animals can be proved to exist, and which therefore\ntestify that such animals lived at the time when these formations were\nin course of deposition, must have been deposited during or since the\nperiod which Milton speaks of as the fifth day. But there is absolutely\nno fossiliferous formation in which the remains of aquatic animals are\nabsent. The oldest fossils in the Silurian rocks are exuviae of marine\nanimals; and if the view which is entertained by Principal Dawson and\nDr. Carpenter respecting the nature of the _Eozooen_ be well-founded,\naquatic animals existed at a period as far antecedent to the deposition\nof the coal as the coal is from us; inasmuch as the _Eozooen_ is met with\nin those Laurentian strata which lie at the bottom of the series of\nstratified rocks. Hence it follows, plainly enough, that the whole\nseries of stratified rocks, if they are to be brought into harmony with\nMilton, must be referred to the fifth and sixth days, and that we cannot\nhope to find the slightest trace of the products of the earlier days in\nthe geological record. When we consider these simple facts, we see how\nabsolutely futile are the attempts that have been made to draw a\nparallel between the story told by so much of the crust of the earth as\nis known to us and the story which Milton tells. The whole series of\nfossiliferous stratified rocks must be referred to the last two days;\nand neither the Carboniferous, nor any other, formation can afford\nevidence of the work of the third day.\n\nNot only is there this objection to any attempt to establish a harmony\nbetween the Miltonic account and the facts recorded in the fossiliferous\nrocks, but there is a further difficulty. According to the Miltonic\naccount, the order in which animals should have made their appearance in\nthe stratified rocks would be this: Fishes, including the great whales,\nand birds; after them, all varieties of terrestrial animals except\nbirds. Nothing could be further from the facts as we find them; we know\nof not the slightest evidence of the existence of birds before the\nJurassic, or perhaps the Triassic, formation; while terrestrial animals,\nas we have just seen, occur in the Carboniferous rocks.\n\nIf there were any harmony between the Miltonic account and the\ncircumstantial evidence, we ought to have abundant evidence of the\nexistence of birds in the Carboniferous, the Devonian, and the Silurian\nrocks. I need hardly say that this is not the case, and that not a trace\nof birds makes its appearance until the far later period which I have\nmentioned.\n\nAnd again, if it be true that all varieties of fishes and the great\nwhales, and the like, made their appearance on the fifth day, we ought\nto find the remains of these animals in the older rocks--in those which\nwere deposited before the Carboniferous epoch. Fishes we do find, in\nconsiderable number and variety; but the great whales are absent, and\nthe fishes are not such as now live. Not one solitary species of fish\nnow in existence is to be found in the Devonian or Silurian formations.\nHence we are introduced afresh to the dilemma which I have already\nplaced before you: either the animals which came into existence on the\nfifth day were not such as those which are found at present, are not the\ndirect and immediate ancestors of those which now exist; in which case,\neither fresh creations of which nothing is said, or a process of\nevolution, must have occurred; or else the whole story must be given up,\nas not only devoid of any circumstantial evidence, but contrary to such\nevidence as exists.\n\nI placed before you in a few words, some little time ago, a statement of\nthe sum and substance of Milton's hypothesis. Let me now try to state,\nas briefly, the effect of the circumstantial evidence bearing upon the\npast history of the earth which is furnished, without the possibility of\nmistake, with no chance of error as to its chief features, by the\nstratified rocks. What we find is, that the great series of formations\nrepresents a period of time of which our human chronologies hardly\nafford us a unit of measure. I will not pretend to say how we ought to\nestimate this time, in millions or in billions of years. For my purpose,\nthe determination of its absolute duration is wholly unessential. But\nthat the time was enormous there can be no question.\n\nIt results from the simplest methods of interpretation, that leaving out\nof view certain patches of metamorphosed rocks, and certain volcanic\nproducts, all that is now dry land has once been at the bottom of the\nwaters. It is perfectly certain that, at a comparatively recent period\nof the world's history--the Cretaceous epoch--none of the great physical\nfeatures which at present mark the surface of the globe existed. It is\ncertain that the Rocky Mountains were not. It is certain that the\nHimalaya Mountains were not. It is certain that the Alps and the\nPyrenees had no existence. The evidence is of the plainest possible\ncharacter, and is simply this:--We find raised up on the flanks of these\nmountains, elevated by the forces of upheaval which have given rise to\nthem, masses of Cretaceous rock which formed the bottom of the sea\nbefore those mountains existed. It is therefore clear that the elevatory\nforces which gave rise to the mountains operated subsequently to the\nCretaceous epoch; and that the mountains themselves are largely made up\nof the materials deposited in the sea which once occupied their place.\nAs we go back in time, we meet with constant alternations of sea and\nland, of estuary and open ocean; and, in correspondence with these\nalternations, we observe the changes in the fauna and flora to which I\nhave referred.\n\nBut the inspection of these changes give us no right to believe that\nthere has been any discontinuity in natural processes. There is no\ntrace of general cataclysms, of universal deluges, or sudden\ndestructions of a whole fauna or flora. The appearances which were\nformerly interpreted in that way have all been shown to be delusive, as\nour knowledge has increased and as the blanks which formerly appeared to\nexist between the different formations have been filled up. That there\nis no absolute break between formation and formation, that there has\nbeen no sudden disappearance of all the forms of life and replacement of\nthem by others, but that changes have gone on slowly and gradually, that\none type has died out and another has taken its place, and that thus, by\ninsensible degrees, one fauna has been replaced by another, are\nconclusions strengthened by constantly increasing evidence. So that\nwithin the whole of the immense period indicated by the fossiliferous\nstratified rocks, there is assuredly not the slightest proof of any\nbreak in the uniformity of Nature's operations, no indication that\nevents have followed other than a clear and orderly sequence.\n\nThat, I say, is the natural and obvious teaching of the circumstantial\nevidence contained in the stratified rocks. I leave you to consider how\nfar, by any ingenuity of interpretation, by any stretching of the\nmeaning of language, it can be brought into harmony with the Miltonic\nhypothesis.\n\nThere remains the third hypothesis, that of which I have spoken as the\nhypothesis of evolution; and I purpose that, in lectures to come, we\nshould discuss it as carefully as we have considered the other two\nhypotheses. I need not say that it is quite hopeless to look for\ntestimonial evidence of evolution. The very nature of the case precludes\nthe possibility of such evidence, for the human race can no more be\nexpected to testify to its own origin, than a child can be tendered as a\nwitness of its own birth. Our sole inquiry is, what foundation\ncircumstantial evidence lends to the hypothesis, or whether it lends\nnone, or whether it controverts the hypothesis. I shall deal with the\nmatter entirely as a question of history. I shall not indulge in the\ndiscussion of any speculative probabilities. I shall not attempt to show\nthat Nature is unintelligible unless we adopt some such hypothesis. For\nanything I know about the matter, it may be the way of Nature to be\nunintelligible; she is often puzzling, and I have no reason to suppose\nthat she is bound to fit herself to our notions.\n\nI shall place before you three kinds of evidence entirely based upon\nwhat is known of the forms of animal life which are contained in the\nseries of stratified rocks. I shall endeavour to show you that there is\none kind of evidence which is neutral, which neither helps evolution nor\nis inconsistent with it. I shall then bring forward a second kind of\nevidence which indicates a strong probability in favour of evolution,\nbut does not prove it; and, lastly, I shall adduce a third kind of\nevidence which, being as complete as any evidence which we can hope to\nobtain upon such a subject, and being wholly and strikingly in favour of\nevolution, may fairly be called demonstrative evidence of its\noccurrence.\n\n\nII\n\nTHE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION. THE NEUTRAL AND THE FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE\n\nIn the preceding lecture I pointed out that there are three hypotheses\nwhich may be entertained, and which have been entertained, respecting\nthe past history of life upon the globe. According to the first of these\nhypotheses, living beings, such as now exist, have existed from all\neternity upon this earth. We tested that hypothesis by the\ncircumstantial evidence, as I called it, which is furnished by the\nfossil remains contained in the earth's crust, and we found that it was\nobviously untenable. I then proceeded to consider the second\nhypothesis, which I termed the Miltonic hypothesis, not because it is of\nany particular consequence whether John Milton seriously entertained it\nor not, but because it is stated in a clear and unmistakable manner in\nhis great poem. I pointed out to you that the evidence at our command as\ncompletely and fully negatives that hypothesis as it did the preceding\none. And I confess that I had too much respect for your intelligence to\nthink it necessary to add that the negation was equally clear and\nequally valid, whatever the source from which that hypothesis might be\nderived, or whatever the authority by which it might be supported. I\nfurther stated that, according to the third hypothesis, or that of\nevolution, the existing state of things is the last term of a long\nseries of states, which, when traced back, would be found to show no\ninterruption and no breach in the continuity of natural causation. I\npropose, in the present and the following lecture, to test this\nhypothesis rigorously by the evidence at command, and to inquire how far\nthat evidence can be said to be indifferent to it, how far it can be\nsaid to be favourable to it, and, finally, how far it can be said to be\ndemonstrative.\n\nFrom almost the origin of the discussions about the existing condition\nof the animal and vegetable worlds and the causes which have determined\nthat condition, an argument has been put forward as an objection to\nevolution, which we shall have to consider very seriously. It is an\nargument which was first clearly stated by Cuvier in his criticism of\nthe doctrines propounded by his great contemporary, Lamarck. The French\nexpedition to Egypt had called the attention of learned men to the\nwonderful store of antiquities in that country, and there had been\nbrought back to France numerous mummified corpses of the animals which\nthe ancient Egyptians revered and preserved, and which, at a reasonable\ncomputation, must have lived not less than three or four thousand years\nbefore the time at which they were thus brought to light. Cuvier\nendeavoured to test the hypothesis that animals have undergone gradual\nand progressive modifications of structure, by comparing the skeletons\nand such other parts of the mummies as were in a fitting state of\npreservation, with the corresponding parts of the representatives of the\nsame species now living in Egypt. He arrived at the conviction that no\nappreciable change had taken place in these animals in the course of\nthis considerable lapse of time, and the justice of his conclusion is\nnot disputed.\n\nIt is obvious that, if it can be proved that animals have endured,\nwithout undergoing any demonstrable change of structure, for so long a\nperiod as four thousand years, no form of the hypothesis of evolution\nwhich assumes that animals undergo a constant and necessary progressive\nchange can be tenable; unless, indeed, it be further assumed that four\nthousand years is too short a time for the production of a change\nsufficiently great to be detected.\n\nBut it is no less plain that if the process of evolution of animals is\nnot independent of surrounding conditions; if it may be indefinitely\nhastened or retarded by variations in these conditions; or if evolution\nis simply a process of accommodation to varying conditions; the argument\nagainst the hypothesis of evolution based on the unchanged character of\nthe Egyptian fauna is worthless. For the monuments which are coeval with\nthe mummies testify as strongly to the absence of change in the physical\ngeography and the general conditions of the land of Egypt, for the time\nin question, as the mummies do to the unvarying characters of its living\npopulation.\n\nThe progress of research since Cuvier's time has supplied far more\nstriking examples of the long duration of specific forms of life than\nthose which are furnished by the mummified Ibises and Crocodiles of\nEgypt. A remarkable case is to be found in your own country, in the\nneighbourhood of the falls of Niagara. In the immediate vicinity of the\nwhirlpool, and again upon Goat Island, in the superficial deposits\nwhich cover the surface of the rocky subsoil in those regions, there are\nfound remains of animals in perfect preservation, and among them, shells\nbelonging to exactly the same species as those which at present inhabit\nthe still waters of Lake Erie. It is evident, from the structure of the\ncountry, that these animal remains were deposited in the beds in which\nthey occur at a time when the lake extended over the region in which\nthey are found. This involves the conclusion that they lived and died\nbefore the falls had cut their way back through the gorge of Niagara;\nand, indeed, it has been determined that, when these animals lived, the\nfalls of Niagara must have been at least six miles further down the\nriver than they are at present. Many computations have been made of the\nrate at which the falls are thus cutting their way back. Those\ncomputations have varied greatly, but I believe I am speaking within the\nbounds of prudence, if I assume that the falls of Niagara have not\nretreated at a greater pace than about a foot a year. Six miles,\nspeaking roughly, are 30,000 feet; 30,000 feet, at a foot a year, gives\n30,000 years; and thus we are fairly justified in concluding that no\nless a period than this has passed since the shell-fish, whose remains\nare left in the beds to which I have referred, were living creatures.\n\nBut there is still stronger evidence of the long duration of certain\ntypes. I have already stated that, as we work our way through the great\nseries of the Tertiary formations, we find many species of animals\nidentical with those which live at the present day, diminishing in\nnumbers, it is true, but still existing, in a certain proportion, in the\noldest of the Tertiary rocks. Furthermore, when we examine the rocks of\nthe Cretaceous epoch, we find the remains of some animals which the\nclosest scrutiny cannot show to be, in any important respect, different\nfrom those which live at the present time. That is the case with one of\nthe cretaceous lamp-shells (_Terebratula_) which has continued to exist\nunchanged, or with insignificant variations, down to the present day.\nSuch is the case with the _Globigerinae_, the skeletons of which,\naggregated together, form a large proportion of our English chalk. Those\n_Globigerinae_ can be traced down to the _Globigerinae_ which live at the\nsurface of the present great oceans, and the remains of which, falling\nto the bottom of the sea give rise to a chalky mud. Hence it must be\nadmitted that certain existing species of animals show no distinct sign\nof modification, or transformation, in the course of a lapse of time as\ngreat as that which carries us back to the Cretaceous period; and which,\nwhatever its absolute measure, is certainly vastly greater than thirty\nthousand years.\n\nThere are groups of species so closely allied together, that it needs\nthe eye of a naturalist to distinguish them one from another. If we\ndisregard the small differences which separate these forms, and consider\nall the species of such groups as modifications of one type, we shall\nfind that, even among the higher animals, some types have had a\nmarvellous duration. In the chalk, for example, there is found a fish\nbelonging to the highest and the most differentiated group of osseous\nfishes, which goes by the name of _Beryx_. The remains of that fish are\namong the most beautiful and well-preserved of the fossils found in our\nEnglish chalk. It can be studied anatomically, so far as the hard parts\nare concerned, almost as well as if it were a recent fish. But the genus\n_Beryx_ is represented, at the present day, by very closely allied\nspecies which are living in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. We may go\nstill farther back. I have already referred to the fact, that the\nCarboniferous formations, in Europe and in America, contain the remains\nof scorpions in an admirable state of preservation and, that those\nscorpions are hardly distinguishable from such as now live. I do not\nmean to say that they are not different, but close scrutiny is needed in\norder to distinguish them from modern scorpions.\n\nMore than this. At the very bottom Of the Silurian series, in beds which\nare by some authorities referred to the Cambrian formation, where the\nsigns of life begin to fail us--even there, among the few and scanty\nanimal remains which are discoverable, we find species of molluscous\nanimals which are so closely allied to existing forms that, at one time,\nthey were grouped under the same generic name. I refer to the well known\n_Lingula_ of the _Lingula_ flags, lately, in consequence of some slight\ndifferences, placed in the new genus _Lingulella_. Practically, it\nbelongs to the same great generic group as the _Lingula_, which is to be\nfound at the present day upon your own shores and those of many other\nparts of the world.\n\nThe same truth is exemplified if we turn to certain great periods of the\nearth's history--as, for example, the Mesozoic epoch. There are groups\nof reptiles, such as the _Ichthyosauria_ and the _Plesiosauria_, which\nappear shortly after the commencement of this epoch, and they occur in\nvast numbers. They disappear with the chalk and, throughout the whole of\nthe great series of Mesozoic rocks, they present no such modifications\nas can safely be considered evidence of progressive modification.\n\nFacts of this kind are undoubtedly fatal to any form of the doctrine of\nevolution which postulates the supposition that there is an intrinsic\nnecessity, on the part of animal forms which have once come into\nexistence, to undergo continual modification; and they are as distinctly\nopposed to any view which involves the belief, that such modification as\nmay occur, must take place, at the same rate, in all the different types\nof animal or vegetable life. The facts, as I have placed them before you\nobviously directly contradict any form of the hypothesis of evolution\nwhich stands in need of these two postulates.\n\nBut, one great service that has been rendered by Mr. Darwin to the\ndoctrine of evolution in general is this: he has shown that there are\ntwo chief factors in the process of evolution: one of them is the\ntendency to vary, the existence of which in all living forms may be\nproved by observation; the other is the influence of surrounding\nconditions upon what I may call the parent form and the variations which\nare thus evolved from it. The cause of the production of variations is a\nmatter not at all properly understood at present. Whether variation\ndepends upon some intricate machinery--if I may use the phrase--of the\nliving organism itself, or whether it arises through the influence of\nconditions upon that form, is not certain, and the question may, for the\npresent, be left open. But the important point is that granting the\nexistence of the tendency to the production of variations; then, whether\nthe variations which are produced shall survive and supplant the parent,\nor whether the parent form shall survive and supplant the variations, is\na matter which depends entirely on those conditions which give rise to\nthe struggle for existence. If the surrounding conditions are such that\nthe parent form is more competent to deal with them, and flourish in\nthem than the derived forms, then, in the struggle for existence, the\nparent form will maintain itself and the derived forms will be\nexterminated. But if, on the contrary, the conditions are such as to be\nmore favourable to a derived than to the parent form, the parent form\nwill be extirpated and the derived form will take its place. In the\nfirst case, there will be no progression, no change of structure,\nthrough any imaginable series of ages; in the second place there will be\nmodification of change and form.\n\nThus the existence of these persistent types, as I have termed them, is\nno real obstacle in the way of the theory of evolution. Take the case of\nthe scorpions to which I have just referred. No doubt, since the\nCarboniferous epoch, conditions have always obtained, such as existed\nwhen the scorpions of that epoch flourished; conditions in which\nscorpions find themselves better off, more competent to deal with the\ndifficulties in their way, than any variation from the scorpion type\nwhich they may have produced; and, for that reason, the scorpion type\nhas persisted, and has not been supplanted by any other form. And there\nis no reason, in the nature of things, why, as long as this world\nexists, if there be conditions more favourable to scorpions than to any\nvariation which may arise from them, these forms of life should not\npersist.\n\nTherefore, the stock objection to the hypothesis of evolution, based on\nthe long duration of certain animal and vegetable types, is no objection\nat all. The facts of this character--and they are numerous--belong to\nthat class of evidence which I have called indifferent. That is to say,\nthey may afford no direct support to the doctrine of evolution, but they\nare capable of being interpreted in perfect consistency with it.\n\nThere is another order of facts belonging to the class of negative or\nindifferent evidence. The great group of Lizards, which abound in the\npresent world, extends through the whole series of formations as far\nback as the Permian, or latest Palaeozoic, epoch. These Permian lizards\ndiffer astonishingly little from the lizards which exist at the present\nday. Comparing the amount of the differences between them and modern\nlizards, with the prodigious lapse of time between the Permian epoch and\nthe present age, it may be said that the amount of change is\ninsignificant. But, when we carry our researches farther back in time,\nwe find no trace of lizards, nor of any true reptile whatever, in the\nwhole mass of formations beneath the Permian.\n\nNow, it is perfectly clear that if our palaeontological collections are\nto be taken, even approximately, as an adequate representation of all\nthe forms of animals and plants that have ever lived; and if the record\nfurnished by the known series of beds of stratified rock covers the\nwhole series of events which constitute the history of life on the\nglobe, such a fact as this directly contravenes the hypothesis of\nevolution; because this hypothesis postulates that the existence of\nevery form must have been preceded by that of some form little different\nfrom it. Here, however, we have to take into consideration that\nimportant truth so well insisted upon by Lyell and by Darwin--the\nimperfection of the geological record. It can be demonstrated that the\ngeological record must be incomplete, that it can only preserve remains\nfound in certain favourable localities and under particular conditions;\nthat it must be destroyed by processes of denudation, and obliterated by\nprocesses of metamorphosis. Beds of rock of any thickness, crammed full\nof organic remains, may yet, either by the percolation of water through\nthem, or by the influence of subterranean heat, lose all trace of these\nremains, and present the appearance of beds of rock formed under\nconditions in which living forms were absent. Such metamorphic rocks\noccur in formations of all ages; and, in various cases, there are very\ngood grounds for the belief that they have contained organic remains,\nand that those remains have been absolutely obliterated.\n\nI insist upon the defects of the geological record the more because\nthose who have not attended to these matters are apt to say, \"It is all\nvery well, but, when you get into a difficulty with your theory of\nevolution, you appeal to the incompleteness and the imperfection of the\ngeological record;\" and I want to make it perfectly clear to you that\nthis imperfection is a great fact, which must be taken into account in\nall our speculations, or we shall constantly be going wrong.\n\nYou see the singular series of footmarks, drawn of its natural size in\nthe large diagram hanging up here (Fig. 2), which I owe to the kindness\nof my friend Professor Marsh, with whom I had the opportunity recently\nof visiting the precise locality in Massachusetts in which these tracks\noccur. I am, therefore, able to give you my own testimony, if needed,\nthat the diagram accurately represents what we saw. The valley of the\nConnecticut is classical ground for the geologist. It contains great\nbeds of sandstone, covering many square miles, which have evidently\nformed a part of an ancient sea-shore, or, it may be, lake-shore. For a\ncertain period of time after their deposition, these beds have remained\nsufficiently soft to receive the impressions of the feet of whatever\nanimals walked over them, and to preserve them afterwards, in exactly\nthe same way as such impressions are at this hour preserved on the\nshores of the Bay of Fundy and elsewhere. The diagram represents the\ntrack of some gigantic animal, which walked on its hind legs. You see\nthe series of marks made alternately by the right and by the left foot;\nso that, from one impression to the other of the three-toed foot on the\nsame side, is one stride, and that stride, as we measured it, is six\nfeet nine inches. I leave you, therefore, to form an impression of the\nmagnitude of the creature which, as it walked along the ancient shore,\nmade these impressions.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--TRACKS OF BRONTOZOUM.]\n\nOf such impressions there are untold thousands upon these sandstones.\nFifty or sixty different kinds have been discovered, and they cover vast\nareas. But, up to this present time, not a bone, not a fragment, of any\none of the animals which left these great footmarks has been found; in\nfact, the only animal remains which have been met with in all these\ndeposits, from the time of their discovery to the present day--though\nthey have been carefully hunted over--is a fragmentary skeleton of one\nof the smaller forms. What has become of the bones of all these animals?\nYou see we are not dealing with little creatures, but with animals that\nmake a step of six feet nine inches; and their remains must have been\nleft somewhere. The probability is, that they have been dissolved away,\nand completely lost.\n\nI have had occasion to work out the nature of fossil remains, of which\nthere was nothing left except casts of the bones, the solid material of\nthe skeleton having been dissolved out by percolating water. It was a\nchance, in this case, that the sandstone happened to be of such a\nconstitution as to set, and to allow the bones to be afterward dissolved\nout, leaving cavities of the exact shape of the bones. Had that\nconstitution been other than what it was, the bones would have been\ndissolved, the layers of sandstone would have fallen together into one\nmass, and not the slightest indication that the animal had existed would\nhave been discoverable.\n\nI know of no more striking evidence than these facts afford, of the\ncaution which should be used in drawing the conclusion, from the absence\nof organic remains in a deposit, that animals or plants did not exist at\nthe time it was formed. I believe that, with a right understanding of\nthe doctrine of evolution on the one hand, and a just estimation of the\nimportance of the imperfection of the geological record on the other,\nall difficulty is removed from the kind of evidence to which I have\nadverted; and that we are justified in believing that all such cases are\nexamples of what I have designated negative or indifferent\nevidence--that is to say, they in no way directly advance the hypothesis\nof evolution, but they are not to be regarded as obstacles in the way of\nour belief in that doctrine.\n\nI now pass on to the consideration of those cases which, for reasons\nwhich I will point out to you by and by, are not to be regarded as\ndemonstrative of the truth of evolution, but which are such as must\nexist if evolution be true, and which therefore are, upon the whole,\nevidence in favour of the doctrine. If the doctrine of evolution be\ntrue, it follows, that, however diverse the different groups of animals\nand of plants may be, they must all, at one time or other, have been\nconnected by gradational forms; so that, from the highest animals,\nwhatever they may be, down to the lowest speck of protoplasmic matter in\nwhich life can be manifested, a series of gradations, leading from one\nend of the series to the other, either exists or has existed.\nUndoubtedly that is a necessary postulate of the doctrine of evolution.\nBut when we look upon living Nature as it is, we find a totally\ndifferent state of things. We find that animals and plants fall into\ngroups, the different members of which are pretty closely allied\ntogether, but which are separated by definite, larger or smaller,\nbreaks, from other groups. In other words, no intermediate forms which\nbridge over these gaps or intervals are, at present, to be met with.\n\nTo illustrate what I mean: Let me call your attention to those\nvertebrate animals which are most familiar to you, such as mammals,\nbirds, and reptiles. At the present day, these groups of animals are\nperfectly well-defined from one another. We know of no animal now living\nwhich, in any sense, is intermediate between the mammal and the bird, or\nbetween the bird and the reptile; but, on the contrary, there are many\nvery distinct anatomical peculiarities, well-defined marks, by which the\nmammal is separated from the bird, and the bird from the reptile. The\ndistinctions are obvious and striking if you compare the definitions of\nthese great groups as they now exist.\n\nThe same may be said of many of the subordinate groups, or orders, into\nwhich these great classes are divided. At the present time, for example,\nthere are numerous forms of non-ruminant pachyderms, or what we may call\nbroadly, the pig tribe, and many varieties of ruminants. These latter\nhave their definite characteristics, and the former have their\ndistinguishing peculiarities. But there is nothing that fills up the gap\nbetween the ruminants and the pig tribe. The two are distinct. Such also\nis the case in respect of the minor groups of the class of reptiles. The\nexisting fauna shows us crocodiles, lizards, snakes, and tortoises; but\nno connecting link between the crocodile and lizard, nor between the\nlizard and snake, nor between the snake and the crocodile, nor between\nany two of these groups. They are separated by absolute breaks. If,\nthen, it could be shown that this state of things had always existed,\nthe fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution. If the\nintermediate gradations, which the doctrine of evolution requires to\nhave existed between these groups, are not to be found anywhere in the\nrecords of the past history of the globe, their absence is a strong and\nweighty negative argument against evolution; while, on the other hand,\nif such intermediate forms are to be found, that is so much to the good\nof evolution; although for reasons which I will lay before you by and\nby, we must be cautious in our estimate of the evidential cogency of\nfacts of this kind.\n\nIt is a very remarkable circumstance that, from the commencement of the\nserious study of fossil remains, in fact from the time when Cuvier began\nhis brilliant researches upon those found in the quarries of Montmartre,\npalaeontology has shown what she was going to do in this matter, and what\nkind of evidence it lay in her power to produce.\n\nI said just now that, in the existing Fauna, the group of pig-like\nanimals and the group of ruminants are entirely distinct; but one of the\nfirst of Cuvier's discoveries was an animal which he called the\n_Anoplotherium_, and which proved to be, in a great many important\nrespects, intermediate in character between the pigs on the one hand,\nand the ruminants on the other Thus, research into the history of the\npast did, to a certain extent, tend to fill up the breach between the\ngroup of ruminants and the group of pigs. Another remarkable animal\nrestored by the great French palaeontologist, the _Palaeotherium_,\nsimilarly tended to connect together animals to all appearance so\ndifferent as the rhinoceros, the horse, and the tapir. Subsequent\nresearch has brought to light multitudes of facts of the same order;\nand, at the present day, the investigations of such anatomists as\nRuetimeyer and Gaudry have tended to fill up, more and more, the gaps in\nour existing series of mammals, and to connect groups formerly thought\nto be distinct.\n\nBut I think it may have an especial interest if, instead of dealing with\nthese examples, which would require a great deal of tedious osteological\ndetail, I take the case of birds and reptiles; groups which, at the\npresent day, are so clearly distinguished from one another that there\nare perhaps no classes of animals which, in popular apprehension, are\nmore completely separated. Existing birds, as you are aware, are covered\nwith feathers; their anterior extremities, specially and peculiarly\nmodified, are converted into wings, by the aid of which most of them are\nable to fly; they walk upright upon two legs; and these limbs, when they\nare considered anatomically, present a great number of exceedingly\nremarkable peculiarities, to which I may have occasion to advert\nincidentally as I go on, and which are not met with, even approximately,\nin any existing forms of reptiles. On the other hand, existing reptiles\nhave no feathers. They may have naked skins, or be covered with horny\nscales, or bony plates, or with both. They possess no wings; they\nneither fly by means of their fore-limbs, nor habitually walk upright\nupon their hind-limbs; and the bones of their legs present no such\nmodifications as we find in birds. It is impossible to imagine any two\ngroups more definitely and distinctly separated, notwithstanding certain\ncharacters which they possess in common.\n\nAs we trace the history of birds back in time, we find their remains,\nsometimes in great abundance, throughout the whole extent of the\ntertiary rocks; but, so far as our present knowledge goes, the birds of\nthe tertiary rocks retain the same essential characters as the birds of\nthe present day. In other words, the tertiary birds come within the\ndefinition of the class constituted by existing birds, and are as much\nseparated from reptiles as existing birds are. Not very long ago no\nremains of birds had been found below the tertiary rocks, and I am not\nsure but that some persons were prepared to demonstrate that they could\nnot have existed at an earlier period. But, in the course of the last\nfew years, such remains have been discovered in England; though,\nunfortunately, in so imperfect and fragmentary a condition, that it is\nimpossible to say whether they differed from existing birds in any\nessential character or not. In your country the development of the\ncretaceous series of rocks is enormous; the conditions under which the\nlater cretaceous strata have been deposited are highly favourable to the\npreservation of organic remains; and the researches, full of labour and\nrisk, which have been carried on by Professor Marsh in these cretaceous\nrocks of Western America, have rewarded him with the discovery of forms\nof birds of which we had hitherto no conception. By his kindness, I am\nenabled to place before you a restoration of one of these extraordinary\nbirds, every part of which can be thoroughly justified by the more or\nless complete skeletons, in a very perfect state of preservation, which\nhe has discovered. This _Hesperornis_ (Fig. 3), which measured between\nfive and six feet in length, is astonishingly like our existing divers\nor grebes in a great many respects; so like them indeed that, had the\nskeleton of _Hesperornis_ been found in a museum without its skull,\nimprobably would have been placed in the same group of birds as the\ndivers and grebes of the present day.[1] But _Hesperornis_ differs from\nall existing birds, and so far resembles reptiles, in one important\nparticular--it is provided with teeth. The long jaws are armed with\nteeth which have curved crowns and thick roots (Fig. 4), and are not set\nin distinct sockets, but are lodged in a groove. In possessing true\nteeth, the _Hesperornis_ differs from every existing bird, and from\nevery bird yet discovered in the tertiary formations, the tooth-like\nserrations of the jaws in the _Odontopteryx_ of the London clay being\nmere processes of the bony substance of the jaws, and not teeth in the\nproper sense of the word. In view of the characteristics of this bird we\nare therefore obliged to modify the definitions of the classes of birds\nand reptiles. Before the discovery of _Hesperornis_, the definition of\nthe class Aves based upon our knowledge of existing birds might have\nbeen extended to all birds; it might have been said that the absence of\nteeth was characteristic of the class of birds; but the discovery of an\nanimal which, in every part of its skeleton, closely agrees with\nexisting birds, and yet possesses teeth, shows that there were ancient\nbirds, which, in respect of possessing teeth, approached reptiles more\nnearly than any existing bird does, and, to that extent, diminishes the\n_hiatus_ between the two classes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3--HESPERORNIS REGALIS (Marsh).]\n\nThe same formation has yielded another bird _Ichthyornis_ (Fig. 5),\nwhich also possesses teeth; but the teeth are situated in distinct\nsockets, while those of _Hesperornis_ are not so lodged. The latter also\nhas such very small, almost rudimentary wings, that it must have been\nchiefly a swimmer and a diver like a Penguin; while _Ichthyornis_ has\nstrong wings and no doubt possessed corresponding powers of flight.\n_Ichthyornis_ also differed in the fact that its vertebrae have not the\npeculiar characters of the vertebrae of existing and of all known\ntertiary birds, but were concave at each end. This discovery leads us to\nmake a further modification in the definition of the group of birds, and\nto part with another of the characters by which almost all existing\nbirds are distinguished from reptiles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.--HESPERORNIS REGALIS (Marsh).\n\nSide and upper views of half the lower jaw; side and end views of a\nvertebra and a separate tooth.]\n\nApart from the few fragmentary remains from the English greensand, to\nwhich I have referred, the Mesozoic rocks, older than those in which\n_Hesperornis_ and _Ichthyornis_ have been discovered have afforded no\ncertain evidence of birds, with the remarkable exception of the\nSolenhofen slates. These so-called slates are composed of a fine grained\ncalcareous mud which has hardened into lithographic stone, and in which\norganic remains are almost as well preserved as they would be if they\nhad been imbedded in so much plaster of Paris. They have yielded the\n_Archaeopteryx_, the existence of which was first made known by the\nfinding of a fossil feather, or rather of the impression of one. It is\nwonderful enough that such a perishable thing as a feather, and nothing\nmore, should be discovered; yet for a long time, nothing was known of\nthis bird except its feather. But by and by a solitary skeleton was\ndiscovered which is now in the British Museum. The skull of this\nsolitary specimen is unfortunately wanting, and it is therefore\nuncertain whether the _Archaeopteryx_ possessed teeth or not.[2] But the\nremainder of the skeleton is so well preserved as to leave no doubt\nrespecting the main features of the animal, which are very singular. The\nfeet are not only altogether bird-like, but have the special characters\nof the feet of perching birds, while the body had a clothing of true\nfeathers. Nevertheless, in some other respects, _Archaeopteryx_ is unlike\na bird and like a reptile. There is a long tail composed of many\nvertebrae. The structure of the wing differs in some very remarkable\nrespects from that which it presents in a true bird. In the latter, the\nend of the wing answers to the thumb and two fingers of my hand; but the\nmetacarpal bones, or those which answer to the bones of the fingers\nwhich lie in the palm of the hand, are fused together into one mass; and\nthe whole apparatus, except the last joints of the thumb, is bound up in\na sheath of integument, while the edge of the hand carries the principal\nquill feathers. In the _Archaeopteryx_, the upper-arm bone is like that\nof a bird; and the two bones of the fore-arm are more or less like those\nof a bird, but the fingers are not bound together--they are free. What\ntheir number may have been is uncertain; but several, if not all, of\nthem were terminated by strong curved claws, not like such as are\nsometimes found in birds, but such as reptiles possess; so that, in the\n_Archaeopteryx_, we have an animal which, to a certain extent, occupies a\nmidway place between a bird and a reptile. It is a bird so far as its\nfoot and sundry other parts of its skeleton are concerned; it is\nessentially and thoroughly a bird by its feathers; but it is much more\nproperly a reptile in the fact that the region which represents the hand\nhas separate bones, with claws resembling those which terminate the\nfore-limb of a reptile. Moreover, it had a long reptile-like tail with a\nfringe of feathers on each side; while, in all true birds hitherto\nknown, the tail is relatively short, and the vertebrae which constitute\nits skeleton are generally peculiarly modified.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5.--ICHTHYORNIS DISPAR (Marsh).\n\n(Side and upper views of half the lower jaw; and side and end views of a\nvertebra.)]\n\nLike the _Anoplotherium_ and the _Palaeotherium_, therefore,\n_Archaopteryx_ tends to fill up the interval between groups which, in\nthe existing world, are widely separated, and to destroy the value of\nthe definitions of zoological groups based upon our knowledge of\nexisting forms. And such cases as these constitute evidence in favour of\nevolution, in so far as they prove that, in former periods of the\nworld's history, there were animals which overstepped the bounds of\nexisting groups, and tended to merge them into larger assemblages. They\nshow that animal organisation is more flexible than our knowledge of\nrecent forms might have led us to believe; and that many structural\npermutations and combinations, of which the present world gives us no\nindication, may nevertheless have existed.\n\nBut it by no means follows, because the _Palaeotherium_ has much in\ncommon with the horse, on the one hand, and with the rhinoceros on the\nother, that it is the intermediate form through which rhinoceroses have\npassed to become horses, or _vice versa_; on the contrary, any such\nsupposition would certainly be erroneous. Nor do I think it likely that\nthe transition from the reptile to the bird has been effected by such a\nform as _Archaeopteryx_. And it is convenient to distinguish these\nintermediate forms between two groups, which do not represent the actual\npassage from the one group to the other, as _intercalary_ types, from\nthose _linear_ types which, more or less approximately, indicate the\nnature of the steps by which the transition from one group to the other\nwas effected.\n\nI conceive that such linear forms, constituting a series of natural\ngradations between the reptile and the bird, and enabling us to\nunderstand the manner in which the reptilian has been metamorphosed into\nthe bird type, are really to be found among a group of ancient and\nextinct terrestrial reptiles known as the _Ornithoscelida_. The remains\nof these animals occur throughout the series of Mesozoic formations,\nfrom the Trias to the Chalk, and there are indications of their\nexistence even in the later Palaeozoic strata.\n\nMost of these reptiles, at present known, are of great size, some having\nattained a length of forty feet or perhaps more. The majority resembled\nlizards and crocodiles in their general form, and many of them were,\nlike crocodiles, protected by an armour of heavy bony plates. But, in\nothers, the hind-limbs elongate and the fore-limbs shorten, until their\nrelative proportions approach those which are observed in the\nshort-winged, flightless, ostrich tribe among birds.\n\nThe skull is relatively light, and in some cases the jaws, though\nbearing teeth, are beak-like at their extremities and appear to have\nbeen enveloped in a horny sheath. In the part of the vertebral column\nwhich lies between the haunch bones and is called the sacrum, a number\nof vertebrae may unite together into one whole, and in this respect, as\nin some details of its structure, the sacrum of these reptiles\napproaches that of birds.\n\nBut it is in the structure of the pelvis and of the hind limb that some\nof these ancient reptiles present the most remarkable approximation to\nbirds, and clearly indicate the way by which the most specialised and\ncharacteristic features of the bird may have been evolved from the\ncorresponding parts in the reptile.\n\nIn Fig. 6, the pelvis and hind-limbs of a crocodile, a three-toed bird,\nand an ornithoscelidan are represented side by side; and, for facility\nof comparison, in corresponding positions; but it must be recollected\nthat, while the position of the bird's limb is natural, that of the\ncrocodile is not so. In the bird, the thigh-bone lies close to the body,\nand the metatarsal bones of the foot (ii., iii., iv., Fig. 6) are,\nordinarily, raised into a more or less vertical position; in the\ncrocodile, the thigh-bone stands out at an angle from the body, and the\nmetatarsal bones (i., ii., iii., iv., Fig. 6) lie flat on the ground.\nHence, in the crocodile, the body usually lies squat between the legs,\nwhile, in the bird, it is raised upon the hind legs, as upon pillars.\n\nIn the crocodile, the pelvis is obviously composed of three bones on\neach side: the ilium (_Il._), the pubis (_Pb._), and the ischium\n(_Is._). In the adult bird there appears to be but one bone on each\nside. The examination of the pelvis of a chick, however, shows that\neach half is made up of three bones, which answer to those which remain\ndistinct throughout life in the crocodile. There is, therefore, a\nfundamental identity of plan in the construction of the pelvis of both\nbird and reptile; though the difference in form, relative size, and\ndirection of the corresponding bones in the two cases are very great.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 6.--BIRD. ORNITHOSCELIDAN. CROCODILE.\n\n(The letters have the same signification in all the figures. _Il._,\nIlium; _a_, anterior end; _b_, posterior end _Is._, ischium; _Pb._,\npubis; _T_, tibia; _F_, fibula; _As._, astragalus; _Ca._, calcaneum;\n_i_, distal portion of the tarsus; i., ii., iii., iv., metatarsal\nbones.)]\n\nBut the most striking contrast between the two lies in the bones of the\nleg and of that part of the foot termed the tarsus, which follows upon\nthe leg. In the crocodile, the fibula _(F)_ is relatively large and its\nlower end is complete. The tibia _(T)_ has no marked crest at its upper\nend, and its lower end is narrow and not pulley-shaped. There are two\nrows of separate tarsal bones _(As., Ca., &c.)_ and four distinct\nmetatarsal bones, with a rudiment of a fifth.\n\nIn the bird the fibula is small and its lower end diminishes to a point.\nThe tibia has a strong crest at its upper end and its lower extremity\npasses into a broad pulley. There seem at first to be no tarsal bones;\nand only one bone, divided at the end into three heads for the three\ntoes which are attached to it, appears in the place of the metatarsus.\n\nIn a young bird, however, the pulley-shaped apparent end of the tibia is\na distinct bone, which represents the bones marked _As., Ca._, in the\ncrocodile; while the apparently single metatarsal bone consists of three\nbones, which early unite with one another and with an additional bone,\nwhich represents the lower row of bones in the tarsus of the crocodile.\n\nIn other words it can be shown by the study of development that the\nbird's pelvis and hind limb are simply extreme modifications of the same\nfundamental plan as that upon which these parts are modelled in\nreptiles.\n\nOn comparing the pelvis and hind limb of the ornithoscelidan with that\nof the crocodile, on the one side, and that of the bird, on the other\n(Fig. 6), it is obvious that it represents a middle term between the\ntwo. The pelvic bones approach the form of those of the birds, and the\ndirection of the pubis and ischium is nearly that which is\ncharacteristic of birds; the thigh bone, from the direction of its head,\nmust have lain close to the body; the tibia has a great crest; and,\nimmovably fitted on to its lower end, there is a pulley-shaped bone,\nlike that of the bird, but remaining distinct. The lower end of the\nfibula is much more slender, proportionally, than in the crocodile. The\nmetatarsal bones have such a form that they fit together immovably,\nthough they do not enter into bony union; the third toe is, as in the\nbird, longest and strongest. In fact, the ornithoscelidan limb is\ncomparable to that of an unhatched chick.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7.--RESTORATION OF COMPSOGNATHUS LONGIPES.]\n\nTaking all these facts together, it is obvious that the view, which was\nentertained by Mantell and the probability of which was demonstrated by\nyour own distinguished anatomist, Leidy, while much additional evidence\nin the same direction has been furnished by Professor Cope, that some of\nthese animals may have walked upon their hind legs, as birds do,\nacquires great weight. In fact, there can be no reasonable doubt that\none of the smaller forms of the _Ornithoscelida, Compsognathus_, the\nalmost entire skeleton of which has been discovered in the Solenhofen\nslates, was a bipedal animal. The parts of this skeleton are somewhat\ntwisted out of their natural relations, but the accompanying figure\ngives a just view of the general form of _Compsognathus_ and of the\nproportions of its limbs; which, in some respects, are more completely\nbird-like than those of other _Ornithoscelida_.\n\nWe have had to stretch the definition of the class of birds so as to\ninclude birds with teeth and birds with paw-like fore-limbs and long\ntails. There is no evidence that _Compsognathus_ possessed feathers;\nbut, if it did, it would be hard indeed to say whether it should be\ncalled a reptilian bird or an avian reptile.\n\nAs _Compsognathus_ walked upon its hind legs, it must have made tracks\nlike those of birds. And as the structure of the limbs of several of the\ngigantic _Ornithoscelida_, such as _Iguandon_, leads to the conclusion\nthat they also may have constantly, or occasionally, assumed the same\nattitude, a peculiar interest attaches to the fact that, in the Wealden\nstrata of England, there are to be found gigantic footsteps, arranged in\norder like those of the _Brontozoum_, and which there can be no\nreasonable doubt were made by some of the _Ornithoscelida_, the remains\nof which are found in the same rocks. And, knowing that reptiles that\nwalked upon their hind legs and shared many of the anatomical characters\nof birds did once exist, it becomes a very important question whether\nthe tracks in the Trias of Massachusetts, to which I referred some time\nago, and which formerly used to be unhesitatingly ascribed to birds may\nnot all have been made by Ornithoscelidan reptiles; and whether, if we\ncould obtain the skeletons of the animals which made these tracks, we\nshould not find in them the actual steps of the evolutional process by\nwhich reptiles gave rise to birds.\n\nThe evidential value of the facts I have brought forward in this Lecture\nmust be neither over nor under estimated. It is not historical proof of\nthe occurrence of the evolution of birds from reptiles, for we have no\nsafe ground for assuming that true birds had not made their appearance\nat the commencement of the Mesozoic epoch. It is in fact, quite possible\nthat all these more or less aviform reptiles of the Mesozoic epoch are\nnot terms in the series of progression from birds to reptiles at all,\nbut simply the more or less modified descendants of Palaeozoic forms\nthrough which that transition was actually effected.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8.--PTERODACTYLUS SPECTABILIS (Von Meyer).]\n\nWe are not in a position to say that the known _Ornithoscelida_ are\nintermediate in the order of their appearance on the earth between\nreptiles and birds. All that can be said is that, if independent\nevidence of the actual occurrence of evolution is producible, then these\nintercalary forms remove every difficulty in the way of understanding\nwhat the actual steps of the process, in the case of birds, may have\nbeen.\n\nThat intercalary forms should have existed in ancient times is a\nnecessary consequence of the truth of the hypothesis of evolution; and,\nhence, the evidence I have laid before you in proof of the existence of\nsuch forms, is, so far as it goes, in favour of that hypothesis.\n\nThere is another series of extinct reptiles which may be said to be\nintercalary between reptiles and birds, in so far as they combine some\nof the characters of these groups; and which, as they possessed the\npower of flight, may seem, at first sight, to be nearer representatives\nof the forms by which the transition from the reptile to the bird was\neffected, than the _Ornithoscelida_.\n\nThese are the _Pterosauria_, or Pterodactyles, the remains of which are\nmet with throughout the series of Mesozoic rocks, from the lias to the\nchalk, and some of which attain a great size, their wings having a span\nof eighteen or twenty feet. These animals, in the form and proportions\nof the head and neck relatively to the body, and in the fact that the\nends of the jaws were often, if not always, more or less extensively\nensheathed in horny beaks, remind us of birds. Moreover, their bones\ncontained air cavities, rendering them specifically lighter, as is the\ncase in most birds. The breast-bone was large and keeled, as in most\nbirds and in bats, and the shoulder girdle is strikingly similar to that\nof ordinary birds. But it seems to me that the special resemblance of\npterodactyles to birds ends here, unless I may add the entire absence of\nteeth which characterises the great pterodactyles (_Pteranodon_)\ndiscovered by Professor Marsh. All other known pterodactyles have teeth\nlodged in sockets. In the vertebral column and the hind-limbs there are\nno special resemblances to birds, and when we turn to the wings they are\nfound to be constructed on a totally different principle from those of\nbirds.\n\nThere are four fingers. These four fingers are large, and three of them,\nthose which answer to the thumb and two following fingers in my\nhand--are terminated by claws, while the fourth is enormously prolonged\nand converted into a great jointed style. You see at once, from what I\nhave stated about a bird's wing, that there could be nothing less like a\nbird's wing than this is. It was concluded by general reasoning that\nthis finger had the office of supporting a web which extended between it\nand the body. An existing specimen proves that such was really the case,\nand that the pterodactyles were devoid of feathers, but that the fingers\nsupported a vast web like that of a bat's wing; in fact, there can be no\ndoubt that this ancient reptile flew after the fashion of a bat.\n\nThus, though the pterodactyle is a reptile which has become modified in\nsuch a manner as to enable it to fly, and therefore, as might be\nexpected, presents some points of resemblance to other animals which\nfly; it has, so to speak, gone off the line which leads directly from\nreptiles to birds, and has become disqualified for the changes which\nlead to the characteristic organisation of the latter class. Therefore,\nviewed in relation to the classes of reptiles and birds, the\npterodactyles appear to me to be, in a limited sense, intercalary forms;\nbut they are not even approximately linear, in the sense of exemplifying\nthose modifications of structure through which the passage from the\nreptile to the bird took place.\n\n\nIII\n\nTHE DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION\n\nThe occurrence of historical facts is said to be demonstrated, when the\nevidence that they happened is of such a character as to render the\nassumption that they did not happen in the highest degree improbable;\nand the question I now have to deal with is, whether evidence in favour\nof the evolution of animals of this degree of cogency is, or is not,\nobtainable from the record of the succession of living forms which is\npresented to us by fossil remains.\n\nThose who have attended to the progress of palaeontology are aware that\nevidence of the character which I have defined has been produced in\nconsiderable and continually-increasing quantity during the last few\nyears. Indeed, the amount and the satisfactory nature of that evidence\nare somewhat surprising, when we consider the conditions under which\nalone we can hope to obtain it.\n\nIt is obviously useless to seek for such evidence except in localities\nin which the physical conditions have been such as to permit of the\ndeposit of an unbroken, or but rarely interrupted, series of strata\nthrough a long period of time in which the group of animals to be\ninvestigated has existed in such abundance as to furnish the requisite\nsupply of remains; and in which, finally, the materials composing the\nstrata are such as to ensure the preservation of these remains in a\ntolerably perfect and undisturbed state.\n\nIt so happens that the case which, at present, most nearly fulfils all\nthese conditions is that of the series of extinct animals which\nculminates in the horses, by which term I mean to denote not merely the\ndomestic animals with which we are all so well acquainted, but their\nallies, the ass, zebra, quagga, and the like. In short, I use \"horses\"\nas the equivalent of the technical name _Equidae_, which is applied to\nthe whole group of existing equine animals.\n\nThe horse is in many ways a remarkable animal; not least so in the fact\nthat it presents us with an example of one of the most perfect pieces of\nmachinery in the living world. In truth, among the works of human\ningenuity it cannot be said that there is any locomotive so perfectly\nadapted to its purposes, doing so much work with so small a quantity of\nfuel, as this machine of Nature's manufacture--the horse. And, as a\nnecessary consequence of any sort of perfection, of mechanical\nperfection as of others, you find that the horse is a beautiful\ncreature, one of the most beautiful of all land animals. Look at the\nperfect balance of its form, and the rhythm and force of its action. The\nlocomotive machinery is, as you are aware, resident in its slender fore\nand hind limbs; they are flexible and elastic levers, capable of being\nmoved by very powerful muscles; and, in order to supply the engines\nwhich work these levers with the force which they expend, the horse is\nprovided with a very perfect apparatus for grinding its food and\nextracting therefrom the requisite fuel.\n\nWithout attempting to take you very far into the region of osteological\ndetail, I must nevertheless trouble you with some statements respecting\nthe anatomical structure of the horse; and, more especially, will it be\nneedful to obtain a general conception of the structure of its fore and\nhind limbs, and of its teeth. But I shall only touch upon those points\nwhich are absolutely essential to our inquiry.\n\nLet us turn in the first place to the fore-limb. In most quadrupeds, as\nin ourselves, the fore-arm contains distinct bones called the radius and\nthe ulna. The corresponding region in the horse seems at first to\npossess but one bone. Careful observation, however, enables us to\ndistinguish in this bone a part which clearly answers to the upper end\nof the ulna. This is closely united with the chief mass of the bone\nwhich represents the radius, and runs out into a slender shaft which may\nbe traced for some distance downwards upon the back of the radius, and\nthen in most cases thins out and vanishes. It takes still more trouble\nto make sure of what is nevertheless the fact, that a small part of the\nlower end of the bone of the horse's fore-arm, which is only distinct in\na very young foal, is really the lower extremity of the ulna.\n\nWhat is commonly called the knee of a horse is its wrist. The \"cannon\nbone\" answers to the middle bone of the five metacarpal bones, which\nsupport the palm of the hand in ourselves. The \"pastern,\" \"coronary,\"\nand \"coffin\" bones of veterinarians answer to the joints of our middle\nfingers, while the hoof is simply a greatly enlarged and thickened nail.\nBut if what lies below the horse's \"knee\" thus corresponds to the middle\nfinger in ourselves, what has become of the four other fingers or\ndigits? We find in the places of the second and fourth digits only two\nslender splint-like bones, about two-thirds as long as the cannon-bone,\nwhich gradually taper to their lower ends and bear no finger joints, or,\nas they are termed, phalanges. Sometimes, small bony or gristly nodules\nare to be found at the bases of these two metacarpal splints, and it is\nprobable that these represent rudiments of the first and fifth toes.\nThus, the part of the horse's skeleton which corresponds with that of\nthe human hand contains one overgrown middle digit, and at least two\nimperfect lateral digits; and these answer, respectively, to the third,\nthe second, and the fourth fingers in man.\n\nCorresponding modifications are found in the hind limb. In ourselves,\nand in most quadrupeds, the leg contains two distinct bones, a large\nbone, the tibia, and a smaller and more slender bone, the fibula. But in\nthe horse, the fibula seems, at first, to be reduced to its upper end; a\nshort slender bone united with the tibia, and ending in a point below,\noccupying its place. Examination of the lower end of a young foal's\nshin-bone, however, shows a distinct portion of osseous matter, which\nis the lower end of the fibula; so that the apparently single lower end\nof the shin-bone is really made up of the coalesced ends of the tibia\nand fibula, just as the apparently single lower end of the fore-arm bone\nis composed of the coalesced radius and ulna.\n\nThe heel of the horse is the part commonly known as the hock. The hinder\ncannon-bone answers to the middle metatarsal bone of the human foot, the\npastern, coronary, and coffin bones, to the middle toe bones; the hind\nhoof to the nail, as in the fore-foot. And, as in the fore-foot, there\nare merely two splints to represent the second and the fourth toes.\nSometimes a rudiment of a fifth toe appears to be traceable.\n\nThe teeth of a horse are not less peculiar than its limbs. The living\nengine, like all others, must be well stoked if it is to do its work;\nand the horse, if it is to make good its wear and tear, and to exert the\nenormous amount of force required for its propulsion, must be well and\nrapidly fed. To this end, good cutting instruments and powerful and\nlasting crushers are needful. Accordingly, the twelve cutting teeth of a\nhorse are close-set and concentrated in the fore-part of its mouth, like\nso many adzes or chisels. The grinders or molars are large, and have an\nextremely complicated structure, being composed of a number of different\nsubstances of unequal hardness. The consequence of this is that they\nwear away at different rates; and, hence, the surface of each grinder is\nalways as uneven as that of a good millstone.\n\nI have said that the structure of the grinding teeth is very\ncomplicated, the harder and the softer parts being, as it were,\ninterlaced with one another. The result of this is that, as the tooth\nwears, the crown presents a peculiar pattern, the nature of which is not\nvery easily deciphered at first; but which it is important we should\nunderstand clearly. Each grinding tooth of the upper jaw has an _outer\nwall_ so shaped that, on the worn crown, it exhibits the form of two\ncrescents, one in front and one behind, with their concave sides turned\noutwards. From the inner side of the front crescent, a crescentic _front\nridge_ passes inwards and backwards, and its inner face enlarges into a\nstrong longitudinal fold or _pillar_. From the front part of the hinder\ncrescent, a _back ridge_ takes a like direction, and also has its\n_pillar_.\n\nThe deep interspaces or _valleys_ between these ridges and the outer\nwall are filled by bony substance, which is called _cement_, and coats\nthe whole tooth.\n\nThe pattern of the worn face of each grinding tooth of the lower jaw is\nquite different. It appears to be formed of two crescent-shaped ridges,\nthe convexities of which are turned outwards. The free extremity of each\ncrescent has a _pillar_, and there is a large double _pillar_ where the\ntwo crescents meet; The whole structure is, as it were, imbedded in\ncement, which fills up the valleys, as in the upper grinders.\n\nIf the grinding faces of an upper and of a lower molar of the same side\nare applied together, it will be seen that the apposed ridges are\nnowhere parallel, but that they frequently cross; and that thus, in the\nact of mastication, a hard surface in the one is constantly applied to a\nsoft surface in the other, and _vice versa_. They thus constitute a\ngrinding apparatus of great efficiency, and one which is repaired as\nfast as it wears, owing to the long-continued growth of the teeth.\n\nSome other peculiarities of the dentition of the horse must be noticed,\nas they bear upon what I shall have to say by and by. Thus the crowns of\nthe cutting teeth have a peculiar deep pit, which gives rise to the\nwell-known \"mark\" of the horse. There is a large space between the outer\nincisors and the front grinder. In this space the adult male horse\npresents, near the incisors on each side, above and below, a canine or\n\"tush,\" which is commonly absent in mares. In a young horse, moreover,\nthere is not unfrequently to be seen in front of the first grinder, a\nvery small tooth, which soon falls out. If this small tooth be counted\nas one, it will be found that there are seven teeth behind the canine on\neach side; namely, the small tooth in question, and the six great\ngrinders, among which, by an unusual peculiarity, the foremost tooth is\nrather larger than those which follow it.\n\nI have now enumerated those characteristic structures of the horse which\nare of most importance for the purpose we have in view.\n\nTo any one who is acquainted with the morphology of vertebrated animals,\nthey show that the horse deviates widely from the general structure of\nmammals; and that the horse type is, in many respects, an extreme\nmodification of the general mammalian plan. The least modified mammals,\nin fact, have the radius and ulna, the tibia and fibula, distinct and\nseparate. They have five distinct and complete digits on each foot, and\nno one of these digits is very much larger than the rest. Moreover, in\nthe least modified mammals, the total number of the teeth is very\ngenerally forty-four, while in horses, the usual number is forty, and in\nthe absence of the canines, it may be reduced to thirty-six; the incisor\nteeth are devoid of the fold seen in those of the horse: the grinders\nregularly diminish in size from the middle of the series to its front\nend; while their crowns are short, early attain their full length, and\nexhibit simple ridges or tubercles, in place of the complex foldings of\nthe horse's grinders.\n\nHence the general principles of the hypothesis of evolution lead to the\nconclusion that the horse must have been derived from some quadruped\nwhich possessed five complete digits on each foot; which had the bones\nof the fore-arm and of the leg complete and separate; and which\npossessed forty-four teeth, among which the crowns of the incisors and\ngrinders had a simple structure; while the latter gradually increased in\nsize from before backwards, at any rate in the anterior part of the\nseries, and had short crowns.\n\nAnd if the horse has been thus evolved, and the remains of the different\nstages of its evolution have been preserved, they ought to present us\nwith a series of forms in which the number of the digits becomes\nreduced; the bones of the fore-arm and leg gradually take on the equine\ncondition; and the form and arrangement of the teeth successively\napproximate to those which obtain in existing horses.\n\nLet us turn to the facts, and see how far they fulfil these requirements\nof the doctrine of evolution.\n\nIn Europe abundant remains of horses are found in the Quaternary and\nlater Tertiary strata as far as the Pliocene formation. But these\nhorses, which are so common in the cave-deposits and in the gravels of\nEurope, are in all essential respects like existing horses. And that is\ntrue of all the horses of the latter part of the Pliocene epoch. But, in\ndeposits which belong to the earlier Pliocene and later Miocene epochs,\nand which occur in Britain, in France, in Germany, in Greece, in India,\nwe find animals which are extremely like horses--which, in fact, are so\nsimilar to horses, that you may follow descriptions given in works upon\nthe anatomy of the horse upon the skeletons of these animals--but which\ndiffer in some important particulars. For example, the structure of\ntheir fore and hind limbs is somewhat different. The bones which, in the\nhorse, are represented by two splints, imperfect below, are as long as\nthe middle metacarpal and metatarsal bones; and, attached to the\nextremity of each, is a digit with three joints of the same general\ncharacter as those of the middle digit, only very much smaller. These\nsmall digits are so disposed that they could have had but very little\nfunctional importance, and they must have been rather of the nature of\nthe dew-claws, such as are to be found in many ruminant animals. The\n_Hipparion_, as the extinct European three-toed horse is called, in\nfact, presents a foot similar to that of the American _Protohippus_\n(Fig. 9), except that, in the _Hipparion_, the smaller digits are\nsituated farther back, and are of smaller proportional size, than in the\n_Protohippus_.\n\nThe ulna is slightly more distinct than in the horse; and the whole\nlength of it, as a very slender shaft, intimately united with the\nradius, is completely traceable. The fibula appears to be in the same\ncondition as in the horse. The teeth of the _Hipparion_ are essentially\nsimilar to those of the horse, but the pattern of the grinders is in\nsome respects a little more complex, and there is a depression on the\nface of the skull in front of the orbit, which is not seen in existing\nhorses.\n\nIn the earlier Miocene, and perhaps the later Eocene deposits of some\nparts of Europe, another extinct animal has been discovered, which\nCuvier, who first described some fragments of it, considered to be a\n_Palaeotherium_. But as further discoveries threw new light upon its\nstructure, it was recognised as a distinct genus, under the name of\n_Anchitherium_.\n\nIn its general characters, the skeleton of _Anchitherium_ is very\nsimilar to that of the horse. In fact, Lartet and De Blainville called\nit _Palaeotherium equinum_ or _hippoides_; and De Christol, in 1847, said\nthat it differed from _Hipparion_ in little more than the characters of\nits teeth, and gave it the name of _Hipparitherium_. Each foot possesses\nthree complete toes; while the lateral toes are much larger in\nproportion to the middle toe than in _Hipparion_, and doubtless rested\non the ground in ordinary locomotion.\n\nThe ulna is complete and quite distinct from the radius, though firmly\nunited with the latter. The fibula seems also to have been complete. Its\nlower end, though intimately united with that of the tibia, is clearly\nmarked off from the latter bone.\n\nThere are forty-four teeth. The incisors have no strong pit. The canines\nseem to have been well developed in both sexes. The first of the seven\ngrinders, which, as I have said, is frequently absent, and, when it does\nexist, is small in the horse, is a good-sized and permanent tooth, while\nthe grinder which follows it is but little larger than the hinder ones.\nThe crowns of the grinders are short, and though the fundamental pattern\nof the horse-tooth is discernible, the front and back ridges are less\ncurved, the accessory pillars are wanting, and the valleys, much\nshallower, are not filled up with cement.\n\nSeven years ago, when I happened to be looking critically into the\nbearing of palaeontological facts upon the doctrine of evolution, it\nappeared to me that the _Anchitherium_, the _Hipparion_, and the modern\nhorses, constitute a series in which the modifications of structure\ncoincide with the order of chronological occurrence, in the manner in\nwhich they must coincide, if the modern horses really are the result of\nthe gradual metamorphosis, in the course of the Tertiary epoch, of a\nless specialised ancestral form. And I found by correspondence with the\nlate eminent French anatomist and palaeontologist, M. Lartet, that he had\narrived at the same conclusion from the same data.\n\nThat the _Anchitherium_ type had become metamorphosed into the\n_Hipparion_ type, and the latter into the _Equine_ type, in the course\nof that period of time which is represented by the latter half of the\nTertiary deposits, seemed to me to be the only explanation of the facts\nfor which there was even a shadow of probability.[3]\n\nAnd, hence, I have ever since held that these facts afford evidence of\nthe occurrence of evolution, which, in the sense already defined, may be\ntermed demonstrative.\n\nAll who have occupied themselves with the structure of _Anchitherium_,\nfrom Cuvier onwards, have acknowledged its many points of likeness to a\nwell-known genus of extinct Eocene mammals, _Palaeotherium_. Indeed, as\nwe have seen, Cuvier regarded his remains of _Anchitherium_ as those of\na species of _Palaeotherium_. Hence, in attempting to trace the pedigree\nof the horse beyond the Miocene epoch and the Anchitheroid form, I\nnaturally sought among the various species of Palaeotheroid animals for\nits nearest ally, and I was led to conclude that the _Palaeotherium\nminus_ (_Plagiolophus_) represented the next step more nearly than any\nform then known.\n\nI think that this opinion was fully justifiable; but the progress of\ninvestigation has thrown an unexpected light on the question, and has\nbrought us much nearer than could have been anticipated to a knowledge\nof the true series of the progenitors of the horse.\n\nYou are all aware that, when your country was first discovered by\nEuropeans, there were no traces of the existence of the horse in any\npart of the American continent. The accounts of the conquest of Mexico\ndwell upon the astonishment of the natives of that country when they\nfirst became acquainted with that astounding phenomenon--a man seated\nupon a horse. Nevertheless, the investigations of American geologists\nhave proved that the remains of horses occur in the most superficial\ndeposits of both North and South America, just as they do in Europe.\nTherefore, for some reason or other--no feasible suggestion on that\nsubject, so far as I know, has been made--the horse must have died out\non this continent at some period preceding the discovery of America. Of\nlate years there has been discovered in your Western Territories that\nmarvellous accumulation of deposits, admirably adapted for the\npreservation of organic remains, to which I referred the other evening,\nand which furnishes us with a consecutive series of records of the fauna\nof the older half of the Tertiary epoch, for which we have no parallel\nin Europe. They have yielded fossils in an excellent state of\nconservation and in unexampled number and variety. The researches of\nLeidy and others have shown that forms allied to the _Hipparion_ and the\n_Anchitherium_ are to be found among these remains. But it is only\nrecently that the admirably conceived and most thoroughly and patiently\nworked-out investigations of Professor Marsh have given us a just idea\nof the vast fossil wealth, and of the scientific importance, of these\ndeposits. I have had the advantage of glancing over the collections in\nYale Museum; and I can truly say that, so far as my knowledge extends,\nthere is no collection from any one region and series of strata\ncomparable, for extent, or for the care with which the remains have been\ngot together, or for their scientific importance, to the series of\nfossils which he has deposited there. This vast collection has yielded\nevidence bearing upon the question of the pedigree of the horse of the\nmost striking character. It tends to show that we must look to America,\nrather than to Europe, for the original seat of the equine series; and\nthat the archaic forms and successive modifications of the horse's\nancestry are far better preserved here than in Europe.\n\nProfessor Marsh's kindness has enabled me to put before you a diagram,\nevery figure in which is an actual representation of some specimen which\nis to be seen at Yale at this present time (Fig. 9).\n\nThe succession of forms which he has brought together carries us from\nthe top to the bottom of the Tertiaries. Firstly, there is the true\nhorse. Next we have the American Pliocene form of the horse\n(_Pliohippus_); in the conformation of its limbs it presents some very\nslight deviations from the ordinary horse, and the crowns of the\ngrinding teeth are shorter. Then comes the _Protohippus_, which\nrepresents the European _Hipparion_, having one large digit and two\nsmall ones on each foot, and the general characters of the fore-arm and\nleg to which I have referred. But it is more valuable than the European\n_Hipparion_, for the reason that it is devoid of some of the\npeculiarities of that form--peculiarities which tend to show that the\nEuropean _Hipparion_ is rather a member of a collateral branch, than a\nform in the direct line of succession. Next, in the backward order in\ntime, is the _Miohippus_, which corresponds pretty nearly with the\n_Anchitherium_ of Europe. It presents three complete toes--one large\nmedian and two smaller lateral ones; and there is a rudiment of that\ndigit, which answers to the little finger of the human hand.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 9.]\n\nThe European record of the pedigree of the horse stops here; in the\nAmerican Tertiaries, on the contrary, the series of ancestral equine\nforms is continued into the Eocene formations. An older Miocene form,\ntermed _Mesohippus_, has three toes in front, with a large splint-like\nrudiment representing the little finger; and three toes behind. The\nradius and ulna, the tibia and the fibula, are distinct, and the short\ncrowned molar teeth are anchitherold in pattern.\n\nBut the most important discovery of all is the _Orohippus_, which comes\nfrom the Eocene formation, and is the oldest member of the equine series\nas yet known. Here we find four complete toes on the front limb, three\ntoes on the hind-limb, a well-developed ulna, a well-developed fibula,\nand short-crowned grinders of simple pattern.\n\nThus, thanks to these important researches, it has become evident that,\nso far as our present knowledge extends, the history of the horse-type\nis exactly and precisely that which could have been predicted from a\nknowledge of the principles of evolution. And the knowledge we now\npossess justifies us completely in the anticipation, that when the still\nlower Eocene deposits, and those which belong to the cretaceous epoch,\nhave yielded up their remains of ancestral equine animals, we shall\nfind, first, a form with four complete toes and a rudiment of the\ninnermost or first digit in front, with probably a rudiment of the fifth\ndigit in the hind foot;[4] while, in still older forms, the series of\nthe digits will be more and more complete, until we come to the\nfive-toed animals, in which, if the doctrine of evolution is well\nfounded, the whole series must have taken its orgin.\n\nThat is what I mean by demonstrative evidence of evolution. An inductive\nhypothesis is said to be demonstrated when the facts are shown to be in\nentire accordance with it. If that is not scientific proof, there are no\nmerely inductive conclusions which can be said to be proved. And the\ndoctrine of evolution, at the present time, rests upon exactly as secure\na foundation as the Copernican theory of the motions of the heavenly\nbodies did at the time of its promulgation. Its logical basis is\nprecisely of the same character--the coincidence of the observed facts\nwith theoretical requirements.\n\nThe only way of escape, if it be a way of escape, from the conclusions\nwhich I have just indicated, is the supposition that all these different\nequine forms have been created separately at separate epochs of time;\nand, I repeat, that of such an hypothesis as this there neither is, nor\ncan be, any scientific evidence; and, assuredly so far as I know, there\nis none which is supported, or pretends to be supported, by evidence or\nauthority of any other kind. I can but think that the time will come\nwhen such suggestions as these, such obvious attempts to escape the\nforce of demonstration, will be put upon the same footing as the\nsupposition made by some writers, who are I believe not completely\nextinct at present, that fossils are mere simulacra, are no indications\nof the former existence of the animals to which they seem to belong; but\nthat they are either sports of Nature, or special creations,\nintended--as I heard suggested the other day--to test our faith.\n\nIn fact, the whole evidence is in favour of evolution, and there is none\nagainst it. And I say this, although perfectly well aware of the seeming\ndifficulties which have been built up upon what appears to the\nuninformed to be a solid foundation. I meet constantly with the argument\nthat the doctrine of evolution cannot be well founded, because it\nrequires the lapse of a very vast period of time; while the duration of\nlife upon the earth thus implied is inconsistent with the conclusions\narrived at by the astronomer and the physicist. I may venture to say\nthat I am familiar with those conclusions, inasmuch as some years ago,\nwhen President of the Geological Society of London, I took the liberty\nof criticising them, and of showing in what respects, as it appeared to\nme, they lacked complete and thorough demonstration. But, putting that\npoint aside, suppose that, as the astronomers, or some of them, and some\nphysical philosophers, tell us, it is impossible that life could have\nendured upon the earth for as long a period as is required by the\ndoctrine of evolution--supposing that to be proved--I desire to be\ninformed, what is the foundation for the statement that evolution does\nrequire so great a time? The biologist knows nothing whatever of the\namount of time which may be required for the process of evolution. It is\na matter of fact that the equine forms which I have described to you\noccur, in the order stated, in the Tertiary formations. But I have not\nthe slightest means of guessing whether it took a million of years, or\nten millions, or a hundred millions, or a thousand millions of years, to\ngive rise to that series of changes. A biologist has no means of\narriving at any conclusion as to the amount of time which may be needed\nfor a certain quantity of organic change. He takes his time from the\ngeologist. The geologist, considering the rate at which deposits are\nformed and the rate at which denudation goes on upon the surface of the\nearth, arrives at more or less justifiable conclusions as to the time\nwhich is required for the deposit of a certain thickness of rocks; and\nif he tells me that the Tertiary formations required 500,000,000 years\nfor their deposit, I suppose he has good ground for what he says, and I\ntake that as a measure of the duration of the evolution of the horse\nfrom the _Orohippus_ up to its present condition. And, if he is right,\nundoubtedly evolution is a very slow process and requires a great deal\nof time. But suppose, now, that an astronomer or a physicist--for\ninstance, my friend Sir William Thomson--tells me that my geological\nauthority is quite wrong; and that he has weighty evidence to show that\nlife could not possibly have existed upon the surface of the earth\n500,000,000 years ago, because the earth would have then been too hot to\nallow of life, my reply is: \"That is not my affair; settle that with the\ngeologist, and when you have come to an agreement among yourselves I\nwill adopt your conclusion.\" We take our time from the geologists and\nphysicists; and it is monstrous that having taken our time from the\nphysical philosopher's clock, the physical philosopher should turn round\nupon us, and say we are too fast or too slow. What we desire to know is,\nis it a fact that evolution took place? As to the amount of time which\nevolution may have occupied, we are in the hands of the physicist and\nthe astronomer, whose business it is to deal with those questions.\n\nI have now, ladies and gentlemen, arrived at the conclusion of the task\nwhich I set before myself when I undertook to deliver these lectures. My\npurpose has been, not to enable those among you who have paid no\nattention to these subjects before, to leave this room in a condition to\ndecide upon the validity or the invalidity of the hypothesis of\nevolution; but I have desired to put before you the principles upon\nwhich all hypotheses respecting the history of Nature must be judged;\nand furthermore, to make apparent the nature of the evidence and the\namount of cogency which is to be expected and may be obtained from it.\nTo this end, I have not hesitated to regard you as genuine students and\npersons desirous of knowing the truth. I have not shrunk from taking you\nthrough long discussions, that I fear may have sometimed tried your\npatience; and I have inflicted upon you details which were\nindispensable, but which may well have been wearisome. But I shall\nrejoice--I shall consider that I have done you the greatest service\nwhich it was in my power to do--if I have thus convinced you that the\ngreat question which we have been discussing is not one to be dealt with\nby rhetorical flourishes, or by loose and superficial talk; but that it\nrequires the keen attention of the trained intellect and the patience of\nthe accurate observer.\n\n\n\n\nON THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF LIFE\n\n[1868]\n\n\nIn order to make the title of this discourse generally intelligible, I\nhave translated the term \"Protoplasm,\" which is the scientific name of\nthe substance of which I am about to speak, by the words \"the physical\nbasis of life.\" I suppose that, to many, the idea that there is such a\nthing as a physical basis, or matter, of life may be novel--so widely\nspread is the conception of life as a something which works through\nmatter, but is independent of it; and even those who are aware that\nmatter and life are inseparably connected, may not be prepared for the\nconclusion plainly suggested by the phrase, \"_the_ physical basis or\nmatter of life,\" that there is some one kind of matter which is common\nto all living beings, and that their endless diversities are bound\ntogether by a physical, as well as an ideal, unity. In fact, when first\napprehended, such a doctrine as this appears almost shocking to common\nsense.\n\nWhat, truly, can seem to be more obviously different from one another,\nin faculty, in form, and in substance, than the various kinds of living\nbeings? What community of faculty can there be between the\nbrightly-coloured lichen, which so nearly resembles a mere mineral\nincrustation of the bare rock on which it grows, and the painter, to\nwhom it is instinct with beauty, or the botanist, whom it feeds with\nknowledge?\n\nAgain, think of the microscopic fungus--a mere infinitesimal ovoid\nparticle, which finds space and duration enough to multiply into\ncountless millions in the body of a living fly; and then of the wealth\nof foliage, the luxuriance of flower and fruit, which lies between this\nbald sketch of a plant and the giant pine of California, towering to the\ndimensions of a cathedral spire, or the Indian fig, which covers acres\nwith its profound shadow, and endures while nations and empires come and\ngo around its vast circumference. Or, turning to the other half of the\nworld of life, picture to yourselves the great Finner whale, hugest of\nbeasts that live, or have lived, disporting his eighty or ninety feet of\nbone, muscle, and blubber, with easy roll, among waves in which the\nstoutest ship that ever left dockyard would flounder hopelessly; and\ncontrast him with the invisible animalcules--mere gelatinous specks,\nmultitudes of which could, in fact, dance upon the point of a needle\nwith the same ease as the angels of the Schoolmen could, in imagination.\nWith these images before your minds, you may well ask, what community of\nform, or structure, is there between the animalcule and the whale; or\nbetween the fungus and the fig-tree? And, _a fortiori_, between all\nfour?\n\nFinally, if we regard substance, or material composition, what hidden\nbond can connect the flower which a girl wears in her hair and the blood\nwhich courses through her youthful veins; or, what is there in common\nbetween the dense and resisting mass of the oak, or the strong fabric of\nthe tortoise, and those broad disks of glassy jelly which may be seen\npulsating through the waters of a calm sea, but which drain away to\nmere films in the hand which raises them out of their element?\n\nSuch objections as these must, I think, arise in the mind of every one\nwho ponders, for the first time, upon the conception of a single\nphysical basis of life underlying all the diversities of vital\nexistence; but I propose to demonstrate to you that, notwithstanding\nthese apparent difficulties, a threefold unity--namely, a unity of\npower or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial\ncomposition--does pervade the whole living world.\n\nNo very abstruse argumentation is needed, in the first place, to prove\nthat the powers, or faculties, of all kinds of living matter, diverse as\nthey may be in degree, are substantially similar in kind.\n\nGoethe has condensed a survey of all powers of mankind into the\nwell-known epigram:--\n\n  \"Warum treibt sich das Volk so und schreit?\n                Es will sich ernaehren\n    Kinder zeugen, und die naehren so gut es vermag.\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n    Weiter bringt es kein Mensch, stell' er\n                sich wie er auch will.\"\n\nIn physiological language this means, that all the multifarious and\ncomplicated activities of man are comprehensible under three categories.\nEither they are immediately directed towards the maintenance and\ndevelopment of the body, or they effect transitory changes in the\nrelative positions of parts of the body, or they tend towards the\ncontinuance of the species. Even those manifestations of intellect, of\nfeeling, and of will, which we rightly name the higher faculties, are\nnot excluded from this classification, inasmuch as to every one but the\nsubject of them, they are known only as transitory changes in the\nrelative positions of parts of the body. Speech, gesture, and every\nother form of human action are, in the long run, resolvable into\nmuscular contraction, and muscular contraction is but a transitory\nchange in the relative positions of the parts of a muscle. But the\nscheme which is large enough to embrace the activities of the highest\nform of life, covers all those of the lower creatures. The lowest plant,\nor animalcule, feeds, grows, and reproduces its kind. In addition, all\nanimals manifest those transitory changes of form which we class under\nirritability and contractility; and, it is more than probable, that when\nthe vegetable world is thoroughly explored, we shall find all plants in\npossession of the same powers, at one time or other of their existence.\n\nI am not now alluding to such phaenomena, at once rare and conspicuous,\nas those exhibited by the leaflets of the sensitive plants, or the\nstamens of the barberry, but to much more widely spread, and at the same\ntime, more subtle and hidden, manifestations of vegetable contractility.\nYou are doubtless aware that the common nettle owes its stinging\nproperty to the innumerable stiff and needle-like, though exquisitely\ndelicate, hairs which cover its surface. Each stinging-needle tapers\nfrom a broad base to a slender summit, which, though rounded at the end,\nis of such microscopic fineness that it readily penetrates, and breaks\noff in, the skin. The whole hair consists of a very delicate outer case\nof wood, closely applied to the inner surface of which is a layer of\nsemi-fluid matter, full of innumerable granules of extreme minuteness.\nThis semi-fluid lining is protoplasm, which thus constitutes a kind of\nbag, full of a limpid liquid, and roughly corresponding in form with the\ninterior of the hair which it fills. When viewed with a sufficiently\nhigh magnifying power, the protoplasmic layer of the nettle hair is seen\nto be in a condition of unceasing activity. Local contractions of the\nwhole thickness of its substance pass slowly and gradually from point to\npoint, and give rise to the appearance of progressive waves, just as the\nbending of successive stalks of corn by a breeze produces the apparent\nbillows of a cornfield.\n\nBut, in addition to these movements, and independently of them, the\ngranules are driven, in relatively rapid streams, through channels in\nthe protoplasm which seem to have a considerable amount of persistence.\nMost commonly, the currents in adjacent parts of the protoplasm take\nsimilar directions; and, thus, there is a general stream up one side of\nthe hair and down the other. But this does not prevent the existence of\npartial currents which take different routes; and sometimes trains of\ngranules may be seen coursing swiftly in opposite directions within a\ntwenty-thousandth of an inch of one another; while, occasionally,\nopposite streams come into direct collision, and, after a longer or\nshorter struggle, one predominates. The cause of these currents seems to\nlie in contractions of the protoplasm which bounds the channels in which\nthey flow, but which are so minute that the best microscopes show only\ntheir effects, and not themselves.\n\nThe spectacle afforded by the wonderful energies prisoned within the\ncompass of the microscopic hair of a plant, which we commonly regard as\na merely passive organism, is not easily forgotten by one who has\nwatched its display, continued hour after hour, without pause or sign of\nweakening. The possible complexity of many other organic forms,\nseemingly as simple as the protoplasm of the nettle, dawns upon one; and\nthe comparison of such a protoplasm to a body with an internal\ncirculation, which has been put forward by an eminent physiologist,\nloses much of its startling character. Currents similar to those of the\nhairs of the nettle have been observed in a great multitude of very\ndifferent plants, and weighty authorities have suggested that they\nprobably occur, in more or less perfection, in all young vegetable\ncells. If such be the case, the wonderful noonday silence of a tropical\nforest is, after all, due only to the dulness of our hearing; and could\nour ears catch the murmur of these tiny Maelstroms, as they whirl in the\ninnumerable myriads of living cells which constitute each tree, we\nshould be stunned, as with the roar of a great city.\n\nAmong the lower plants, it is the rule rather than the exception, that\ncontractility should be still more openly manifested at some periods of\ntheir existence. The protoplasm of _Algae_ and _Fungi_ becomes, under\nmany circumstances, partially, or completely, freed from its woody case,\nand exhibits movements of its whole mass, or is propelled by the\ncontractility of one, or more, hair-like prolongations of its body,\nwhich are called vibratile cilia. And, so far as the conditions of the\nmanifestation of the phaenomena of contractility have yet been studied,\nthey are the same for the plant as for the animal. Heat and electric\nshocks influence both, and in the same way, though it may be in\ndifferent degrees. It is by no means my intention to suggest that there\nis no difference in faculty between the lowest plant and the highest, or\nbetween plants and animals. But the difference between the powers of the\nlowest plant, or animal, and those of the highest, is one of degree, not\nof kind, and depends, as Milne-Edwards long ago so well pointed out,\nupon the extent to which the principle of the division of labour is\ncarried out in the living economy. In the lowest organism all parts are\ncompetent to perform all functions, and one and the same portion of\nprotoplasm may successfully take on the function of feeding, moving, or\nreproducing apparatus. In the highest, on the contrary, a great number\nof parts combine to perform each function, each part doing its allotted\nshare of the work with great accuracy and efficiency, but being useless\nfor any other purpose.\n\nOn the other hand, notwithstanding all the fundamental resemblances\nwhich exist between the powers of the protoplasm in plants and in\nanimals, they present a striking difference (to which I shall advert\nmore at length presently), in the fact that plants can manufacture fresh\nprotoplasm out of mineral compounds, whereas animals are obliged to\nprocure it ready made, and hence, in the long run, depend upon plants.\nUpon what condition this difference in the powers of the two great\ndivisions of the world of life depends, nothing is at present known.\n\nWith such qualification as arises out of the last-mentioned fact, it may\nbe truly said that the acts of all living things are fundamentally one.\nIs any such unity predicable of their forms? Let us seek in easily\nverified facts for a reply to this question. If a drop of blood be drawn\nby pricking one's finger, and viewed with proper precautions, and under\na sufficiently high microscopic power, there will be seen, among the\ninnumerable multitude of little, circular, discoidal bodies, or\ncorpuscles, which float in it and give it its colour, a comparatively\nsmall number of colourless corpuscles, of somewhat larger size and very\nirregular shape. If the drop of blood be kept at the temperature of the\nbody, these colourless corpuscles will be seen to exhibit a marvellous\nactivity, changing their forms with great rapidity, drawing in and\nthrusting out prolongations of their substance, and creeping about as if\nthey were independent organisms.\n\nThe substance which is thus active is a mass of protoplasm, and its\nactivity differs in detail, rather than in principle, from that of the\nprotoplasm of the nettle. Under sundry circumstances the corpuscle dies\nand becomes distended into a round mass, in the midst of which is seen a\nsmaller spherical body, which existed, but was more or less hidden, in\nthe living corpuscle, and is called its _nucleus_. Corpuscles of\nessentially similar structure are to be found in the skin, in the lining\nof the mouth, and scattered through the whole framework of the body.\nNay, more; in the earliest condition of the human organism, in that\nstate in which it has but just become distinguishable from the egg in\nwhich it arises, it is nothing but an aggregation of such corpuscles,\nand every organ of the body was, once, no more than such an aggregation.\n\nThus a nucleated mass of protoplasm turns out to be what may be termed\nthe structural unit of the human body. As a matter of fact, the body, in\nits earliest state, is a mere multiple of such units; and in its perfect\ncondition, it is a multiple of such units, variously modified.\n\nBut does the formula which expresses the essential structural character\nof the highest animal cover all the rest, as the statement of its powers\nand faculties covered that of all others? Very nearly. Beast and fowl,\nreptile and fish, mollusk, worm, and polype, are all composed of\nstructural units of the same character, namely, masses of protoplasm\nwith a nucleus. There are sundry very low animals, each of which,\nstructurally, is a mere colourless blood-corpuscle, leading an\nindependent life. But at the very bottom of the animal scale, even this\nsimplicity becomes simplified, and all the phaenomena of life are\nmanifested by a particle of protoplasm without a nucleus. Nor are such\norganisms insignificant by reason of their want of complexity. It is a\nfair question whether the protoplasm of those simplest forms of life,\nwhich people an immense extent of the bottom of the sea, would not\noutweigh that of all the higher living beings which inhabit the land put\ntogether. And in ancient times, no less than at the present day, such\nliving beings as these have been the greatest of rock builders.\n\nWhat has been said of the animal world is no less true of plants.\nEmbedded in the protoplasm at the broad, or attached, end of the nettle\nhair, there lies a spheroidal nucleus. Careful examination further\nproves that the whole substance of the nettle is made up of a repetition\nof such masses of nucleated protoplasm, each contained in a wooden case,\nwhich is modified in form, sometimes into a woody fibre, sometimes into\na duct or spiral vessel, sometimes into a pollen grain, or an ovule.\nTraced back to its earliest state, the nettle arises as the man does, in\na particle of nucleated protoplasm. And in the lowest plants, as in the\nlowest animals, a single mass of such protoplasm may constitute the\nwhole plant, or the protoplasm may exist without a nucleus.\n\nUnder these circumstances it may well be asked, how is one mass of\nnon-nucleated protoplasm to be distinguished from another? why call one\n\"plant\" and the other \"animal\"?\n\nThe only reply is that, so far as form is concerned, plants and animals\nare not separable, and that, in many cases, it is a mere matter of\nconvention whether we call a given organism an animal or a plant. There\nis a living body called _AEthalium septicum_, which appears upon decaying\nvegetable substances, and, in one of its forms, is common upon the\nsurfaces of tan-pits. In this condition it is, to all intents and\npurposes, a fungus, and formerly was always regarded as such; but the\nremarkable investigations of De Bary have shown that, in another\ncondition, the _AEthalium_ is an actively locomotive creature, and takes\nin solid matters, upon which, apparently, it feeds, thus exhibiting the\nmost characteristic feature of animality. Is this a plant; or is it an\nanimal? Is it both; or is it neither? Some decide in favour of the last\nsupposition, and establish an intermediate kingdom, a sort of biological\nNo Man's Land for all these questionable forms. But, as it is admittedly\nimpossible to draw any distinct boundary line between this no man's land\nand the vegetable world, on the one hand, or the animal, on the other,\nit appears to me that this proceeding merely doubles the difficulty\nwhich, before, was single.\n\nProtoplasm, simple or nucleated, is the formal basis of all life. It is\nthe clay of the potter: which, bake it and paint it as he will, remains\nclay, separated by artifice, and not by nature, from the commonest brick\nor sun-dried clod.\n\nThus it becomes clear that all living powers are cognate, and that all\nliving forms are fundamentally of one character. The researches of the\nchemist have revealed a no less striking uniformity of material\ncomposition in living matter.\n\nIn perfect strictness, it is true that chemical investigation can tell\nus little or nothing, directly, of the composition of living matter,\ninasmuch as such matter must needs die in the act of analysis,--and upon\nthis very obvious ground, objections, which I confess seem to me to be\nsomewhat frivolous, have been raised to the drawing of any conclusions\nwhatever respecting the composition of actually living matter, from that\nof the dead matter of life, which alone is accessible to us. But\nobjectors of this class do not seem to reflect that it is also, in\nstrictness, true that we know nothing about the composition of any body\nwhatever, as it is. The statement that a crystal of calc-spar consists\nof carbonate of lime, is quite true, if we only mean that, by\nappropriate processes, it may be resolved into carbonic acid and\nquicklime. If you pass the same carbonic acid over the very quicklime\nthus obtained, you will obtain carbonate of lime again; but it will not\nbe calc-spar, nor anything like it. Can it, therefore, be said that\nchemical analysis teaches nothing about the chemical composition of\ncalc-spar? Such a statement would be absurd; but it is hardly more so\nthan the talk one occasionally hears about the uselessness of applying\nthe results of chemical analysis to the living bodies which have yielded\nthem.\n\nOne fact, at any rate, is out of reach of such refinements, and this is,\nthat all the forms of protoplasm which have yet been examined contain\nthe four elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in very\ncomplex union, and that they behave similarly towards several reagents.\nTo this complex combination, the nature of which has never been\ndetermined with exactness, the name of Protein has been applied. And if\nwe use this term with such caution as may properly arise out of our\ncomparative ignorance of the things for which it stands, it may be truly\nsaid, that all protoplasm is proteinaceous, or, as the white, or\nalbumen, of an egg is one of the commonest examples of a nearly pure\nproteine matter, we may say that all living matter is more or less\nalbuminoid.\n\nPerhaps it would not yet be safe to say that all forms of protoplasm are\naffected by the direct action of electric shocks; and yet the number of\ncases in which the contraction of protoplasm is shown to be affected by\nthis agency increases every day.\n\nNor can it be affirmed with perfect confidence, that all forms of\nprotoplasm are liable to undergo that peculiar coagulation at a\ntemperature of 40 deg.-50 deg. centigrade, which has been called\n\"heat-stiffening,\" though Kuehne's beautiful researches have proved this\noccurrence to take place in so many and such diverse living beings, that\nit is hardly rash to expect that the law holds good for all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEnough has, perhaps, been said to prove the existence of a general\nuniformity in the character of the protoplasm, or physical basis, of\nlife, in whatever group of living beings it may be studied. But it will\nbe understood that this general uniformity by no means excludes any\namount of special modifications of the fundamental substance. The\nmineral, carbonate of lime, assumes an immense diversity of characters,\nthough no one doubts that, under all these Protean changes, it is one\nand the same thing.\n\nAnd now, what is the ultimate fate, and what the origin, of the matter\nof life?\n\nIs it, as some of the older naturalists supposed, diffused throughout\nthe universe in molecules, which are indestructible and unchangeable in\nthemselves; but, in endless transmigration, unite in innumerable\npermutations, into the diversified forms of life we know? Or, is the\nmatter of life composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in\nthe manner in which its atoms are aggregated? Is it built up of ordinary\nmatter, and again resolved into ordinary matter when its work is done?\n\nModern science does not hesitate a moment between these alternatives.\nPhysiology writes, over the portals of life--\n\n     \"Debemur morti nos nostraque,\"\n\nwith a profounder meaning than the Roman poet attached to that\nmelancholy line. Under whatever disguise it takes refuge, whether fungus\nor oak; worm or man, the living protoplasm not only ultimately dies and\nis resolved into its mineral and lifeless constituents, but is always\ndying, and, strange as the paradox may sound, could not live unless it\ndied.\n\nIn the wonderful story of the \"Peau de Chagrin,\" the hero becomes\npossessed of a magical wild ass' skin, which yields him the means of\ngratifying all his wishes. But its surface represents the duration of\nthe proprietor's life; and for every satisfied desire the skin shrinks\nin proportion to the intensity of fruition, until at length life and the\nlast hand-breadth of the _peau de chagrin_, disappear with the\ngratification of a last wish.\n\nBalzac's studies had led him over a wide range of thought and\nspeculation, and his shadowing forth of physiological truth in this\nstrange story may have been intentional. At any rate, the matter of life\nis a veritable _peau de chagrin_, and for every vital act it is somewhat\nthe smaller. All work implies waste, and the work of life results,\ndirectly or indirectly, in the waste of protoplasm.\n\nEvery word uttered by a speaker costs him some physical loss; and, in\nthe strictest sense, he burns that others may have light--so much\neloquence, so much of his body resolved into carbonic acid, water, and\nurea. It is clear that this process of expenditure cannot go on for\never. But, happily, the protoplasmic _peau de chagrin_ differs from\nBalzac's in its capacity of being repaired, and brought back to its full\nsize, after every exertion.\n\nFor example, this present lecture, whatever its intellectual worth to\nyou, has a certain physical value to me, which is, conceivably,\nexpressible by the number of grains of protoplasm and other bodily\nsubstance wasted in maintaining my vital processes during its delivery.\nMy _peau de chagrin_ will be distinctly smaller at the end of the\ndiscourse than it was at the beginning. By and by, I shall probably have\nrecourse to the substance commonly called mutton, for the purpose of\nstretching it back to its original size. Now this mutton was once the\nliving protoplasm, more or less modified, of another animal--a sheep. As\nI shall eat it, it is the same matter altered, not only by death, but by\nexposure to sundry artificial operations in the process of cooking.\n\nBut these changes, whatever be their extent, have not rendered it\nincompetent to resume its old functions as matter of life. A singular\ninward laboratory, which I possess, will dissolve a certain portion of\nthe modified protoplasm; the solution so formed will pass into my veins;\nand the subtle influences to which it will then be subjected will\nconvert the dead protoplasm into living protoplasm, and transubstantiate\nsheep into man.\n\nNor is this all. If digestion were a thing to be trifled with, I might\nsup upon lobster, and the matter of life of the crustacean would undergo\nthe same wonderful metamorphosis into humanity. And were I to return to\nmy own place by sea, and undergo shipwreck, the crustacean might, and\nprobably would, return the compliment, and demonstrate our common nature\nby turning my protoplasm into living lobster. Or, if nothing better were\nto be had, I might supply my wants with mere bread, and I should find\nthe protoplasm of the wheat-plant to be convertible into man, with no\nmore trouble than that of the sheep, and with far less, I fancy, than\nthat of the lobster.\n\nHence it appears to be a matter of no great moment what animal, or what\nplant, I lay under contribution for protoplasm, and the fact speaks\nvolumes for the general identity of that substance in all living beings.\nI share this catholicity of assimilation with other animals, all of\nwhich, so far as we know, could thrive equally well on the protoplasm of\nany of their fellows, or of any plant; but here the assimilative powers\nof the animal world cease. A solution of smelling-salts in water, with\nan infinitesimal proportion of some other saline matters, contains all\nthe elementary bodies which enter into the composition of protoplasm;\nbut, as I need hardly say, a hogshead of that fluid would not keep a\nhungry man from starving, nor would it save any animal whatever from a\nlike fate. An animal cannot make protoplasm, but must take it ready-made\nfrom some other animal, or some plant--the animal's highest feat of\nconstructive chemistry being to convert dead protoplasm into that living\nmatter of life which is appropriate to itself.\n\nTherefore, in seeking for the origin of protoplasm, we must eventually\nturn to the vegetable world. A fluid containing carbonic acid, water,\nand nitrogenous salts, which offers such a Barmecide feast to the\nanimal, is a table richly spread to multitudes of plants; and, with a\ndue supply of only such materials, many a plant will not only maintain\nitself in vigour, but grow and multiply until it has increased a\nmillion-fold, or a million million-fold, the quantity of protoplasm\nwhich it originally possessed; in this way building up the matter of\nlife, to an indefinite extent, from the common matter of the universe.\n\nThus, the animal can only raise the complex substance of dead protoplasm\nto the higher power, as one may say, of living protoplasm; while the\nplant can raise the less complex substances--carbonic acid, water, and\nnitrogenous salts--to the same stage of living protoplasm, if not to the\nsame level. But the plant also has its limitations. Some of the fungi,\nfor example, appear to need higher compounds to start with; and no known\nplant can live upon the uncompounded elements of protoplasm. A plant\nsupplied with pure carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, phosphorus,\nsulphur, and the like, would as infallibly die as the animal in his bath\nof smelling-salts, though it would be surrounded by all the\nconstituents of protoplasm. Nor, indeed, need the process of\nsimplification of vegetable food be carried so far as this, in order to\narrive at the limit of the plant's thaumaturgy. Let water, carbonic\nacid, and all the other needful constituents be supplied except\nnitrogenous salts, and an ordinary plant will still be unable to\nmanufacture protoplasm.\n\nThus the matter of life, so far as we know it (and we have no right to\nspeculate on any other), breaks up, in consequence of that continual\ndeath which is the condition of its manifesting vitality, into carbonic\nacid, water, and nitrogenous compounds, which certainly possess no\nproperties but those of ordinary matter. And out of these same forms of\nordinary matter, and from none which are simpler, the vegetable world\nbuilds up all the protoplasm which keeps the animal world a-going.\nPlants are the accumulators of the power which animals distribute and\ndisperse.\n\nBut it will be observed, that the existence of the matter of life\ndepends on the pre-existence of certain compounds; namely, carbonic\nacid, water, and certain nitrogenous bodies. Withdraw any one of these\nthree from the world, and all vital phaenomena come to an end. They are\nas necessary to the protoplasm of the plant as the protoplasm of the\nplant is to that of the animal. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen\nare all lifeless bodies. Of these, carbon and oxygen unite in certain\nproportions and under certain conditions, to give rise to carbonic acid;\nhydrogen and oxygen produce water; nitrogen and other elements give rise\nto nitrogenous salts. These new compounds, like the elementary bodies of\nwhich they are composed, are lifeless. But when they are brought\ntogether, under certain conditions, they give rise to the still more\ncomplex body, protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the phaenomena of\nlife.\n\nI see no break in this series of steps in molecular complication, and I\nam unable to understand why the language which is applicable to any one\nterm of the series may not be used to any of the others. We think fit to\ncall different kinds of matter carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen,\nand to speak of the various powers and activities of these substances as\nthe properties of the matter of which they are composed.\n\nWhen hydrogen and oxygen are mixed in a certain proportion, and an\nelectric spark is passed through them, they disappear, and a quantity of\nwater, equal in weight to the sum of their weights, appears in their\nplace. There is not the slightest parity between the passive and active\npowers of the water and those of the oxygen and hydrogen which have\ngiven rise to it. At 32 deg. Fahrenheit, and far below that temperature,\noxygen and hydrogen are elastic gaseous bodies, whose particles tend to\nrush away from one another with great force. Water, at the same\ntemperature, is a strong though brittle solid, whose particles tend to\ncohere into definite geometrical shapes, and sometimes build up frosty\nimitations of the most complex forms of vegetable foliage.\n\nNevertheless we call these, and many other strange phaenomena, the\nproperties of the water, and we do not hesitate to believe that, in some\nway or another, they result from the properties of the component\nelements of the water. We do not assume that a something called\n\"aquosity\" entered into and took possession of the oxidated hydrogen as\nsoon as it was formed, and then guided the aqueous particles to their\nplaces in the facets of the crystal, or amongst the leaflets of the\nhoarfrost. On the contrary, we live in the hope and in the faith that,\nby the advance of molecular physics, we shall by and by be able to see\nour way as clearly from the constituents of water to the properties of\nwater, as we are now able to deduce the operations of a watch from the\nform of its parts and the manner in which they are put together.\n\nIs the case in any way changed when carbonic acid, water, and\nnitrogenous salts disappear, and in their place, under the influence of\npre-existing living protoplasm, an equivalent weight of the matter of\nlife makes its appearance?\n\nIt is true that there is no sort of parity between the properties of the\ncomponents and the properties of the resultant, but neither was there in\nthe case of the water. It is also true that what I have spoken of as the\ninfluence of pre-existing living matter is something quite\nunintelligible; but does anybody quite comprehend the _modus operandi_\nof an electric spark, which traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen?\n\nWhat justification is there, then, for the assumption of the existence\nin the living matter of a something which has no representative, or\ncorrelative, in the not living matter which gave rise to it? What better\nphilosophical status has \"vitality\" than \"aquosity\"? And why should\n\"vitality\" hope for a better fate than the other \"itys\" which have\ndisappeared since Martinus Scriblerus accounted for the operation of the\nmeat-jack by its inherent \"meat-roasting quality,\" and scorned the\n\"materialism\" of those who explained the turning of the spit by a\ncertain mechanism worked by the draught of the chimney.\n\nIf scientific language is to possess a definite and constant\nsignification whenever it is employed, it seems to me that we are\nlogically bound to apply to the protoplasm, or physical basis of life,\nthe same conceptions as those which are held to be legitimate elsewhere.\nIf the phenomena exhibited by water are its properties, so are those\npresented by protoplasm, living or dead, its properties.\n\nIf the properties of water may be properly said to result from the\nnature and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no\nintelligible ground for refusing to say that the properties of\nprotoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.\n\nBut I bid you beware that, in accepting these conclusions, you are\nplacing your feet on the first rung of a ladder which, in most people's\nestimation, is the reverse of Jacob's, and leads to the antipodes of\nheaven. It may seem a small thing to admit that the dull vital actions\nof a fungus, or a foraminifer, are the properties of their protoplasm,\nand are the direct results of the nature of the matter of which they are\ncomposed. But if, as I have endeavoured to prove to you, their\nprotoplasm is essentially identical with, and most readily converted\ninto, that of any animal, I can discover no logical halting-place\nbetween the admission that such is the case, and the further concession\nthat all vital action may, with equal propriety, be said to be the\nresult of the molecular forces of the protoplasm which displays it. And\nif so, it must be true, in the same sense and to the same extent, that\nthe thoughts to which I am now giving utterance, and your thoughts\nregarding them, are the expression of molecular changes in that matter\nof life which is the source of our other vital phaenomena.\n\nPast experience leads me to be tolerably certain that, when the\npropositions I have just placed before you are accessible to public\ncomment and criticism, they will be condemned by many zealous persons,\nand perhaps by some few of the wise and thoughtful. I should not wonder\nif \"gross and brutal materialism\" were the mildest phrase applied to\nthem in certain quarters. And, most undoubtedly, the terms of the\npropositions are distinctly materialistic. Nevertheless two things are\ncertain; the one, that I hold the statements to be substantially true;\nthe other, that I, individually, am no materialist, but, on the\ncontrary, believe materialism to involve grave philosophical error.\n\nThis union of materialistic terminology with the repudiation of\nmaterialistic philosophy I share with some of the most thoughtful men\nwith whom I am acquainted. And, when I first undertook to deliver the\npresent discourse, it appeared to me to be a fitting opportunity to\nexplain how such a union is not only consistent with, but necessitated\nby, sound logic. I purposed to lead you through the territory of vital\nphaenomena to the materialistic slough in which you find yourselves now\nplunged, and then to point out to you the sole path by which, in my\njudgment, extrication is possible.\n\nAn occurrence of which I was unaware until my arrival here last night\nrenders this line of argument singularly opportune. I found in your\npapers the eloquent address \"On the Limits of Philosophical Inquiry,\"\nwhich a distinguished prelate of the English Church delivered before the\nmembers of the Philosophical Institution on the previous day. My\nargument, also, turns upon this very point of the limits of\nphilosophical inquiry; and I cannot bring out my own views better than\nby contrasting them with those so plainly and, in the main, fairly\nstated by the Archbishop of York.\n\nBut I may be permitted to make a preliminary comment upon an occurrence\nthat greatly astonished me. Applying the name of the \"New Philosophy\" to\nthat estimate of the limits of philosophical inquiry which I, in common\nwith many other men of science, hold to be just, the Archbishop opens\nhis address by identifying this \"New Philosophy\" with the Positive\nPhilosophy of M. Comte (of whom he speaks as its \"founder\"); and then\nproceeds to attack that philosopher and his doctrines vigorously.\n\nNow, so far as I am concerned, the most reverend prelate might\ndialectically hew M. Comte in pieces, as a modern Agag, and I should not\nattempt to stay his hand. In so far as my study of what specially\ncharacterises the Positive Philosophy has led me, I find therein little\nor nothing of any scientific value, and a great deal which is as\nthoroughly antagonistic to the very essence of science as anything in\nultramontane Catholicism. In fact, M. Comte's philosophy, in practice,\nmight be compendiously described as Catholicism _minus_ Christianity.\n\nBut what has Comtism to do with the \"New Philosophy,\" as the Archbishop,\ndefines it in the following passage?\n\n     \"Let me briefly remind you of the leading principles of this new\n     philosophy.\n\n     \"All knowledge is experience of facts acquired by the senses. The\n     traditions of older philosophies have obscured our experience by\n     mixing with it much that the senses cannot observe, and until these\n     additions are discarded our knowledge is impure. Thus metaphysics\n     tell us that one fact which we observe is a cause, and another is\n     the effect of that cause; but, upon a rigid analysis, we find that\n     our senses observe nothing of cause or effect: they observe, first,\n     that one fact succeeds another, and, after some opportunity, that\n     this fact has never failed to follow--that for cause and effect we\n     should substitute invariable succession. An older philosophy\n     teaches us to define an object by distinguishing its essential from\n     its accidental qualities: but experience knows nothing of essential\n     and accidental; she sees only that, certain marks attach to an\n     object, and, after many observations, that some of them attach\n     invariably, whilst others may at times be absent.... As all\n     knowledge is relative, the notion of anything being necessary must\n     be banished with other traditions.\" [5]\n\nThere is much here that expresses the spirit of the \"New Philosophy,\" if\nby that term be meant the spirit of modern science; but I cannot but\nmarvel that the assembled wisdom and learning of Edinburgh should have\nuttered no sign of dissent, when Comte was declared to be the founder of\nthese doctrines. No one will accuse Scotchmen of habitually forgetting\ntheir great countrymen; but it was enough to make David Hume turn in his\ngrave, that here, almost within ear-shot of his house, an instructed\naudience should have listened, without a murmur, while his most\ncharacteristic doctrines were attributed to a French writer of fifty\nyears later date, in whose dreary and verbose pages we miss alike the\nvigour of thought and the exquisite clearness of style of the man whom I\nmake bold to term the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century--even\nthough that century produced Kant.\n\nBut I did not come to Scotland to vindicate the honour of one of the\nneatest men she has ever produced. My business is to point out to you\nthat the only way of escape out of the \"crass materialism\" in which we\njust now landed, is the adoption and strict working out of the very\nprinciples which the Archbishop holds up to reprobation.\n\nLet us suppose that knowledge is absolute, and not relative, and\ntherefore, that our conception of matter represents that which it really\nis. Let us suppose, further, that we do know more of cause and effect\nthan a certain definite order of succession among facts, and that we\nhave a knowledge of the necessity of that succession--and hence, of\nnecessary laws--and I, for my part, do not see what escape there is from\nutter materialism and necessarianism. For it is obvious that our\nknowledge of what we call the material world is, to begin with, at least\nas certain and definite as that of the spiritual world, and that our\nacquaintance with law is of as old a date as our knowledge of\nspontaneity. Further, I take it to be demonstrable that it is utterly\nimpossible to prove that anything whatever may not be the effect of a\nmaterial and necessary cause, and that human logic is equally\nincompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A really\nspontaneous act is one which, by the assumption, has no cause; and the\nattempt to prove such a negative as this is, on the face of the matter,\nabsurd. And while it is thus a philosophical impossibility to\ndemonstrate that any given phaenomenon is not the effect of a material\ncause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit,\nthat its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now, more than ever,\nmeans, the extension of the province of what we call matter and\ncausation, and the concomitant gradual banishment from all regions of\nhuman thought of what we call spirit and spontaneity.\n\nI have endeavoured, in the first part of this discourse, to give you a\nconception of the direction towards which modern physiology is tending;\nand I ask you, what is the difference between the conception of life as\nthe product of a certain disposition of material molecules, and the old\nnotion of an Archaeus governing and directing blind matter within each\nliving body, except this--that here, as elsewhere, matter and law have\ndevoured spirit and spontaneity? And as surely as every future grows out\nof past and present, so will the physiology of the future gradually\nextend the realm of matter and law until it is co-extensive with\nknowledge, with feeling, and with action.\n\nThe consciousness of this great truth weighs like a nightmare, I\nbelieve, upon many of the best minds of these days. They watch what they\nconceive to be the progress of materialism, in such fear and powerless\nanger as a savage feels, when, during an eclipse, the great shadow\ncreeps over the face of the sun. The advancing tide of matter threatens\nto drown their souls; the tightening grasp of law impedes their freedom;\nthey are alarmed lest man's moral nature be debased by the increase of\nhis wisdom.\n\nIf the \"New Philosophy\" be worthy of the reprobation with which it is\nvisited, I confess their fears seem to me to be well founded. While, on\nthe contrary, could David Hume be consulted, I think he would smile at\ntheir perplexities, and chide them for doing even as the heathen, and\nfalling down in terror before the hideous idols their own hands have\nraised.\n\nFor, after all, what do we know of this terrible \"matter,\" except as a\nname for the unknown and hypothetical cause of states of our own\nconsciousness? And what do we know of that \"spirit\" over whose\nthreatened extinction by matter a great lamentation is arising, like\nthat which was heard at the death of Pan, except that it is also a name\nfor an unknown and hypothetical cause, or condition, of states of\nconsciousness? In other words, matter and spirit are but names for the\nimaginary substrata of groups of natural phaenomena.\n\nAnd what is the dire necessity and \"iron\" law under which men groan?\nTruly, most gratuitously invented bugbears. I suppose if there be an\n\"iron\" law, it is that of gravitation; and if there be a physical\nnecessity, it is that a stone, unsupported, must fall to the ground. But\nwhat is all we really know, and can know, about the latter phaenomena?\nSimply, that, in all human experience, stones have fallen to the ground\nunder these conditions; that we have not the smallest reason for\nbelieving that any stone so circumstanced will not fall to the ground;\nand that we have, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it will\nso fall. It is very convenient to indicate that all the conditions of\nbelief have been fulfilled in this case, by calling the statement that\nunsupported stones will fall to the ground, \"a law of Nature.\" But when,\nas commonly happens, we change _will_ into _must_, we introduce an idea\nof necessity which most assuredly does not lie in the observed facts,\nand has no warranty that I can discover elsewhere. For my part, I\nutterly repudiate and anathematise the intruder. Fact I know; and Law I\nknow; but what is this Necessity, save an empty shadow of my own mind's\nthrowing?\n\nBut, if it is certain that we can have no knowledge of the nature of\neither matter or spirit, and that the notion of necessity is something\nillegitimately thrust into the perfectly legitimate conception of law,\nthe materialistic position that there is nothing in the world but\nmatter, force, and necessity, is as utterly devoid of justification as\nthe most baseless of theological dogmas. The fundamental doctrines of\nmaterialism, like those of spiritualism, and most other \"isms,\" lie\noutside \"the limits of philosophical inquiry,\" and David Hume's great\nservice to humanity is his irrefragable demonstration of what these\nlimits are. Hume called himself a sceptic and therefore others cannot be\nblamed if they apply the same title to him; but that does not alter the\nfact that the name, with its existing implications, does him gross\ninjustice.\n\nIf a man asks me what the politics of the inhabitants of the moon are,\nand I reply that I do not know; that neither I, nor any one else, has\nany means of knowing; and that, under these circumstances, I decline to\ntrouble myself about the subject at all, I do not think he has any right\nto call me a sceptic. On the contrary, in replying thus, I conceive that\nI am simply honest and truthful, and show a proper regard for the\neconomy of time. So Hume's strong and subtle intellect takes up a great\nmany problems about which we are naturally curious, and shows us that\nthey are essentially questions of lunar politics, in their essence\nincapable of being answered, and therefore not worth the attention of\nmen who have work to do in the world. And he thus ends one of his\nessays:--\n\n     \"If we take in hand any volume of Divinity, or school metaphysics,\n     for instance, let us ask, _Does it contain any abstract reasoning\n     concerning quantity or number?_ No. _Does it contain any\n     experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?_\n     No. Commit it then to the flames; for it can contain nothing but\n     sophistry and illusion.\" [6]\n\nPermit me to enforce this most wise advice. Why trouble ourselves about\nmatters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and\ncan know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and\nignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make\nthe little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat\nless ignorant than it was before he entered it. To do this effectually\nit is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first,\nthat the order of Nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent\nwhich is practically unlimited; the second, that our volition[7] counts\nfor something as a condition of the course of events.\n\nEach of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we\nlike to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon\nwhich any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths. If we\nfind that the ascertainment of the order of nature is facilitated by\nusing one terminology, or one set of symbols, rather than another, it is\nour clear duty to use the former; and no harm can accrue, so long as we\nbear in mind, that we are dealing merely with terms and symbols.\n\nIn itself it is of little moment whether we express the phaenomena of\nmatter in terms of spirit; or the phaenomena of spirit in terms of\nmatter: matter may be regarded as a form of thought, thought may be\nregarded as a property of matter--each statement has a certain relative\ntruth. But with a view to the progress of science, the materialistic\nterminology is in every way to be preferred. For it connects thought\nwith the other phaenomena of the universe, and suggests inquiry into the\nnature of those physical conditions, or concomitants of thought, which\nare more or less accessible to us, and a knowledge of which may, in\nfuture, help us to exercise the same kind of control over the world of\nthought, as we already possess in respect of the material world;\nwhereas, the alternative, or spiritualistic, terminology is utterly\nbarren, and leads to nothing but obscurity and confusion of ideas.\n\nThus there can be little doubt, that the further science advances, the\nmore extensively and consistently will all the phaenomena of Nature be\nrepresented by materialistic formulae and symbols.\n\nBut the man of science, who, forgetting the limits of philosophical\ninquiry, slides from these formulae and symbols into what is commonly\nunderstood by materialism, seems to me to place himself on a level with\nthe mathematician, who should mistake the _x_'s and _y_'s with which he\nworks his problems, for real entities--and with this further\ndisadvantage, as compared with the mathematician, that the blunders of\nthe latter are of no practical consequence, while the errors of\nsystematic materialism may paralyse the energies and destroy the beauty\nof a life.\n\n\n\n\nNATURALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM\n\n[FROM PROLOGUE TO CONTROVERTED QUESTIONS, 1892.]\n\n\nThere is a single problem with different aspects of which thinking men\nhave been occupied, ever since they began seriously to consider the\nwonderful frame of things in which their lives are set, and to seek for\ntrustworthy guidance among its intricacies.\n\nExperience speedily taught them that the shifting scenes of the world's\nstage have a permanent background; that there is order amidst the\nseeming contusion, and that many events take place according to\nunchanging rules. To this region of familiar steadiness and customary\nregularity they gave the name of Nature. But at the same time, their\ninfantile and untutored reason, little more, as yet, than the playfellow\nof the imagination, led them to believe that this tangible, commonplace,\norderly world of Nature was surrounded and interpenetrated by another\nintangible and mysterious world, no more bound by fixed rules than, as\nthey fancied, were the thoughts and passions which coursed through their\nminds and seemed to exercise an intermittent and capricious rule over\ntheir bodies. They attributed to the entities, with which they peopled\nthis dim and dreadful region, an unlimited amount of that power of\nmodifying the course of events of which they themselves possessed a\nsmall share, and thus came to regard them as not merely beyond, but\nabove, Nature.\n\nHence arose the conception of a \"Supernature\" antithetic to\n\"Nature\"--the primitive dualism of a natural world \"fixed in fate\" and a\nsupernatural, left to the free play of volition--which has pervaded all\nlater speculation, and, for thousands of years, has exercised a profound\ninfluence on practice. For it is obvious that, on this theory of the\nUniverse, the successful conduct of life must demand careful attention\nto both worlds; and, if either is to be neglected, it may be safer that\nit should be Nature. In any given contingency, it must doubtless be\ndesirable to know what may be expected to happen in the ordinary course\nof things; but it must be quite as necessary to have some inkling of the\nline likely to be taken by supernatural agencies able, and possibly\nwilling, to suspend or reverse that course. Indeed, logically developed,\nthe dualistic theory must needs end in almost exclusive attention to\nSupernature, and in trust that its over-ruling strength will be exerted\nin favour of those who stand well with its denizens. On the other hand,\nthe lessons of the great school-master, experience, have hardly seemed\nto accord with this conclusion. They have taught, with considerable\nemphasis, that it does not answer to neglect Nature; and that, on the\nwhole, the more attention paid to her dictates the better men fare.\n\nThus the theoretical antithesis brought about a practical antagonism.\nFrom the earliest times of which we have any knowledge, Naturalism and\nSupernaturalism have consciously, or unconsciously, competed and\nstruggled with one another; and the varying fortunes of the contest are\nwritten in the records of the course of civilisation from those of Egypt\nand Babylonia, six thousand years ago, down to those of our own time and\npeople.\n\nThese records inform us that, so far as men have paid attention to\nNature, they have been rewarded for their pains. They have developed the\nArts which have furnished the conditions of civilised existence; and the\nSciences, which have been a progressive revelation of reality, and have\nafforded the best discipline of the mind in the methods of discovering\ntruth. They have accumulated a vast body of universally accepted\nknowledge; and the conceptions of man and of society, of morals and of\nlaw, based upon that knowledge, are every day more and more, either\nopenly or tacitly, acknowledged to be the foundations of right action.\n\nHistory also tells us that the field of the supernatural has rewarded\nits cultivators with a harvest, perhaps not less luxuriant, but of a\ndifferent character. It has produced an almost infinite diversity of\nReligions. These, if we set aside the ethical concomitants upon which\nnatural knowledge also has a claim, are composed of information about\nSupernature; they tell us of the attributes of supernatural beings, of\ntheir relations with Nature, and of the operations by which their\ninterference with the ordinary course of events can be secured or\naverted. It does not appear, however, that supernaturalists have\nattained to any agreement about these matters or that history indicates\na widening of the influence of supernaturalism on practice, with the\nonward flow of time. On the contrary, the various religions are, to a\ngreat extent, mutually exclusive; and their adherents delight in\ncharging each other, not merely with error, but with criminality,\ndeserving and ensuing punishment of infinite severity. In singular\ncontrast with natural knowledge, again, the acquaintance of mankind with\nthe supernatural appears the more extensive and the more exact, and the\ninfluence of supernatural doctrines upon conduct the greater, the\nfurther back we go in time and the lower the stage of civilisation\nsubmitted to investigation. Historically, indeed, there would seem to\nbe an inverse relation between supernatural and natural knowledge. As\nthe latter has widened, gained in precision and in trustworthiness, so\nhas the former shrunk, grown vague and questionable; as the one has more\nand more filled the sphere of action, so has the other retreated into\nthe region of meditation, or vanished behind the screen of mere verbal\nrecognition.\n\nWhether this difference of the fortunes of Naturalism and of\nSupernaturalism is an indication of the progress, or of the regress, of\nhumanity; of a fall from, or an advance towards, the higher life; is a\nmatter of opinion. The point to which I wish to direct attention is that\nthe difference exists and is making itself felt. Men are growing to be\nseriously alive to the fact that the historical evolution of humanity\nwhich is generally, and I venture to think not unreasonably, regarded as\nprogress, has been, and is being, accompanied by a co-ordinate\nelimination of the supernatural from its originally large occupation of\nmen's thoughts. The question--How far is this process to go?--is in my\napprehension, the Controverted Question of our time.\n\nControversy on this matter--prolonged, bitter, and fought out with the\nweapons of the flesh, as well as with those of the spirit--is no new\nthing to Englishmen. We have been more or less occupied with it these\nfive hundred years. And, during that time, we have made attempts to\nestablish a _modus vivendi_ between the antagonists, some of which have\nhad a world-wide influence; though, unfortunately, none have proved\nuniversally and permanently satisfactory.\n\nIn the fourteenth century, the controverted question among us was,\nwhether certain portions of the Supernaturalism of mediaeval Christianity\nwere well-founded. John Wicliff proposed a solution of the problem\nwhich, in the course of the following two hundred years, acquired wide\npopularity and vast historical importance: Lollards, Hussites,\nLutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Socinians, and Anabaptists, whatever\ntheir disagreements, concurred in the proposal to reduce the\nSupernaturalism of Christianity within the limits sanctioned by the\nScriptures. None of the chiefs of Protestantism called in question\neither the supernatural origin and infallible authority of the Bible, or\nthe exactitude of the account of the supernatural world given in its\npages. In fact, they could not afford to entertain any doubt about these\npoints, since the infallible Bible was the fulcrum of the lever with\nwhich they were endeavouring to upset the Chair of St. Peter. The\n\"freedom of private judgment\" which they proclaimed, meant no more, in\npractice, than permission to themselves to make free with the public\njudgment of the Roman Church, in respect of the canon and of the meaning\nto be attached to the words of the canonical books. Private\njudgment--that is to say, reason--was (theoretically, at any rate) at\nliberty to decide what books were and what were not to take the rank of\n\"Scripture\"; and to determine the sense of any passage in such books.\nBut this sense, once ascertained to the mind of the sectary, was to be\ntaken for pure truth--for the very word of God. The controversial\nefficiency of the principle of biblical infallibility lay in the fact\nthat the conservative adversaries of the Reformers were not in a\nposition to contravene it without entangling themselves in serious\ndifficulties; while, since both Papists and Protestants agreed in taking\nefficient measures to stop the mouths of any more radical critics, these\ndid not count.\n\nThe impotence of their adversaries, however, did not remove the inherent\nweakness of the position of the Protestants. The dogma of the\ninfallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the\ninfallibility of the Pope. If the former is held by \"faith,\" then the\nlatter may be. If the latter is to be accepted, or rejected, by private\njudgment, why not the former? Even if the Bible could be proved anywhere\nto assert its own infallibility, the value of that self-assertion to\nthose who dispute the point is not obvious. On the other hand, if the\ninfallibility of the Bible was rested on that of a \"primitive Church,\"\nthe admission that the \"Church\" was formerly infallible was awkward in\nthe extreme for those who denied its present infallibility. Moreover, no\nsooner was the Protestant principle applied to practice, than it became\nevident that even an infallible text, when manipulated by private\njudgment, will impartially countenance contradictory deductions; and\nfurnish forth creeds and confessions as diverse as the quality and the\ninformation of the intellects which exercise, and the prejudices and\npassions which sway, such judgments. Every sect, confident in the\nderivative infallibility of its wire-drawing of infallible materials,\nwas ready to supply its contingent of martyrs; and to enable history,\nonce more, to illustrate the truth, that steadfastness under persecution\nsays much for the sincerity and still more for the tenacity, of the\nbeliever, but very little for the objective truth of that which he\nbelieves. No martyrs have sealed their faith with their blood more\nsteadfastly than the Anabaptists.\n\nLast, but not least, the Protestant principle contained within itself\nthe germs of the destruction of the finality, which the Lutheran,\nCalvinistic, and other Protestant Churches fondly imagined they had\nreached. Since their creeds were professedly based on the canonical\nScriptures, it followed that, in the long run, whoso settled the canon\ndefined the creed. If the private judgment of Luther might legitimately\nconclude that the epistle of James was contemptible, while the epistles\nof Paul contained the very essence of Christianity, it must be\npermissible for some other private judgment, on as good or as bad\ngrounds, to reverse these conclusions; the critical process which\nexcluded the Apocrypha could not be barred, at any rate by people who\nrejected the authority of the Church, from extending its operations to\nDaniel, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes; nor, having got so far, was it\neasy to allege any good ground for staying the further progress of\ncriticism. In fact, the logical development of Protestantism could not\nfail to lay the authority of the Scriptures at the feet of Reason; and\nin the hands of latitudinarian and rationalistic theologians, the\ndespotism of the Bible was rapidly converted into an extremely limited\nmonarchy. Treated with as much respect as ever, the sphere of its\npractical authority was minimised; and its decrees were valid only so\nfar as they were countersigned by common sense, the responsible\nminister.\n\nThe champions of Protestantism are much given to glorify the Reformation\nof the sixteenth century as the emancipation of Reason; but it may be\ndoubted if their contention has any solid ground; while there is a good\ndeal of evidence to show, that aspirations after intellectual freedom\nhad nothing whatever to do with the movement. Dante, who struck the\nPapacy as hard blows as Wicliff; Wicliff himself and Luther himself,\nwhen they began their work; were far enough from any intention of\nmeddling with even the most irrational of the dogmas of mediaeval\nSupernaturalism. From Wicliff to Socinus, or even to Muenzer, Rothmann,\nand John of Leyden, I fail to find a trace of any desire to set reason\nfree. The most that can be discovered is a proposal to change masters.\nFrom being the slave of the Papacy the intellect was to become the serf\nof the Bible; or, to speak more accurately, of somebody's interpretation\nof the Bible, which, rapidly shifting its attitude from the humility of\na private judgment to the arrogant Caesaro-papistry of a state-enforced\ncreed had no more hesitation about forcibly extinguishing opponent\nprivate judgments and judges, than had the old-fashioned\nPontiff-papistry.\n\nIt was the iniquities, and not the irrationalities, of the Papal system\nthat lay at the bottom of the revolt of the laity; which was,\nessentially, an attempt to shake off the intolerable burden of certain\npractical deductions from a Supernaturalism in which everybody, in\nprinciple, acquiesced. What was the gain to intellectual freedom of\nabolishing transubstantiation, image worship, indulgences,\necclesiastical infallibility; if consubstantiation, real-unreal presence\nmystifications, the bibliolatry, the \"inner-light\" pretensions, and the\ndemonology, which are fruits of the same supernaturalistic tree,\nremained in enjoyment of the spiritual and temporal support of a new\ninfallibility? One does not free a prisoner by merely scraping away the\nrust from his shackles.\n\nIt will be asked, perhaps, was not the Reformation one of the products\nof that great outbreak of many-sided free mental activity included under\nthe general head of the Renascence? Melanchthon, Ulrich von Hutten,\nBeza, were they not all humanists? Was not the arch-humanist, Erasmus,\nfautor-in-chief of the Reformation, until he got frightened and basely\ndeserted it?\n\nFrom the language of Protestant historians, it would seem that they\noften forget that Reformation and Protestantism are by no means\nconvertible terms. There were plenty of sincere and indeed zealous\nreformers, before, during, and after the birth and growth of\nProtestantism, who would have nothing to do with it. Assuredly, the\nrejuvenescence of science and of art; the widening of the field of\nNature by geographical and astronomical discovery; the revelation of the\nnoble ideals of antique literature by the revival of classical learning;\nthe stir of thought, throughout all classes of society, by the printers'\nwork, loosened traditional bonds and weakened the hold of mediaeval\nSupernaturalism. In the interests of liberal culture and of national\nwelfare, the humanists were eager to lend a hand to anything which\ntended to the discomfiture of their sworn enemies, the monks, and they\nwillingly supported every movement in the direction of weakening\necclesiastical interference with civil life. But the bond of a common\nenemy was the only real tie between the humanist and the protestant;\ntheir alliance was bound to be of short duration, and, sooner or later,\nto be replaced by internecine warfare. The goal of the humanists,\nwhether they were aware of it or not, was the attainment of the complete\nintellectual freedom of the antique philosopher, than which nothing\ncould be more abhorrent to a Luther, a Calvin, a Beza, or a Zwingli.\n\nThe key to the comprehension of the conduct of Erasmus, seems to me to\nlie in the clear apprehension of this fact. That he was a man of many\nweaknesses may be true; in fact, he was quite aware of them and\nprofessed himself no hero. But he never deserted that reformatory\nmovement which he originally contemplated; and it was impossible he\nshould have deserted the specifically Protestant reformation in which he\nnever took part. He was essentially a theological whig, to whom\nradicalism was as hateful as it is to all whigs; or to borrow a still\nmore appropriate comparison from modern times, a broad churchman who\nrefused to enlist with either the High Church or the Low Church zealots,\nand paid the penalty of being called coward, time-server and traitor, by\nboth. Yet really there is a good deal in his pathetic remonstrance that\nhe does not see why he is bound to become a martyr for that in which he\ndoes not believe; and a fair consideration of the circumstances and the\nconsequences of the Protestant reformation seems to me to go a long way\ntowards justifying the course he adopted.\n\nFew men had better means of being acquainted with the condition of\nEurope; none could be more competent to gauge the intellectual\nshallowness and self-contradiction of the Protestant criticism of\nCatholic doctrine; and to estimate, at its proper value, the fond\nimagination that the waters let out by the Renascence would come to\nrest amidst the blind alleys of the new ecclesiasticism. The bastard,\nwhilom poor student and monk, become the familiar of bishops and\nprinces, at home in all grades of society, could not fail to be aware of\nthe gravity of the social position, of the dangers imminent from the\nprofligacy and indifference of the ruling classes, no less than from the\nanarchical tendencies of the people who groaned under their oppression.\nThe wanderer who had lived in Germany, in France, in England, in Italy,\nand who counted many of the best and most influential men in each\ncountry among his friends, was not likely to estimate wrongly the\nenormous forces which were still at the command of the Papacy. Bad as\nthe churchmen might be, the statesmen were worse; and a person of far\nmore sanguine temperament than Erasmus might have seen no hope for the\nfuture, except in gradually freeing the ubiquitous organisation of the\nChurch from the corruptions which alone, as he imagined, prevented it\nfrom being as beneficent as it was powerful. The broad tolerance of the\nscholar and man of the world might well be revolted by the ruffianism,\nhowever genial, of one great light of Protestantism, and the narrow\nfanaticism, however learned and logical, of others, and to a cautious\nthinker, by whom, whatever his short-comings, the ethical ideal of the\nChristian evangel was sincerely prized, it really was a fair question\nwhether it was worth while to bring about a political and social deluge,\nthe end of which no mortal could foresee, for the purpose of setting up\nLutheran, Zwinglian, and other Peterkins, in the place of the actual\nclaimant to the reversion of the spiritual wealth of the Galilean\nfisherman.\n\nLet us suppose that, at the beginning of the Lutheran and Zwinglian\nmovement, a vision of its immediate consequences had been granted to\nErasmus; imagine that to the spectre of the fierce outbreak of\nAnabaptist communism which opened the apocalypse had succeeded, in\nshadowy procession, the reign of terror and of spoliation in England,\nwith the judicial murders of his friends, More and Fisher; the bitter\ntyranny of evangelistic clericalism in Geneva and in Scotland; the long\nagony of religious wars, persecutions, and massacres, which devastated\nFrance and reduced Germany almost to savagery; finishing with the\nspectacle of Lutheranism in its native country sunk into mere dead\nErastian formalism, before it was a century old; while Jesuitry\ntriumphed over Protestantism in three-fourths of Europe, bringing in its\ntrain a recrudescence of all the corruptions Erasmus and his friends\nsought to abolish; might not he have quite honestly thought this a\nsomewhat too heavy price to pay for Protestantism; more especially,\nsince no one was in a better position than himself to know how little\nthe dogmatic foundation of the new confessions was able to bear the\nlight which the inevitable progress of humanistic criticism would throw\nupon them? As the wiser of his contemporaries saw, Erasmus was, at\nheart, neither Protestant nor Papist, but an \"Independent Christian\";\nand, as the wiser of his modern biographers have discerned, he was the\nprecursor, not of sixteenth century reform, but of eighteenth century\n\"enlightenment\"; a sort of broad-church Voltaire, who held by his\n\"Independent Christianity\" as stoutly as Voltaire by his Deism.\n\nIn fact, the stream of the Renascence, which bore Erasmus along, left\nProtestanism stranded amidst the mudbanks of its articles and creeds:\nwhile its true course became visible to all men, two centuries later. By\nthis time, those in whom the movement of the Renascence was incarnate\nbecame aware what spirit they were of; and they attacked Supernaturalism\nin its Biblical stronghold, defended by Protestants and Romanists with\nequal zeal. In the eyes of the \"Patriarch,\" Ultramontanism, Jansenism,\nand Calvinism were merely three persons of the one \"Infame\" which it\nwas the object of his life to crush. If he hated one more than another,\nit was probably the last; while D'Holbach, and the extreme left of the\nfree-thinking best, were disposed to show no more mercy to Deism and\nPantheism.\n\nThe sceptical insurrection of the eighteenth century made a terrific\nnoise and frightened not a few worthy people out of their wits; but cool\njudges might have foreseen, at the outset, that the efforts of the later\nrebels were no more likely than those of the earlier, to furnish\npermanent resting-places for the spirit of scientific inquiry. However\nworthy of admiration may be the acuteness, the common sense, the wit,\nthe broad humanity, which abound in the writings of the best of the\nfree-thinkers; there is rarely much to be said for their work as an\nexample of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult\ninvestigation. I do not think any impartial judge will assert that, from\nthis point of view, they are much better than their adversaries. It must\nbe admitted that they share to the full the fatal weakness of _a priori_\nphilosophising, no less than the moral frivolity common to their age;\nwhile a singular want of appreciation of history, as the record of the\nmoral and social evolution of the human race, permitted them to resort\nto preposterous theories of imposture, in order to account for the\nreligious phenomena which are natural products of that evolution.\n\nFor the most part, the Romanist and Protestant adversaries of the\nfree-thinkers met them with arguments no better than their own; and with\nvituperation, so far inferior that it lacked the wit. But one great\nChristian Apologist fairly captured the guns of the free-thinking array,\nand turned their batteries upon themselves. Speculative \"infidelity\" of\nthe eighteenth century type was mortally wounded by the _Analogy_; while\nthe progress of the historical and psychological sciences brought to\nlight the important part played by the mythopoeic faculty; and, by\ndemonstrating the extreme readiness of men to impose upon themselves,\nrendered the calling in of sacerdotal co-operation, in most cases, a\nsuperfluity.\n\nAgain, as in the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, social and\npolitical influences came into play. The free-thinking _philosophes_,\nwho objected to Rousseau's sentimental religiosity almost as much as\nthey did to _L'Infame_, were credited with the responsibility for all\nthe evil deeds of Rousseau's Jacobin disciples, with about as much\njustification as Wicliff was held responsible for the Peasants' revolt,\nor Luther for the _Bauern-krieg_. In England, though our _ancien regime_\nwas not altogether lovely, the social edifice was never in such a bad\nway as in France; it was still capable of being repaired; and our\nforefathers, very wisely, preferred to wait until that operation could\nbe safely performed, rather than pull it all down about their ears, in\norder to build a philosophically planned house on brand-new speculative\nfoundations. Under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that, in\nthis country, practical men preferred the Gospel of Wesley and Whitfield\nto that of Jean Jacques; while enough of the old leaven of Puritanism\nremained to ensure the favour and support of a large number of religious\nmen to a revival of evangelical supernaturalism. Thus, by degrees, the\nfree-thinking, or the indifference, prevalent among us in the first half\nof the eighteenth century, was replaced by a strong supernaturalistic\nreaction, which submerged the work of the free-thinkers; and even\nseemed, for a time, to have arrested the naturalistic movement of which\nthat work was an imperfect indication. Yet, like Lollardry, four\ncenturies earlier, free-thought merely took to running underground,\nsafe, sooner or later, to return to the surface.\n\nMy memory, unfortunately, carries me back to the fourth decade of the\nnineteenth century, when the evangelical flood had a little abated and\nthe tops of certain mountains were soon to appear, chiefly in the\nneighbourhood of Oxford; but when, nevertheless, bibliolatry was\nrampant; when church and chapel alike proclaimed, as the oracles of God,\nthe crude assumptions of the worst informed and, in natural sequence,\nthe most presumptuously bigoted, of all theological schools.\n\nIn accordance with promises made on my behalf, but certainly without my\nauthorisation, I was very early taken to hear \"sermons in the vulgar\ntongue.\" And vulgar enough often was the tongue in which some preacher,\nignorant alike of literature, of history, of science, and even of\ntheology, outside that patronised by his own narrow school, poured\nforth, from the safe entrenchment of the pulpit, invectives against\nthose who deviated from his notion of orthodoxy. From dark allusions to\n\"sceptics\" and \"infidels,\" I became aware of the existence of people who\ntrusted in carnal reason; who audaciously doubted that the world was\nmade in six natural days, or that the deluge was universal; perhaps even\nwent so far as to question the literal accuracy of the story of Eve's\ntemptation, or of Balaam's ass; and, from the horror of the tones in\nwhich they were mentioned, I should have been justified in drawing the\nconclusion that these rash men belonged to the criminal classes. At the\nsame time, those who were more directly responsible for providing me\nwith the knowledge essential to the right guidance of life (and who\nsincerely desired to do so), imagined they were discharging that most\nsacred duty by impressing upon my childish mind the necessity, on pain\nof reprobation in this world and damnation in the next, of accepting, in\nthe strict and literal sense, every statement contained in the\nProtestant Bible. I was told to believe, and I did believe, that doubt\nabout any of them was a sin, not less reprehensible than a moral delict.\nI suppose that, out of a thousand of my contemporaries, nine hundred, at\nleast, had their minds systematically warped and poisoned, in the name\nof the God of truth, by like discipline. I am sure that, even a score of\nyears later, those who ventured to question the exact historical\naccuracy of any part of the Old Testament and _a fortiori_ of the\nGospels, had to expect a pitiless shower of verbal missiles, to say\nnothing of the other disagreeable consequences which visit those who, in\nany way, run counter to that chaos of prejudices called public opinion.\n\nMy recollections of this time have recently been revived by the perusal\nof a remarkable document,[8] signed by as many as thirty-eight out of\nthe twenty odd thousand clergymen of the Established Church. It does not\nappear that the signatories are officially accredited spokesmen of the\necclesiastical corporation to which they belong; but I feel bound to\ntake their word for it that they are \"stewards of the Lord who have\nreceived the Holy Ghost,\" and, therefore, to accept this memorial as\nevidence that, though the Evangelicism of my early days may be deposed\nfrom its place of power, though so many of the colleagues of the\nthirty-eight even repudiate the title of Protestants, yet the green bay\ntree of bibliolatry flourishes as it did sixty years ago. And, as in\nthose good old times, whoso refuses to offer incense to the idol is held\nto be guilty of \"a dishonour to God,\" imperilling his salvation.\n\nIt is to the credit of the perspicacity of the memorialists that they\ndiscern the real nature of the Controverted Question of the age. They\nare awake to the unquestionable fact that, if Scripture has been\ndiscovered \"not to be worthy of unquestioning belief,\" faith \"in the\nsupernatural itself\" is, so far, undermined. And I may congratulate\nmyself upon such weighty confirmation of opinion in which I have had the\nfortune to anticipate them. But whether it is more to the credit of the\ncourage, than to the intelligence, of the thirty-eight that they should\ngo on to proclaim that the canonical scriptures of the Old and New\nTestaments \"declare incontrovertibly the actual historical truth in all\nrecords, both of past events and of the delivery of predictions to be\nthereafter fulfilled,\" must be left to the coming generation to decide.\n\nThe interest which attaches to this singular document will, I think, be\nbased by most thinking men, not upon what it is, but upon that of which\nit is a sign. It is an open secret, that the memorial is put forth as a\ncounterblast to a manifestation of opinion of a contrary character, on\nthe part of certain members of the same ecclesiastical body, who\ntherefore have, as I suppose, an equal right to declare themselves\n\"stewards of the Lord and recipients of the Holy Ghost.\" In fact, the\nstream of tendency towards Naturalism, the course of which I have\nbriefly traced, has, of late years, flowed so strongly, that even the\nChurches have begun, I dare not say to drift, but, at any rate, to swing\nat their moorings. Within the pale of the Anglican establishment, I\nventure to doubt, whether, at this moment, there are as many\nthorough-going defenders of \"plenary inspiration\" as there were timid\nquestioners of that doctrine, half a century ago. Commentaries,\nsanctioned by the highest authority, give up the \"actual historical\ntruth\" of the cosmogonical and diluvial narratives. University\nprofessors of deservedly high repute accept the critical decision that\nthe Hexateuch is a compilation, in which the share of Moses, either as\nauthor or as editor, is not quite so clearly demonstrable as it might\nbe; highly placed Divines tell us that the pre-Abrahamic Scripture\nnarratives may be ignored; that the book of Daniel may be regarded as a\npatriotic romance of the second century B.C.; that the words of the\nwriter of the fourth Gospel are not always to be distinguished from\nthose which he puts into the mouth of Jesus. Conservative, but\nconscientious, revisers decide that whole passages, some of dogmatic and\nsome of ethical importance, are interpolations. An uneasy sense of the\nweakness of the dogma of Biblical infallibility seems to be at the\nbottom of a prevailing tendency once more to substitute the authority of\nthe \"Church\" for that of the Bible. In my old age, it has happened to me\nto be taken to task for regarding Christianity as a \"religion of a book\"\nas gravely as, in my youth, I should have been reprehended for doubting\nthat proposition. It is a no less interesting symptom that the State\nChurch seems more and more anxious to repudiate all complicity with the\nprinciples of the Protestant Reformation and to call itself\n\"Anglo-Catholic.\" Inspiration, deprived of its old intelligible sense,\nis watered down into a mystification. The Scriptures are, indeed,\ninspired; but they contain a wholly undefined and indefinable \"human\nelement\"; and this unfortunate intruder is converted into a sort of\nbiblical whipping-boy. Whatsoever scientific investigation, historical\nor physical, proves to be erroneous, the \"human element\" bears the\nblame: while the divine inspiration of such statements, as by their\nnature are out of reach of proof or disproof, is still asserted with all\nthe vigour inspired by conscious safety from attack. Though the proposal\nto treat the Bible \"like any other book\" which caused so much scandal,\nforty years ago, may not yet be generally accepted, and though Bishop\nColenso's criticisms may still lie, formally, under ecclesiastical ban,\nyet the Church has not wholly turned a deaf ear to the voice of the\nscientific tempter; and many a coy divine, while \"crying I will ne'er\nconsent,\" has consented to the proposals of that scientific criticism\nwhich the memorialists renounce and denounce.\n\nA humble layman, to whom it would seem the height of presumption to\nassume even the unconsidered dignity of a \"steward of science,\" may well\nfind this conflict of apparently equal ecclesiastical authorities\nperplexing--suggestive, indeed, of the wisdom of postponing attention to\neither, until the question of precedence between them is settled. And\nthis course will probably appear the more advisable, the more closely\nthe fundamental position of the memorialists is examined.\n\n\"No opinion of the fact or form of Divine Revelation, founded on\nliterary criticism [and I suppose I may add historical, or physical,\ncriticism] of the Scriptures themselves, can be admitted to interfere\nwith the traditionary testimony of the Church, when that has been once\nascertained and verified by appeal to antiquity.\" [9]\n\nGrant that it is \"the traditionary testimony of the Church\" which\nguarantees the canonicity of each and all of the books of the Old and\nNew Testaments. Grant also that canonicity means infallibility; yet,\naccording to the thirty-eight, this \"traditionary testimony\" has to be\n\"ascertained and verified by appeal to antiquity\". But \"ascertainment\nand verification\" are purely intellectual processes, which must be\nconducted according to the strict rules of scientific investigation, or\nbe self-convicted of worthlessness. Moreover, before we can set about\nthe appeal to \"antiquity,\" the exact sense of that usefully vague term\nmust be defined by similar means. \"Antiquity\" may include any number of\ncenturies, great or small; and whether \"antiquity\" is to comprise the\nCouncil of Trent, or to stop a little beyond that of Nicaea, or to come\nto an end in the time of Irenaeus, or in that of Justin Martyr, are\nknotty questions which can be decided, if at all, only by those critical\nmethods which the signatories treat so cavalierly. And yet the decision\nof these questions is fundamental, for as the limits of the canonical\nscriptures vary, so may the dogmas deduced from them require\nmodification. Christianity is one thing, if the fourth Gospel, the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, the pastoral Epistles, and the Apocalypse are\ncanonical and (by the hypothesis) infallibly true; and another thing, if\nthey are not. As I have already said, whoso defines the canon defines\nthe creed.\n\nNow it is quite certain with respect to some of these books, such as the\nApocalypse and the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Eastern and the\nWestern Church differed in opinion for centuries; and yet neither the\none branch nor the other can have considered its judgment infallible,\nsince they eventually agreed to a transaction by which each gave up its\nobjection to the book patronised by the other. Moreover, the \"fathers\"\nargue (in a more or less rational manner) about the canonicity of this\nor that book, and are by no means above producing evidence, internal and\nexternal, in favour of the opinions they advocate. In fact, imperfect as\ntheir conceptions of scientific method may be, they not unfrequently\nused it to the best of their ability. Thus it would appear that though\nscience, like Nature, may be driven out with a fork, ecclesiastical or\nother, yet she surely comes back again. The appeal to \"antiquity\" is, in\nfact, an appeal to science, first to define what antiquity is; secondly,\nto determine what \"antiquity,\" so defined, says about canonicity;\nthirdly, to prove that canonicity means infallibility. And when science,\nlargely in the shape of the abhorred \"criticism,\" has answered this\nappeal, and has shown that \"antiquity\" used her own methods, however\nclumsily and imperfectly, she naturally turns round upon the appellants,\nand demands that they should show cause why, in these days, science\nshould not resume the work the ancients did so imperfectly, and carry it\nout efficiently.\n\nBut no such cause can be shown. If \"antiquity\" permitted Eusebius,\nOrigen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, to argue for the reception of this book\ninto the canon and the rejection of that, upon rational grounds,\n\"antiquity\" admitted the whole principal of modern criticism. If Irenaeus\nproduces ridiculous reasons for limiting the Gospels to four, it was\nopen to any one else to produce good reasons (if he had them) for\ncutting them down to three, or increasing them to five. If the Eastern\nbranch of the Church had a right to reject the Apocalypse and accept the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, and the Western an equal right to accept the\nApocalypse and reject the Epistle, down to the fourth century, any other\nbranch would have an equal right, on cause shown, to reject both, or as\nthe Catholic Church afterwards actually did, to accept both.\n\nThus I cannot but think that the thirty-eight are hoist with their own\npetard. Their \"appeal to antiquity\" turns out to be nothing but a\nround-about way of appealing to the tribunal the jurisdiction of which\nthey affect to deny. Having rested the world of Christian\nsupernaturalism on the elephant of biblical infallibility, and furnished\nthe elephant with standing ground on the tortoise of \"antiquity,\" they,\nlike their famous Hindoo analogue, have been content to look no further;\nand have thereby been spared the horror of discovering that the tortoise\nrests on a grievously fragile construction, to a great extent the work\nof that very intellectual operation which they anathematise and\nrepudiate.\n\nMoreover, there is another point to be considered. It is of course true\nthat a Christian Church (whether the Christian Church, or not, depends\non the connotation of the definite article) existed before the Christian\nscriptures; and that infallibility of these depends upon infallibility\nof the judgment of the persons who selected the books of which they are\ncomposed, out of the mass of literature current among the early\nChristians. The logical acumen of Augustine showed him that the\nauthority of the Gospel he preached must rest on that of the Church to\nwhich he belonged.[10]\n\nBut it is no less true that the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions of\nmost, if not all, of the Old Testament books existed before the birth of\nJesus of Nazareth; and that their divine authority is presupposed by,\nand therefore can hardly depend upon, the religious body constituted by\nhis disciples. As everybody knows, the very conception of a \"Christ\" is\npurely Jewish. The validity of the argument from the Messianic\nprophecies vanishes unless their infallible authority is granted; and,\nas a matter of fact, whether we turn to the Gospels, the Epistles, or\nthe writings of the early Apologists, the Jewish scriptures are\nrecognised as the highest court of appeal of the Christian.\n\nThe proposal to cite Christian \"antiquity\" as a witness to the\ninfallibility of the Old Testament, when its own claims to authority\nvanish, if certain propositions contained in the Old Testament are\nerroneous, hardly satisfies the requirements of lay logic. It is as if a\nclaimant to be sole legatee, under another kind of testament, should\noffer his assertion as sufficient evidence of the validity of the will.\nAnd, even were not such a circular, or rather rotatory argument, that\nthe infallibility of the Bible is testified by the infallible Church,\nwhose infallibility is testified by the infallible Bible, too absurd for\nserious consideration, it remains permissible to ask, Where and when the\nChurch, during the period of its infallibility, as limited by Anglican\ndogmatic necessities, has officially decreed the \"actual historical\ntruth of all records\" in the Old Testament? Was Augustine heretical when\nhe denied the actual historical truth of the record of the Creation?\nFather Suarez, standing on later Roman tradition, may have a right to\ndeclare that he was; but it does not lie in the mouth of those who limit\ntheir appeal to that early \"antiquity,\" in which Augustine played so\ngreat a part, to say so.\n\nAmong the watchers of the course of the world of thought, some view with\ndelight and some with horror, the recrudescence of Supernaturalism which\nmanifests itself among us, in shapes ranged along the whole flight of\nsteps, which, in this case, separates the sublime from the\nridiculous--from Neo-Catholicism and Inner-light mysticism, at the top,\nto unclean things, not worthy of mention in the same breath, at the\nbottom. In my poor opinion, the importance of these manifestations is\noften greatly over-estimated. The extant forms of Supernaturalism have\ndeep roots in human nature, and will undoubtedly die hard; but, in these\nlatter days, they have to cope with an enemy whose full strength is only\njust beginning to be put out, and whose forces, gathering strength year\nby year, are hemming them round on every side. This enemy is Science, in\nthe acceptation of systematised natural knowledge, which, during the\nlast two centuries, has extended those methods of investigation, the\nworth of which is confirmed by daily appeal to Nature, to every region\nin which the Supernatural has hitherto been recognised.\n\nWhen scientific historical criticism reduced the annals of heroic Greece\nand of regal Rome to the level of fables; when the unity of authorship\nof the _Iliad_ was successfully assailed by scientific literary\ncriticism; when scientific physical criticism, after exploding the\ngeocentric theory of the universe and reducing the solar system itself\nto one of millions of groups of like cosmic specks, circling at\nunimaginable distances from one another through infinite space, showed\nthe supernaturalistic theories of the duration of the earth and of life\nupon it to be as inadequate as those of its relative dimensions and\nimportance had been; it needed no prophetic gift to see that, sooner or\nlater, the Jewish and the early Christian records would be treated in\nthe same manner; that the authorship of the Hexateuch and of the Gospels\nwould be as severely tested; and that the evidence in favour of the\nveracity of many of the statements found in the Scriptures would have to\nbe strong indeed if they were to be opposed to the conclusions of\nphysical science. In point of fact, so far as I can discover, no one\ncompetent to judge of the evidential strength of these conclusions\nventures now to say that the biblical accounts of the Creation and of\nthe Deluge are true in the natural sense of the words of the narratives.\nThe most modern Reconcilers venture upon is to affirm, that some quite\ndifferent sense may be put upon the words; and that this non-natural\nsense may, with a little trouble, be manipulated into some sort of\nnon-contradiction of scientific truth.\n\nMy purpose, in an essay[11] which treats of the narrative of the Deluge,\nwas to prove, by physical criticism, that no such event as that\ndescribed ever took place; to exhibit the untrustworthy character of the\nnarrative demonstrated by literary criticism; and, finally, to account\nfor its origin by producing a form of those ancient legends of pagan\nChaldaea, from which the biblical compilation is manifestly derived. I\nhave yet to learn that the main proposition of this essay can be\nseriously challenged.\n\nIn two essays[12] on the narrative of the Creation, I have endeavoured\nto controvert the assertion that modern science supports, either the\ninterpretation put upon it by Mr. Gladstone, or any interpretation which\nis compatible with the general sense of the narrative, quite apart from\nparticular details. The first chapter of Genesis teaches the\nsupernatural creation of the present forms of life; modern science\nteaches that they have come about by evolution. The first chapter of\nGenesis teaches the successive origin--firstly, of all the plants;\nsecondly, of all the aquatic and aerial animals; thirdly, of all the\nterrestrial animals, which now exist--during distinct intervals of time;\nmodern science teaches that, throughout all the duration of an immensely\nlong past, so far as we have any adequate knowledge of it (that is far\nback as the Silurian epoch), plants, aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial\nanimals have co-existed; that the earliest known are unlike those which\nat present exist; and that the modern species have come into existence\nas the last terms of a series, the members of which have appeared one\nafter another. Thus, far from confirming the account in Genesis, the\nresults of modern science, so far as they go, are in principle, as in\ndetail, hopelessly discordant with it.\n\nYet, if the pretensions to infallibility set up, not by the ancient\nHebrew writings themselves, but by the ecclesiastical champions and\nfriends from whom they may well pray to be delivered, thus shatter\nthemselves against the rock of natural knowledge, in respect of the two\nmost important of all events, the origin of things and the palingenesis\nof terrestrial life, what historical credit dare any serious thinker\nattach to the narratives of the fabrication of Eve, of the Fall, of the\ncommerce between the _Bene Elohim_ and the daughters of men, which lie\nbetween the creational and the diluvial legends? And, if these are to\nlose all historical worth, what becomes of the infallibility of those\nwho, according to the later scriptures, have accepted them, argued from\nthem, and staked far-reaching dogmatic conclusions upon their historical\naccuracy?\n\nIt is the merest ostrich policy for contemporary ecclesiasticism to try\nto bide its Hexateuchal head--in the hope that the inseparable\nconnection of its body with pre-Abrahamic legends may be overlooked. The\nquestion will still be asked, If the first nine chapters of the\nPentateuch are unhistorical, how is the historical accuracy of the\nremainder to be guaranteed? What more intrinsic claim has the story of\nthe Exodus than of the Deluge, to belief? If God not walk in the Garden\nof Eden, how we be assured that he spoke from Sinai?\n\nIn other essays[13] I have endeavoured to show that sober and\nwell-founded physical and literary criticism plays no less havoc with\nthe doctrine that the canonical scriptures of the New Testament \"declare\nincontrovertibly the actual historical truth in all records.\" We are\ntold that the Gospels contain a true revelation of the spiritual\nworld--a proposition which, in one sense of the word \"spiritual,\" I\nshould not think it necessary to dispute. But, when it is taken to\nsignify that everything we are told about the world of spirits in these\nbooks is infallibly true; that we are bound to accept the demonology\nwhich constitutes an inseparable part of their teaching; and to profess\nbelief in a Supernaturalism as gross as that of any primitive people--it\nis at any rate permissible to ask why? Science may be unable to define\nthe limits of possibility, but it cannot escape from the moral\nobligation to weigh the evidence in favour of any alleged wonderful\noccurrence; and I have endeavoured to show that the evidence for the\nGadarene miracle is altogether worthless. We have simply three,\npartially discrepant, versions of a story, about the primitive form, the\norigin, and the authority for which we know absolutely nothing. But the\nevidence in favour of the Gadarene miracle is as good as that for any\nother.\n\nElsewhere I have pointed out that it is utterly beside the mark to\ndeclaim against these conclusions on the ground of their asserted\ntendency to deprive mankind of the consolations of the Christian faith,\nand to destroy the foundations of morality: still less to brand them\nwith the question-begging vituperative appellation of \"infidelity.\" The\npoint is not whether they are wicked; but, whether, from the point of\nview of scientific method, they are irrefragably true. If they are they\nwill be accepted in time, whether they are wicked or not wicked. Nature,\nso far as we have been able to attain to any insight into her ways,\nrecks little about consolation and makes for righteousness by very\nround-about paths. And, at any rate, whatever may be possible for other\npeople, it is becoming less and less possible for the man who puts his\nfaith in scientific methods of ascertaining truth, and is accustomed to\nhave that faith justified by daily experience, to be consciously false\nto his principle in any matter. But the number of such men, driven into\nthe use of scientific methods of inquiry and taught to trust them, by\ntheir education, their daily professional and business needs, is\nincreasing and will continually increase. The phraseology of\nSupernaturalism may remain on men's lips, but in practice they are\nNaturalists. The magistrate who listens with devout attention to the\nprecept \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" on Sunday, on Monday\ndismisses, as intrinsically absurd, a charge of bewitching a cow brought\nagainst some old woman; the superintendent of a lunatic asylum who\nsubstituted exorcism for rational modes of treatment would have but a\nshort tenure of office; even parish clerks doubt the utility of prayers\nfor rain, so long as the wind is in the east; and an outbreak of\npestilence sends men, not to the churches, but to the drains. In spite\nof prayers for the success of our arms and _Te Deums_ for victory, our\nreal faith is in big battalions and keeping our powder dry; in knowledge\nof the science of warfare; in energy, courage, and discipline. In these,\nas in all other practical affairs, we act on the aphorism \"_Laborare est\norare_\"; we admit that intelligent work is the only acceptable worship;\nand that, whether there be a Supernature or not, our business is with\nNature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is important to note that the principle of the scientific Naturalism\nof the latter half of the nineteenth century, in which the intellectual\nmovement of the Renascence has culminated, and which was first clearly\nformulated by Descartes, leads not to the denial of the existence of any\nSupernature;[14] but simply to the denial of the validity of the\nevidence adduced in favour of this, or of that, extant form of\nSupernaturalism.\n\nLooking at the matter from the most rigidly scientific point of view,\nthe assumption that, amidst the myriads of worlds scattered through\nendless space, there can be no intelligence as much greater than man's\nas his is greater than a blackbeetle's; no being endowed with powers of\ninfluencing the course of Nature as much greater than his as his is\ngreater than a snail's, seems to me not merely baseless, but\nimpertinent. Without stepping beyond the analogy of that which is known,\nit is easy to people the cosmos with entities, in ascending scale, until\nwe reach something practically indistinguishable from omnipotence,\nomnipresence and omniscience. If our intelligence can, in some matters,\nsurely reproduce the past of thousands of years ago and anticipate the\nfuture thousands of years hence, it is clearly within the limits of\npossibility that some greater intellect, even of the same order, may be\nable to mirror the whole past and the whole future; if the universe is\npenetrated by a medium of such a nature that a magnetic needle on the\nearth answers to a commotion in the sun, an omnipresent agent is also\nconceivable; if our insignificant knowledge gives us some influence over\nevents, practical omniscience may confer indefinably greater power.\nFinally, if evidence that a thing may be were equivalent to proof that\nit is, analogy might justify the construction of a naturalistic theology\nand demonology not less wonderful than the current supernatural; just as\nit might justify the peopling of Mars, or of Jupiter, with living forms\nto which terrestrial biology offers no parallel. Until human life is\nlonger and the duties of the present press less heavily, I do not think\nthat wise men will occupy themselves with Jovian, or Martian, natural\nhistory; and they will probably agree to a verdict of \"not proven\" in\nrespect of naturalistic theology, taking refuge in that agnostic\nconfession, which appears to me to be the only position for people who\nobject to say that they know what they are quite aware they do not know.\nAs to the interests of morality, I am disposed to think that if mankind\ncould be got to act up to this last principle in every relation of life,\na reformation would be effected such as the world has not yet seen; an\napproximation to the millennium, such as no supernaturalistic religion\nhas ever yet succeeded, or seems likely ever to succeed, in effecting.\n\n\n\n\nTHE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS\n\n[1889]\n\n\nCharles, or more properly, Karl, King of the Franks, consecrated Roman\nEmperor in St. Peter's on Christmas Day, A.D. 800, and known to\nposterity as the Great (chiefly by his agglutinative Gallicised\ndenomination of Charlemagne), was a man great in all ways, physically\nand mentally. Within a couple of centuries after his death Charlemagne\nbecame the centre of innumerable legends; and the myth-making process\ndoes not seem to have been sensibly interfered with by the existence of\nsober and truthful histories of the Emperor and of the times which\nimmediately preceded and followed his reign, by a contemporary writer\nwho occupied a high and confidential position in his court, and in that\nof his successor. This was one Eginhard, or Einhard, who appears to have\nbeen born about A.D. 770, and spent his youth at the court, being\neducated along with Charles's sons. There is excellent contemporary\ntestimony not only to Eginhard's existence, but to his abilities, and to\nthe place which he occupied in the circle of the intimate friends of the\ngreat ruler whose life he subsequently wrote. In fact, there is as good\nevidence of Eginhard's existence, of his official position, and of his\nbeing the author of the chief works attributed to him, as can reasonably\nbe expected in the case of a man who lived more than a thousand years\nago, and was neither a great king nor a great warrior. The works\nare--1. \"The Life of the Emperor Karl.\" 2. \"The Annals of the Franks.\"\n3. \"Letters.\" 4. \"The History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs\nof Christ, SS. Marcellinus and Petrus.\"\n\nIt is to the last, as one of the most singular and interesting records\nof the period during which the Roman world passed into that of the\nMiddle Ages, that I wish to direct attention.[15] It was written in the\nninth century, somewhere, apparently, about the year 830, when Eginhard,\nailing in health and weary of political life, had withdrawn to the\nmonastery of Seligenstadt, of which he was the founder. A manuscript\ncopy of the work, made in the tenth century, and once the property of\nthe monastery of St. Bavon on the Scheldt, of which Eginhard was abbot,\nis still extant, and there is no reason to believe that, in this copy,\nthe original has been in any way interpolated or otherwise tampered\nwith. The main features of the strange story contained in the \"Historia\nTranslations\" are set forth in the following pages, in which, in regard\nto all matters of importance, I shall adhere as closely as possible to\nEginhard's own words.\n\n     While I was still at Court, busied with secular affairs, I often\n     thought of the leisure which I hoped one day to enjoy in a solitary\n     place, far away from the crowd, with which the liberality of Prince\n     Louis, whom I then served, had provided me. This place is situated\n     in that part of Germany which lies between the Neckar and the\n     Maine,[16] and is nowadays called the Odenwald by those who live in\n     and about it. And here having built, according to my capacity and\n     resources, not only houses and permanent dwellings, but also a\n     basilica fitted for the performance of divine service and of no\n     mean style of construction, I began to think to what saint or\n     martyr I could best dedicate it. A good deal of time had passed\n     while my thoughts fluctuated about this matter, when it happened\n     that a certain deacon of the Roman Church, named Deusdona, arrived\n     at the Court for the purpose of seeking the favour of the King in\n     some affairs in which he was interested. He remained some time; and\n     then, having transacted his business, he was about to return to\n     Rome, when one day, moved by courtesy to a stranger, we invited him\n     to a modest refection; and while talking of many things at table,\n     mention was made of the translation of the body of the blessed\n     Sebastian,[17] and of the neglected tombs of the martyrs, of which\n     there is such a prodigious number at Rome; and the conversation\n     having turned towards the dedication of our new basilica, I began\n     to inquire how it might be possible for me to obtain some of the\n     true relics of the saints which rest at Rome. He at first\n     hesitated, and declared that he did not know how that could be\n     done. But observing that I was both anxious and curious about the\n     subject, he promised to give me an answer some other day.\n\n     When I returned to the question some time afterwards, he\n     immediately drew from his bosom a paper, which he begged me to read\n     when I was alone, and to tell him what I was disposed to think of\n     that which was therein stated. I took the paper and, as he desired,\n     read it alone and in secret. (Cap. 1, 2, 3.)\n\nI shall have occasion to return to Deacon Deusdona's conditions, and to\nwhat happened after Eginhard's acceptance of them. Suffice it, for the\npresent, to say that Eginhard's notary, Ratleicus (Ratleig), was\ndespatched to Rome and succeeded in securing two bodies, supposed to be\nthose of the holy martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus; and when he had got as\nfar on his homeward journey as the Burgundian town of Solothurn, or\nSoleure,[18] notary Ratleig despatched to his master, at St. Bavon, a\nletter announcing the success of his mission.\n\n     As soon as by reading it I was assured of the arrival of the\n     saints, I despatched a confidential messenger to Maestricht to\n     gather together priests, other clerics, and also laymen, to go out\n     to meet the coming saints as speedily as possible. And he and his\n     companions, having lost no time, after a few days met those who had\n     charge of the saints at Solothurn. Joined with them, and with a\n     vast crowd of people who gathered from all parts, singing hymns,\n     and amidst great and universal rejoicings, they travelled quickly\n     to the city of Argentoratum, which is now called Strasburg. Thence\n     embarking on the Rhine, they came to the place called Portus,[19]\n     and landing on the east bank of the river, at the fifth station\n     thence they arrived at Michilinstadt,[20] accompanied by an immense\n     multitude, praising God. This place is in that forest of Germany\n     which in modern times is called the Odenwald, and about six leagues\n     from the Maine. And here, having found a basilica recently built by\n     me, but not yet consecrated, they carried the sacred remains into\n     it and deposited them therein, as if it were to be their final\n     resting-place. As soon as all this was reported to me I travelled\n     thither as quickly as I could. (Cap. ii. 14.)\n\nThree days after Eginhard's arrival began the series of wonderful events\nwhich he narrates, and for which we have his personal guarantee. The\nfirst thing that he notices is the dream of a servant of Ratleig, the\nnotary, who, being set to watch the holy relics in the church after\nvespers, went to sleep and, during his slumbers, had a vision of two\npigeons, one white and one gray and white, which came and sat upon the\nbier over the relics; while, at the same time, a voice ordered the man\nto tell his master that the holy martyrs had chosen another\nresting-place and desired to be transported thither without delay.\n\nUnfortunately, the saints seem to have forgotten to mention where they\nwished to go; and, with the most anxious desire to gratify their\nsmallest wishes, Eginhard was naturally greatly perplexed what to do.\nWhile in this state of mind, he was one day contemplating his \"great and\nwonderful treasure, more precious than all the gold in the world,\" when\nit struck him that the chest in which the relics were contained was\nquite unworthy of its contents; and, after vespers, he gave orders to\none of the sacristans to the measure of the chest in order a more\nfitting shrine might be constructed. The man, having lighted a candle\nand raised the pall which covered the relics, in order to carry out his\nmaster's orders, was astonished and terrified to observe that the chest\nwas covered with a blood-like exudation (_loculum mirum in modum humore\nsanguineo undique distillantem_), and at once sent a message to\nEginhard.\n\n     Then I and those priests who accompanied me beheld this stupendous\n     miracle, worthy of all admiration. For just as when it is going to\n     rain, pillars and slabs and marble images exude moisture, and, as\n     it were, sweat, so the chest which contained the most sacred relics\n     was found moist with the blood exuding on all sides. (Cap. ii. 16.)\n\nThree days' fast was ordained in order that the meaning of the portent\nmight be ascertained. All that happened, however, was that, at the end\nof that time, the \"blood,\" which had been exuding in drops all the\nwhile, dried up. Eginhard is careful to say that the liquid \"had a\nsaline taste, something like that of tears, and was thin as water,\nthough of the colour of true blood,\" and he clearly thinks this\nsatisfactory evidence that it was blood.\n\nThe same night, another servant had a vision, in which still more\nimperative orders for the removal of the relics were given; and, from\nthat time forth, \"not a single night passed without one, two, or even\nthree of our companions receiving revelations in dreams that the bodies\nof the saints were to be transferred from that place to another.\" At\nlast a priest, Hildfrid, saw, in a dream, a venerable white-haired man\nin a priest's vestments, who bitterly reproached Eginhard for not\nobeying the repeated orders of the saints; and, upon this, the journey\nwas commenced. Why Eginhard delayed obedience to these repeated visions\nso long does not appear. He does not say so, in so many words, but the\ngeneral tenor of the narrative leads one to suppose that Mulinheim\n(afterwards Seligenstadt) is the \"solitary place\" in which he had built\nthe church which awaited dedication. In that case, all the people about\nhim would know that he desired that the saints should go there. If a\nglimmering of secular sense led him to be a little suspicious about the\nreal cause of the unanimity of the visionary beings who manifested\nthemselves to his _entourage_ in favour of moving on, he does not say\nso.\n\nAt the end of the first day's journey, the precious relics were\ndeposited in the church of St. Martin, in the village of Ostheim.\nHither, a paralytic nun (_sanctimonialis quaedam paralytica_) of the name\nof Ruodlang was brought, in a car, by her friends and relatives from a\nmonastery a league off. She spent the night watching and praying by the\nbier of the saints; \"and health returning to all her members, on the\nmorrow she went back to her place whence she came, on her feet, nobody\nsupporting her, or in any way giving her assistance.\" (Cap. ii. 19.)\n\nOn the second day, the relics were carried to Upper Mulinheim; and,\nfinally, in accordance with the orders of the martyrs, deposited in the\nchurch of that place, which was therefore renamed Seligenstadt. Here,\nDaniel, a beggar boy of fifteen, and so bent that \"he could not look at\nthe sky without lying on his back,\" collapsed and fell down during the\ncelebration of the Mass.\n\n\"Thus he lay a long time, as if asleep, and all his limbs straightening\nand his flesh strengthening (_recepta firmitate nervorum_), he arose\nbefore our eyes, quite well.\" (Cap. ii. 20.)\n\nSome time afterwards an old man entered the church on his hands and\nknees, being unable to use his limbs properly:--\n\n     He, in presence of all of us, by the power of God and the merits of\n     the blessed martyrs, in the same hour in which he entered was so\n     perfectly cured that he walked without so much as a stick. And he\n     said that, though he had been deaf for five years, his deafness had\n     ceased along with the palsy. (Cap. iii. 33.)\n\nEginhard was now obliged to return to the Court at Aix-la-Chapelle,\nwhere his duties kept him through the winter; and he is careful to point\nout that the later miracles which he proceeds to speak of are known to\nhim only at second hand. But, as he naturally observes, having seen such\nwonderful events with his own eyes, why should he doubt similar\nnarrations when they are received from trustworthy sources?\n\nWonderful stories these are indeed, but as they are, for the most part,\nof the same general character as those already recounted, they may be\npassed over. There is, however, an account of a possessed maiden which\nis worth attention. This is set forth in a memoir, the principal\ncontents of which are the speeches of a demon who declared himself to\npossess the singular appellation of \"Wiggo,\" and revealed himself in the\npresence of many witnesses, before the altar, close to the relics of the\nblessed martyrs. It is noteworthy that the revelations appear to have\nbeen made in the shape of replies to the questions of the exorcising\npriest; and there is no means of judging how far the answers are,\nreally, only the questions to which the patient replied yes or no.\n\nThe possessed girl, about sixteen years of age, was brought by her\nparents to the basilica of the martyrs.\n\n     When she approached the tomb containing the sacred bodies, the\n     priest, according to custom, read the formula of exorcism over her\n     head. When he began to ask how and when the demon had entered her,\n     she answered, not in the tongue of the barbarians, which alone the\n     girl knew, but in the Roman tongue. And when the priest was\n     astonished and asked how she came to know Latin, when her parents,\n     who stood by, were wholly ignorant of it, \"Thou hast never seen my\n     parents,\" was the reply. To this the priest, \"Whence art thou,\n     then, if these are not thy parents?\" And the demon, by the mouth of\n     the girl, \"I am a follower and disciple of Satan, and for a long\n     time I was gatekeeper (janitor) in hell; but, for some years, along\n     with eleven companions, I have ravaged the kingdom of the Franks.\"\n     (Cap. v. 49.)\n\nHe then goes on to tell how they blasted the crops and scattered\npestilence among beasts and men, because of the prevalent wickedness of\nthe people.[21]\n\nThe enumeration of all these iniquities, in oratorical style, takes up a\nwhole octavo page; and at the end it is stated, \"All these things the\ndemon spoke in Latin by the mouth of the girl.\"\n\n     And when the priest imperatively ordered him to come out, \"I shall\n     go,\" said he, \"not in obedience to you, but on account of the power\n     of the saints, who do not allow me to remain any longer.\" And,\n     having said this, he threw the girl down on the floor and there\n     compelled her to lie prostrate for a time, as though she slumbered.\n     After a little while, however, he going away, the girl, by the\n     power of Christ and the merits of the blessed martyrs, as it were\n     awaking from sleep, rose up quite well, to the astonishment of all\n     present; nor after the demon had gone out was she able to speak\n     Latin: so that it was plain enough that it was not she who had\n     spoken in that tongue, but the demon by her mouth. (Cap. v. 51.)\n\nIf the \"Historia Translations\" contained nothing more than has been laid\nbefore the reader, up to this time, disbelief in the miracles of which\nit gives so precise and full a record might well be regarded as\nhyper-scepticism. It might fairly be said, Here you have a man, whose\nhigh character, acute intelligence, and large instruction are certified\nby eminent contemporaries; a man who stood high in the confidence of one\nof the greatest rulers of any age, and whose other works prove him to be\nan accurate and judicious narrator of ordinary events. This man tells\nyou, in language which bears the stamp of sincerity, of things which\nhappened within his own knowledge, or within that of persons in whose\nveracity he has entire confidence, while he appeals to his sovereign and\nthe court as witnesses of others; what possible ground can there be for\ndisbelieving him?\n\nWell, it is hard upon Eginhard to say so, but it is exactly the honesty\nand sincerity of the man which are his undoing as a witness to the\nmiraculous. He himself makes it quite obvious that when his profound\npiety comes on the stage, his good sense and even his perception of\nright and wrong, make their exit. Let us go back to the point at which\nwe left him, secretly perusing the letter of Deacon Deusdona. As he\ntells us, its contents were\n\n     that he [the deacon] had many relics of saints at home, and that he\n     would give them to me if I would furnish him with the means of\n     returning to Rome; he had observed that I had two mules, and if I\n     would let him have one of them and would despatch with him a\n     confidential servant to take charge of the relics, he would at once\n     send them to me. This plausibly expressed proposition pleased me,\n     and I made up my mind to test the value of the somewhat ambiguous\n     promise at once;[22] so giving him the mule and money for his\n     journey I ordered my notary Ratleig (who already desired to go to\n     Rome to offer his devotions there) to go with him. Therefore,\n     having left Aix-la-Chapelle (where the Emperor and his Court\n     resided at the time) they came to Soissons. Here they spoke with\n     Hildoin, abbot of the monastery of St. Medardus, because the said\n     deacon had assured him that he had the means of placing in his\n     possession the body of the blessed Tiburtius the Martyr. Attracted\n     by which promises he (Hildoin) sent with them a certain priest,\n     Hunus by name, a sharp man (_hominem callidum_), whom he ordered to\n     receive and bring back the body of the martyr in question. And so,\n     resuming their journey, they proceeded to Rome as fast as they\n     could. (Cap. i. 3.)\n\nUnfortunately, a servant of the notary, one Reginbald, fell ill of a\ntertian fever, and impeded the progress of the party. However, this\npiece of adversity had its sweet uses; for three days before they\nreached Rome, Reginbald had a vision. Somebody habited as a deacon\nappeared to him and asked why his master was in such a hurry to get to\nRome; and when Reginbald explained their business, this visionary\ndeacon, who seems to have taken the measure of his brother in the flesh\nwith some accuracy, told him not by any means to expect that Deusdona\nwould fulfil his promises. Moreover, taking the servant by the hand, he\nled him to the top of a high mountain and, showing him Rome (where the\nman had never been), pointed out a church, adding \"Tell Ratleig the\nthing he wants is hidden there; let him get it as quickly as he can and\ngo back to his master.\" By way of a sign that the order was\nauthoritative, the servant was promised that, from that time forth, his\nfever should disappear. And as the fever did vanish to return no more,\nthe faith of Eginhard's people in Deacon Deusdona naturally vanished\nwith it (_et fidem diaconi promissis non haberent_). Nevertheless, they\nput up at the deacon's house near St. Peter ad Vincula. But time went on\nand no relics made their appearance, while the notary and the priest\nwere put off with all sorts of excuses--the brother to whom the relics\nhad been confided was gone to Beneventum and not expected back for some\ntime, and so on--until Ratleig and Hunus began to despair, and were\nminded to return, _infecto negotio_.\n\n     But my notary, calling to mind his servant's dream, proposed to his\n     companion that they should go to the cemetery which their host had\n     talked about without him. So, having found and hired a guide, they\n     went in the first place to the basilica of the blessed Tiburtius in\n     the Via Labicana, about three thousand paces from the town, and\n     cautiously and carefully inspected the tomb of that martyr, in\n     order to discover whether it could be opened without any one being\n     the wiser. Then they descended into the adjoining crypt, in which\n     the bodies of the blessed martyrs of Christ, Marcellinus and\n     Petrus, were buried; and, having made out the nature of their tomb,\n     they went away thinking their host would not know what they had\n     been about. But things fell out differently from what they had\n     imagined. (Cap. i. 7.)\nIn fact, Deacon Deusdona, who doubtless kept an eye on his guests, knew\nall about their manoeuvres and made haste to offer his services, in\norder that, \"with the help of God\" (_si Deus votis eorum favere\ndignaretur_), they should all work together. The deacon was evidently\nalarmed less they should succeed without _his_ help.\n\nSo, by way of preparation for the contemplated _vol avec affraction_\nthey fasted three days; and then, at night, without being seen, they\nbetook themselves to the basilica of St. Tiburtius, and tried to break\nopen the altar erected over his remains. But the marble proving too\nsolid, they descended to the crypt, and, \"having evoked our Lord Jesus\nChrist and adored the holy martyrs,\" they proceeded to prise off the\nstone which covered the tomb, and thereby exposed the body of the most\nsacred martyr, Marcellinus, \"whose head rested on a marble tablet on\nwhich his name was inscribed.\" The body was taken up with the greatest\nveneration, wrapped in a rich covering, and given over to the keeping of\nthe deacon and his brother, Lunison, while the stone was replaced with\nsuch care that no sign of the theft remained.\n\nAs sacrilegious proceedings of this kind were punishable with death by\nthe Roman law, it seems not unnatural that Deacon Deusdona should have\nbecome uneasy, and have urged Ratleig to be satisfied with what he had\ngot and be off with his spoils. But the notary having thus cleverly\ncaptured the blessed Marcellinus, thought it a pity he should be parted\nfrom the blessed Petrus, side by side with whom he had rested, for five\nhundred years and more, in the same sepulchre (as Eginhard pathetically\nobserves); and the pious man could neither eat, drink, nor sleep, until\nhe had compassed his desire to re-unite the saintly colleagues. This\ntime, apparently in consequence of Deusdona's opposition to any further\nresurrectionist doings, he took counsel with a Greek monk, one Basil,\nand, accompanied by Hunus, but saying nothing to Deusdona, they\ncommitted another sacrilegious burglary, securing this time, not only\nthe body of the blessed Petrus, but a quantity of dust, which they\nagreed the priest should take, and tell his employer that it was the\nremains of the blessed Tiburtius. How Deusdona was \"squared,\" and what\nhe got for his not very valuable complicity in these transactions, does\nnot appear. But at last the relics were sent off in charge of Lunison,\nthe brother of Deusdona, and the priest Hunus, as far as Pavia, while\nRatleig stopped behind for a week to see if the robbery was discovered,\nand, presumably, to act as a blind, if any hue and cry was raised. But,\nas everything remained quiet, the notary betook himself to Pavia, where\nhe found Lunison and Hunus awaiting his arrival. The notary's opinion of\nthe character of his worthy colleagues, however, may be gathered from\nthe fact that having persuaded them to set out in advance along a road\nwhich he told them he was about to take, he immediately adopted another\nroute, and, travelling by way of St. Maurice and the Lake of Geneva,\neventually reached Soleure.\n\nEginhard tells all this story with the most naive air of unconsciousness\nthat there is anything remarkable about an abbot, and a high officer of\nstate to boot, being an accessory, both before and after the fact, to a\nmost gross and scandalous act of sacrilegious and burglarious robbery.\nAnd an amusing sequel to the story proves that, where relics were\nconcerned, his friend Hildoin, another high ecclesiastical dignitary,\nwas even less scrupulous than himself.\n\nOn going to the palace early one morning, after the saints were safely\nbestowed at Seligenstadt, he found Hildoin waiting for an audience in\nthe Emperor's antechamber, and began to talk to him about the miracle of\nthe bloody exudation. In the course of conversation, Eginhard happened\nto allude to the remarkable fineness of the garment of the blessed\nMarcellinus. Whereupon Abbot Hildoin observed (to Eginhard's\nstupefaction) that his observation was quite correct. Much astonished at\nthis remark from a person was supposed not to have seen the relics,\nEginhard asked him how he knew that? Upon this, Hildoin saw he had\nbetter make a clean breast of it, and he told the following story, which\nhe had received from his priestly agent, Hunus. While Hunus and Lunison\nwere at Pavia, waiting for Eginhard's notary, Hunus (according to his\nown account) had robbed the robbers. The relics were placed in a church;\nand a number of laymen and clerics, of whom Hunus was one, undertook to\nkeep watch over them. One night, however, all the watchers, save\nwide-awake Hunus, went to sleep; and then, according to the story which\nthis \"sharp\" ecclesiastic foisted upon his patron,\n\n     it was borne in upon his mind that there must be some great reason\n     why all the people, except himself, had suddenly become somnolent;\n     and, determining to avail himself of the opportunity thus offered\n     (_oblata occasione utendum_), he rose and, having lighted a candle,\n     silently approached the chests. Then, having burnt through the\n     threads of the seals with the flame of the candle, he quickly\n     opened the chests, which had no locks;[23] and, taking out portions\n     of each of the bodies which were thus exposed, he closed the chests\n     and connected the burnt ends of the threads with the seals again,\n     so that they appeared not to have been touched; and, no one having\n     seen him, he returned to his place. (Cap. iii. 23.)\n\nHildoin went on to tell Eginhard that Hunus at first declared to him\nthat these purloined relics belonged to St. Tiburtius but afterwards\nconfessed, as a great secret, how he had come by them, and he wound up\nhis discourse thus:\n\n     They have a place of honour beside St. Medardus, where they are\n     worshipped with great veneration by all the people; but whether we\n     may keep them or not is for your judgment. (Cap. iii. 23.)\n\nPoor Eginhard was thrown into a state of great perturbation of mind by\nthis revelation. An acquaintance of his had recently told him of a\nrumour that was spread about that Hunus had contrived to abstract _all_\nthe remains of SS. Marcellinus and Petrus while Eginhard's agents were\nin a drunken sleep; and that, while the real relics were in Abbot\nHildoin's hands at St. Medardus, the Shrine at Seligenstadt contained\nnothing but a little dust. Though greatly annoyed by this \"execrable\nrumour, spread everywhere by the subtlety of the devil,\" Eginhard had\ndoubtless comforted himself by his supposed knowledge of its falsity,\nand he only now discovered how considerable a foundation there was for\nthe scandal. There was nothing for it but to insist upon the return of\nthe stolen treasures. One would have thought that the holy man, who had\nadmitted himself to be knowingly a receiver of stolen goods, would have\nmade instant restitution and begged only for absolution. But Eginhard\nintimates that he had very great difficulty in getting his brother abbot\nto see that even restitution was necessary.\n\nHildoin's proceedings were not of such a nature as to lead any one to\nplace implicit confidence in anything he might say; still less had his\nagent, priest Hunus, established much claim to confidence; and it is not\nsurprising that Eginhard should have lost no time in summoning his\nnotary and Lunison to his presence, in order that he might hear what\nthey had to say about the business. They, however, at once protested\nthat priest Hunus's story was a parcel of lies, and that after the\nrelics left Rome no one had any opportunity of meddling with them.\n\nMoreover, Lunison, throwing himself at Eginhard's feet, confessed with\nmany tears what actually took place. It will be remembered that after\nthe body of St. Marcellinus was abstracted from its tomb, Ratleig\ndeposited it in the house of Deusdona, in charge of the latter's\nbrother, Lunison. But Hunus being very much disappointed that he could\nnot get hold of the body of St. Tiburtius, and afraid to go back to his\nabbot empty-handed, bribed Lunison with four pieces of gold and five of\nsilver to give him access to the chest. This Lunison did, and Hunus\nhelped himself to as much as would fill a gallon-measure (_vas sextarii\nmensuram_) of the sacred remains. Eginhard's indignation at the \"rapine\"\nof this \"nequissimus nebulo\" is exquisitely droll. It would appear that\nthe adage about the receiver being as bad as the thief was not current\nin the ninth century.\n\nLet us now briefly sum up the history of the acquisition of the relics.\nEginhard makes a contract with Deusdona for the delivery of certain\nrelics which the latter says he possesses. Eginhard makes no inquiry how\nhe came by them; otherwise, the transaction is innocent enough.\n\nDeusdona turns out to be a swindler, and has no relics. Thereupon\nEginhard's agent, after due fasting and prayer, breaks open the tombs\nand helps himself.\n\nEginhard discovers by the self-betrayal of his brother abbot, Hildoin,\nthat portions of his relics have been stolen and conveyed to the latter.\nWith much ado he succeeds in getting them back.\n\nHildoin's agent, Hunus, in delivering these stolen goods to him, at\nfirst declared they were the relics of St. Tiburtius, which Hildoin\ndesired him to obtain; but afterwards invented a story of their being\nthe product of a theft, which the providential drowsiness of his\ncompanions enabled him to perpetrate, from the relics which Hildoin well\nknew were the property of his friend.\n\nLunison, on the contrary, swears that all this story is false, and that\nhe himself was bribed by Hunus to allow him to steal what he pleased\nfrom the property confided to his own and his brother's care by their\nguest Ratleig. And the honest notary himself seems to have no hesitation\nabout lying and stealing to any extent, where the acquisition of relics\nis the object in view.\n\nFor a parallel to these transactions one must read a police report of\nthe doings of a \"long firm\" or of a set of horse-coupers; yet Eginhard\nseems to be aware of nothing, but that he has been rather badly used by\nhis friend Hildoin, and the \"nequissimus nebulo\" Hunus.\n\nIt is not easy for a modern Protestant, still less for any one who has\nthe least tincture of scientific culture, whether physical or\nhistorical, to picture to himself the state of mind of a man of the\nninth century, however cultivated, enlightened, and sincere he may have\nbeen. His deepest convictions, his most cherished hopes, were bound up\nwith the belief in the miraculous. Life was a constant battle between\nsaints and demons for the possession of the souls of men. The most\nsuperstitious among our modern countrymen turn to supernatural agencies\nonly when natural causes seem insufficient; to Eginhard and his friends\nthe supernatural was the rule: and the sufficiency of natural causes was\nallowed only when there was nothing to suggest others.\n\nMoreover, it must be recollected that the possession of miracle-working\nrelics was greatly coveted, not only on high, but on very low grounds.\nTo a man like Eginhard, the mere satisfaction of the religious sentiment\nwas obviously a powerful attraction. But, more than this, the possession\nof such a treasure was an immense practical advantage. If the saints\nwere duly flattered and worshipped, there was no telling what benefits\nmight result from their interposition on your behalf. For physical\nevils, access to the shrine was like the grant of the use of a universal\npill and ointment manufactory; and pilgrimages thereto might suffice to\ncleanse the performers from any amount of sin. A letter to Lupus,\nsubsequently Abbot of Ferrara, written while Eginhard was smarting under\nthe grief caused by the loss of his much-loved wife Imma, affords a\nstriking insight into the current view of the relation between the\nglorified saints and their worshippers. The writer shows that he is\nanything but satisfied with the way in which he has been treated by the\nblessed martyrs whose remains he has taken such pains to \"convey\" to\nSeligenstadt, and to honour there as they would never have been honoured\nin their Roman obscurity.\n\n     It is an aggravation of my grief and a reopening of my wound, that\n     our vows have been of no avail, and that the faith which we placed\n     in the merits and intervention of the martyrs has been utterly\n     disappointed.\n\nWe may admit, then, without impeachment of Eginhard's sincerity, or of\nhis honour under all ordinary circumstances, that when piety,\nself-interest, the glory of the Church in general, and that of the\nchurch at Seligenstadt in particular, all pulled one way, even the\nworkaday principles of morality were disregarded; and, _a fortiori_,\nanything like proper investigation of the reality of alleged miracles\nwas thrown to the winds.\n\nAnd if this was the condition of mind of such a man as Eginhard, what is\nit not legitimate to suppose may have been that of Deacon Deusdona,\nLunison, Hunus, and company, thieves and cheats by their own confession,\nor of the probably hysterical nun, or of the professional beggars, for\nwhose incapacity to walk and straighten themselves there is no guarantee\nbut their own? Who is to make sure that the exorcist of the demon Wiggo\nwas not just such another priest as Hunus; and is it not at least\npossible, when Eginhard's servants dreamed, night after night, in such a\ncuriously coincident fashion, that a careful inquirer might have found\nthey were very anxious to please their master?\n\nQuite apart from deliberate and conscious fraud (which is a rarer thing\nthan is often supposed), people whose mythopoeic faculty is once\nstirred, are capable of saying the thing that is not, and of acting as\nthey should not, to an extent which is hardly imaginable by persons who\nare not so easily affected by the contagion of blind faith. There is no\nfalsity so gross that honest men and, still more, virtuous women,\nanxious to promote a good cause, will not lend themselves to it without\nany clear consciousness of the moral bearings of what they are doing.\nThe cases of miraculously-effected cures of which Eginhard is ocular\nwitness appear to belong to classes of disease in which malingering is\npossible or hysteria presumable. Without modern means of diagnosis, the\nnames given to them are quite worthless. One \"miracle,\" however, in\nwhich the patient, a woman, was cured by the mere sight of the church in\nwhich the relics of the blessed martyrs lay, is an unmistakable case of\ndislocation of the lower jaw; and it is obvious that, as not\nunfrequently happens in such accidents in weakly subjects, the jaw\nslipped suddenly back into place, perhaps in consequence of a jolt, as\nthe woman rode towards the church. (Cap. v. 53.)[24]\n\nThere is also a good deal said about a very questionable blind man--one\nAlbricus (Alberich?)--who having been cured, not of his blindness, but\nof another disease under which he laboured, took up his quarters at\nSeligenstadt, and came out as a prophet, inspired by the Archangel\nGabriel. Eginhard intimates that his prophecies were fulfilled; but as\nhe does not state exactly what they were, or how they were accomplished,\nthe statement must be accepted with much caution. It is obvious that he\nwas not the man to hesitate to \"ease\" a prophecy until it fitted, if the\ncredit of the shrine of his favourite saints could be increased by such\na procedure. There is no impeachment of his honour in the supposition.\nThe logic of the matter is quite simple, if somewhat sophistical. The\nholiness of the Church of the martyrs guarantees the reality of the\nappearance of the Archangel Gabriel there; and what the archangel says\nmust be true. Therefore if anything seem to be wrong, that must be the\nmistake of the transmitter; and, in justice to the archangel, it must\nbe suppressed or set right. This sort of \"reconciliation\" is not unknown\nin quite modern times, and among people who would be very much shocked\nto be compared with a \"benighted papist\" of the ninth century.\n\nThe readers of this essay are, I imagine, very largely composed of\npeople who would be shocked to be regarded as anything but enlightened\nProtestants. It is not unlikely that those of them who have accompanied\nme thus far may be disposed to say, \"Well, this is all very amusing as a\nstory, but what is the practical interest of it? We are not likely to\nbelieve in the miracles worked by the spolia of SS. Marcellinus and\nPetrus, or by those of any other saints in the Roman Calendar.\"\n\nThe practical interest is this: if you do not believe in these miracles\nrecounted by a witness whose character and competency are firmly\nestablished, whose sincerity cannot be doubted, and who appeals to his\nsovereign and other comtemporaries as witnesses of the truth of what he\nsays in a document of which a MS. copy exists, probably dating within a\ncentury of the author's death, why do you profess to believe in stories\nof a like character, which are found in documents of the dates and of\nthe authorship of which nothing is certainly determined, and no known\ncopies of which come within two or three centuries of the events they\nrecord? If it be true that the four Gospels and the Acts were written by\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all that we know of these persons comes\nto nothing in comparison with our knowledge of Eginhard; and not only is\nthere no proof that the traditional authors of these works wrote them,\nbut very strong reasons to the contrary may be alleged. If, therefore,\nyou refuse to believe that \"Wiggo\" was cast out of the possessed girl on\nEginhard's authority, with what justice can you profess to believe that\nthe legion of devils were cast out of the man among the tombs of the\nGadarenes? And if, on the other hand, you accept Eginhard's evidence,\nwhy do you laugh at the supposed efficacy of relics and the\nsaint-worship of the modern Romanists? It cannot be pretended, in the\nface of all evidence, that the Jews of the year 30 A.D. or thereabouts,\nwere less imbued with the belief in the supernatural than were the\nFranks of the year 800 A.D. The same influences were at work in each\ncase, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the results were the\nsame. If the evidence of Eginhard is insufficient to lead reasonable men\nto believe in the miracles he relates, _a fortiori_ the evidence\nafforded by the Gospels and the Acts must be so.[25]\n\nBut it may be said that no serious critic denies the genuineness of the\nfour great Pauline Epistles--Galatians, First and Second Corinthians,\nand Romans--and that in three out of these four Paul lays claim to the\npower of working miracles.[26] Must we suppose, therefore, that the\nApostle to the Gentiles has stated that which is false? But to how much\ndoes this so-called claim amount? It may mean much or little. Paul\nnowhere tells us what he did in this direction; and in his sore need to\njustify his assumption of apostleship against the sneers of his enemies,\nit is hardly likely that, if he had any very striking cases to bring\nforward, he would have neglected evidence so well calculated to put them\nto shame. And, without the slightest impeachment of Paul's veracity, we\nmust further remember that his strongly-marked mental characteristics,\ndisplayed in unmistakable fashion in these Epistles, are anything but\nthose which would justify us in regarding him as a critical witness\nrespecting matters of fact, or as a trustworthy interpreter of their\nsignificance. When a man testifies to a miracle, he not only states a\nfact, but he adds an interpretation of the fact. We may admit his\nevidence as to the former, and yet think his opinion as to the latter\nworthless. If Eginhard's calm and objective narrative of the historical\nevents of his time is no guarantee for the soundness of his judgment\nwhere the supernatural is concerned, the heated rhetoric of the Apostle\nof the Gentiles, his absolute confidence in the \"inner light,\" and the\nextraordinary conceptions of the nature and requirements of logical\nproof which he betrays, in page after page of his Epistles, afford still\nless security.\n\nThere is a comparatively modern man who shared to the full Paul's trust\nin the \"inner light,\" and who, though widely different from the fiery\nevangelist of Tarsus in various obvious particulars, yet, if I am not\nmistaken, shares his deepest characteristics. I speak of George Fox, who\nseparated himself from the current Protestantism of England, in the\nseventeenth century, as Paul separated himself from the Judaism of the\nfirst century, at the bidding of the \"inner light\"; who went through\npersecutions as serious as those which Paul enumerates; who was beaten,\nstoned, cast out for dead, imprisoned nine times, sometimes for long\nperiods, who was in perils on land and perils at sea. George Fox was an\neven more widely-travelled missionary; while his success in founding\ncongregations, and his energy in visiting them, not merely in Great\nBritain and Ireland and the West India Islands, but on the continent of\nEurope and that of North America, were no less remarkable. A few years\nafter Fox began to preach, there were reckoned to be a thousand Friends\nin prison in the various gaols of England; at his death, less than fifty\nyears after the foundation of the sect, there were 70,000 Quakers in the\nUnited Kingdom. The cheerfulness with which these people--women as well\nas men--underwent martyrdom in this country and in the New England\nStates is one of the most remarkable facts in the history of religion.\n\nNo one who reads the voluminous autobiography of \"Honest George\" can\ndoubt the man's utter truthfulness; and though, in his multitudinous\nletters, he but rarely rises far above the incoherent commonplaces of a\nstreet preacher, there can be no question of his power as a speaker, nor\nany doubt as to the dignity and attractiveness of his personality, or of\nhis possession of a large amount of practical good sense and governing\nfaculty.\n\nBut that George Fox had full faith in his own powers as a\nmiracle-worker, the following passage of his autobiography (to which\nothers might be added) demonstrates:--\n\n     Now after I was set at liberty from Nottingham gaol (where I had\n     been kept a prisoner a pretty long time) I travelled as before, in\n     the work of the Lord. And coming to Mansfield Woodhouse, there was\n     a distracted woman, under a doctor's hand, with her hair let loose\n     all about her ears; and he was about to let her blood, she being\n     first bound, and many people being about her, holding her by\n     violence; but he could get no blood from her. And I desired them to\n     unbind her and let her alone; for they could not touch the spirit\n     in her by which she was tormented. So they did unbind her, and I\n     was moved to speak to her, and in the name of the Lord to bid her\n     be quiet and still. And she was so. And the Lord's power settled\n     her mind and she mended; and afterwards received the truth and\n     continued in it to her death. And the Lord's name was honoured; to\n     whom the glory of all His works belongs. Many great and wonderful\n     things were wrought by the heavenly power in those days. For the\n     Lord made bare His omnipotent arm and manifested His power to the\n     astonishment of many; by the healing virtue whereof many have been\n     delivered from great infirmities, and the devils were made subject\n     through His name: of which particular instances might be given\n     beyond what this unbelieving age is able to receive or bear.[27]\n\nIt needs no long study of Fox's writings, however, to arrive at the\nconviction that the distinction between subjective and objective\nverities had not the same place in his mind as it has in that of an\nordinary mortal. When an ordinary person would say \"I thought so and\nso,\" or \"I made up my mind to do so and so,\" George Fox says, \"It was\nopened to me,\" or \"at the command of God I did so and so.\" \"Then at the\ncommand of God on the ninth day of the seventh month 1643 (Fox being\njust nineteen), I left my relations and brake off all familiarity or\nfriendship with young or old.\" \"About the beginning of the year 1647 I\nwas moved of the Lord to go into Darbyshire.\" Fox hears voices and he\nsees visions, some of which he brings before the reader with apocalyptic\npower in the simple and strong English, alike untutored and undefiled,\nof which, like John Bunyan, his contemporary, he was a master.\n\n\"And one morning, as I was sitting by the fire, a great cloud came over\nme and a temptation beset me; and I sate still. And it was said, _All\nthings come by Nature_. And the elements and stars came over me; so that\nI was in a manner quite clouded with it.... And as I sate still under\nit, and let it alone, a living hope arose in me and a true voice arose\nin me which said, _There is a living God who made all things_. And\nimmediately the cloud and the temptation vanished away, and life rose\nover it all, and my heart was glad and I praised the living God\" (p.\n13).\n\nIf George Fox could speak, as he proves in this and some other passages\nhe could write, his astounding influence on the contemporaries of Milton\nand of Cromwell is no mystery. But this modern reproduction of the\nancient prophet, with his \"Thus saith the Lord,\" \"This is the work of\nthe Lord,\" steeped in supernaturalism and glorying in blind faith, is\nthe mental antipodes of the philosopher, founded in naturalism and a\nfanatic for evidence, to whom these affirmations inevitably suggest the\nprevious question: \"How do you know that the Lord saith it?\" \"How do you\nknow that the Lord doeth it?\" and who is compelled to demand that\nrational ground for belief, without which, to the man of science, assent\nis merely an immoral pretence.\n\nAnd it is this rational ground of belief which the writers of the\nGospels, no less than Paul, and Eginhard, and Fox, so little dream of\noffering that they would regard the demand for it as a kind of\nblasphemy.\n\n\n\n\nAGNOSTICISM\n\n[1889]\n\n\nWithin the last few months [1889] the public has received much and\nvaried information on the subject of Agnostics, their tenets, and even\ntheir future. Agnosticism exercised the orators of the Church Congress\nat Manchester.[28] It has been furnished with a set of \"articles,\"\nfewer, but not less rigid, and certainly not less consistent than the\nthirty-nine; its nature has been analysed, and its future severely\npredicted by the most eloquent of that prophetical school whose Samuel\nis Auguste Comte. It may still be a question, however, whether the\npublic is as much the wiser as might be expected, considering all the\ntrouble that has been taken to enlighten it. Not only are the three\naccounts of the agnostic position sadly out of harmony with one another,\nbut I propose to show cause for my belief that all three must be\nseriously questioned by any one who employs the term \"agnostic\" in the\nsense in which it was originally used. The learned Principal of King's\nCollege, who brought the topic of Agnosticism before the Church\nCongress, took a short and easy way of settling the business:--\n\n     But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this\n     article of belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge\n     of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His\n     difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no\n     knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the\n     authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself\n     an agnostic; but his real name is an older one--he is an infidel;\n     that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel, perhaps, carries\n     an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It\n     is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to\n     say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.[29]\n\nSo much of Dr. Wace's address either explicitly or implicitly concerns\nme, that I take upon myself to deal with it; but, in doing so, it must\nbe understood that I speak for myself alone. I am not aware that there\nis any sect of Agnostics; and if there be, I am not its acknowledged\nprophet or pope. I desire to leave to the Comtists the entire monopoly\nof the manufacture of imitation ecclesiasticism.\n\nLet us calmly and dispassionately consider Dr. Wace's appreciation of\nagnosticism. The agnostic, according to his view, is a person who says\nhe has no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world\nor of the future; by which somewhat loose phraseology Dr. Wace\npresumably means the theological unseen world and future. I cannot think\nthis description happy, either in form or substance; but for the present\nit may pass. Dr. Wace continues that is not \"his difference from\nChristians.\" Are there then any Christians who say that they know\nnothing about the unseen world and the future? I was ignorant of the\nfact, but I am ready to accept it on the authority of a professional\ntheologian, and I proceed to Dr. Wace's next proposition.\n\nThe real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic \"does not believe\nthe authority\" on which \"these things\" are stated, which authority is\nJesus Christ. He is simply an old-fashioned \"infidel\" who is afraid to\nown to his right name. As \"presbyter is priest writ large,\" so is\n\"agnostic\" the mere Greek equivalent for the Latin \"infidel.\" There is\nan attractive simplicity about this solution of the problem; and it has\nthat advantage of being somewhat offensive to the persons attacked,\nwhich is so dear to the less refined sort of controversialist. The\nagnostic says, \"I cannot find good evidence that so and so is true.\"\n\"Ah,\" says his adversary, seizing his opportunity, \"then you declare\nthat Jesus Christ was untruthful, for he said so and so;\" a very telling\nmethod of rousing prejudice. But suppose that the value of the evidence\nas to what Jesus may have said and done, and as to the exact nature and\nscope of his authority, is just that which the agnostic finds it most\ndifficult to determine. If I venture to doubt that the Duke of\nWellington gave the command \"Up, Guards, and at 'em!\" at Waterloo, I do\nnot think that even Dr. Wace would accuse me of disbelieving the Duke.\nYet it would be just as reasonable to do this as to accuse any one of\ndenying what Jesus said, before the preliminary question as to what he\ndid say is settled.\n\nNow, the question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a\nscientific problem, which is capable of solution by no other methods\nthan those practised; by the historian and the literary critic. It is a\nproblem of immense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best heads\nin Europe for the last century; and it is only of late years that their\ninvestigations have begun to converge towards one conclusion.[30]\n\nThat kind of faith which Dr. Wace describes and lauds is of no use here.\nIndeed, he himself takes pains to destroy its evidential value.\n\n\"What made the Mahommedan world? Trust and faith in the declarations and\nassurances of Mahommed. And what made the Christian world? Trust and\nfaith in the declarations and assurances of Jesus Christ and His\nApostles\" (_l.c._ p. 253). The triumphant tone of this imaginary\ncatechism leads me to suspect that its author has hardly appreciated its\nfull import. Presumably, Dr. Wace regards Mahommed as an unbeliever, or,\nto use the term which he prefers, infidel; and considers that his\nassurances have given rise to a vast delusion which has led, and is\nleading, millions of men straight to everlasting punishment. And this\nbeing so, the \"Trust and faith\" which have \"made the Mahommedan world,\"\nin just the same sense as they have \"made the Christian world,\" must be\ntrust and faith in falsehood. No man who has studied history, or even\nattended to the occurrences of everyday life, can doubt the enormous\npractical value of trust and faith; but as little will he be inclined to\ndeny that this practical value has not the least relation to the reality\nof the objects of that trust and faith. In examples of patient constancy\nof faith and of unswerving trust, the \"Acta Martyrum\" do not excel the\nannals of Babism.[31]\n\nThe discussion upon which we have entered goes so thoroughly to the root\nof the whole matter; the question of the day is so completely, as the\nauthor of \"Robert Elsmere\" says, the value of testimony, that I shall\noffer no apology for following it out somewhat in detail; and, by way\nof giving substance to the argument, I shall base what I have to say\nupon a case, the consideration of which lies strictly within the\nprovince of natural science, and of that particular part of it known as\nthe physiology and pathology of the nervous system.\n\nI find, in the second Gospel (chap. v.), a statement, to all appearance\nintended to have the same evidential value as any other contained in\nthat history. It is the well-known story of the devils who were cast out\nof a man, and ordered, or permitted, to enter into a herd of swine, to\nthe great loss and damage of the innocent Gerasene, or Gadarene, pig\nowners. There can be no doubt that the narrator intends to convey to his\nreaders his own conviction that this casting out and entering in were\neffected by the agency of Jesus of Nazareth; that, by speech and action,\nJesus enforced this conviction; nor does any inkling of the legal and\nmoral difficulties of the case manifest itself.\n\nOn the other hand, everything that I know of physiological and\npathological science leads me to entertain a very strong conviction that\nthe phenomena ascribed to possession are as purely natural as those\nwhich constitute smallpox; everything that I know of anthropology leads\nme to think that the belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a\nmere survival of a once universal superstition, and that its\npersistence, at the present time, is pretty much in the inverse ratio of\nthe general instruction, intelligence, and sound judgment of the\npopulation among whom it prevails. Everything that I know of law and\njustice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other people's\nproperty is a misdemeanour of evil example. Again, the study of history,\nand especially of that of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth\ncenturies, leaves no shadow of doubt on my mind that the belief in the\nreality of possession and of witchcraft, justly based, alike by\nCatholics and Protestants, upon this and innumerable other passages in\nboth the Old and New Testaments, gave rise, through the special\ninfluence of Christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions\nand judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women,\nand children. And when I reflect that the record of a plain and simple\ndeclaration upon such an occasion as this, that the belief in witchcraft\nand possession is wicked nonsense, would have rendered the long agony of\nmediaeval humanity impossible, I am prompted to reject, as dishonouring,\nthe supposition that such declaration was withheld out of condescension\nto popular error.\n\n\"Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man\" (Mark v. 8)[32] are\nthe words attributed to Jesus. If I declare, as I have no hesitation in\ndoing, that I utterly disbelieve in the existence of \"unclean spirits,\"\nand, consequently, in the possibility of their \"coming forth\" out of a\nman, I suppose that Dr. Wace will tell me I am disregarding the\ntestimony \"of our Lord.\" For, if these words were really used, the most\nresourceful of reconcilers can hardly venture to affirm that they are\ncompatible with a disbelief \"in these things.\" As the learned and\nfair-minded, as well as orthodox, Dr. Alexander remarks, in an editorial\nnote to the article \"Demoniacs\" in the \"Biblical Cyclopaedia\" (vol. i. p.\n664, note):--\n\n     ... On the lowest grounds on which our Lord and His Apostles\n     can be placed they must, at least, be regarded as _honest_\n     men. Now, though honest speech does not require that words\n     should be used always and only in their etymological sense,\n     it does require that they should not be used so as to affirm\n     what the speaker knows to be false. Whilst, therefore, our\n     Lord and His Apostles might use the word [Greek:\n     daimonizesthai], or the phrase, [Greek: daimonion echein], as\n     a popular description of certain diseases, without giving in\n     to the belief which lay at the source of such a mode of\n     expression, they could not speak of demons entering into a\n     man, or being cast out of him, without pledging themselves to\n     the belief of an actual possession of the man by the demons.\n     (Campbell, _Prel. Diss._ vi. 1, 10.) If, consequently, they\n     did not hold this belief, they spoke not as honest men.\n\nThe story which we are considering does not rest on the authority of the\nsecond Gospel alone. The third confirms the second, especially in the\nmatter of commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the man (Luke\nviii. 29); and, although the first Gospel either gives a different\nversion of the same story, or tells another of like kind, the essential\npoint remains: \"If thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of\nswine. And He said unto them: Go!\" (Matt. viii. 31, 32).\n\nIf the concurrent testimony of the three synoptics, then, is really\nsufficient to do away with all rational doubt as to the matter of fact\nof the utmost practical and speculative importance--belief or disbelief\nin which may affect, and has affected, men's lives and their conduct\ntowards other men, in the most serious way--then I am bound to believe\nthat Jesus implicitly affirmed himself to possess a \"knowledge of the\nunseen world,\" which afforded full confirmation of the belief in demons\nand possession current among his contemporaries. If the story is true,\nthe mediaeval theory of the invisible world may be, and probably is,\nquite correct; and the witch-finders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and\nMather, are much-maligned men.\n\nOn the other hand, humanity, noting the frightful consequences of this\nbelief; common sense, observing the futility of the evidence on which it\nis based, in all cases that have been properly investigated; science,\nmore and more seeing its way to inclose all the phenomena of so-called\n\"possession\" within the domain of pathology, so far as they are not to\nbe relegated to that of the police--all these powerful influences concur\nin warning us, at our peril, against accepting the belief without the\nmost careful scrutiny of the authority on which it rests.\n\nI can discern no escape from this dilemma: either Jesus said what he is\nreported to have said, or he did not. In the former case, it is\ninevitable that his authority on matters connected with the \"unseen\nworld\" should be roughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the\nauthority of the synoptic Gospels. If their report on a matter of such\nstupendous and far-reaching practical import as this is untrustworthy,\nhow can we be sure of its trustworthiness in other cases? The favourite\n\"earth\" in which the hard-pressed reconciler takes refuge, that the\nBible does not profess to teach science,[33] is stopped in this\ninstance. For the question of the existence of demon: and of possession\nby them, though it lies strictly within the province of science is also\nof the deepest moral and religious significance. If physical and mental\ndisorders are caused by demons, Gregory of Tours and his contemporaries\nrightly considered that relics and exorcists were more useful than\ndoctors; the gravest questions arise as to the legal and moral\nresponsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal impulses; and our\nwhole conception of the universe and of our relations to it becomes\ntotally different from what it would be on the contrary hypothesis.\n\nThe theory of life of an average mediaeval Christian was as different\nfrom that of an average nineteenth-century Englishman as that of a West\nAfrican negro is now, in these respects. The modern world is slowly, but\nsurely, shaking off these and other monstrous survivals of savage\ndelusions; and, whatever happens, it will not return to that wallowing\nin the mire. Until the contrary is proved, I venture to doubt whether,\nat this present moment, any Protestant theologian, who has a reputation\nto lose, will say that he believes the Gadarene story.\n\nThe choice then lies between discrediting those who compiled the Gospel\nbiographies and disbelieving the Master, whom they, simple souls,\nthought to honour by preserving such traditions of the exercise of his\nauthority over Satan's invisible world. This is the dilemma. No deep\nscholarship, nothing but a knowledge of the revised version (on which it\nis to be supposed all that mere scholarship can do has been done), with\nthe application thereto of the commonest canons of common sense, is\nneedful to enable us to make a choice between its alternatives. It is\nhardly doubtful that the story, as told in the first Gospel, is merely a\nversion of that told in the second and third. Nevertheless, the\ndiscrepancies are serious and irreconcilable; and, on this ground alone,\na suspension of judgment at the least, is called for. But there is a\ngreat deal more to be said. From the dawn of scientific biblical\ncriticism until the present day, the evidence against the long-cherished\nnotion that the three synoptic Gospels are the works of three\nindependent authors, each prompted by Divine inspiration, has steadily\naccumulated, until at the present time there is no visible escape from\nthe conclusion that each of the three is a compilation consisting of a\ngroundwork common to all three--the threefold tradition; and of a\nsuperstructure, consisting, firstly, of matter common to it with one of\nthe others, and, secondly, of matter special to each. The use of the\nterms \"groundwork\" and \"superstructure\" by no means implies that the\nlatter must be of later date than the former. On the contrary, some\nparts of it may be, and probably are, older than some parts of the\ngroundwork.[34]\n\nThe story of the Gadarene swine belongs to the groundwork; at least, the\nessential part of it, in which the belief in demoniac possession is\nexpressed, does; and therefore the compilers of the first, second, and\nthird Gospels, whoever they were, certainly accepted that belief (which,\nindeed, was universal among both Jews and pagans at that time), and\nattributed it to Jesus.\n\nWhat, then, do we know about the originator, or originators, of this\ngroundwork--of that threefold tradition which all three witnesses (in\nPaley's phrase) agree upon--that we should allow their mere statements\nto outweigh the counter arguments of humanity, of common sense, of exact\nscience, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be able\nto render to their Master?\n\nAbsolutely nothing.[35] There is no proof, nothing more than a fair\npresumption, that any one of the Gospels existed, in the state in which\nwe find it in the authorised version of the Bible, before the second\ncentury, or in other words, sixty or seventy years after the events\nrecorded. And between that time and the date of the oldest extant\nmanuscripts, of the Gospels, there is no telling what additions and\nalterations and interpolations may have been made. It may be said that\nthis is all mere speculation, but it is a good deal more. As competent\nscholars and honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to point out\nthat such things have happened even since the date of the oldest known\nmanuscripts. The oldest two copies of the second Gospel end with the 8th\nverse of the 16th chapter; the remaining twelve verses are spurious,\nand it is noteworthy that the maker of the addition has not hesitated to\nintroduce a speech in which Jesus promises his disciples that \"in My\nname shall they cast out devils.\"\n\nThe other passage \"rejected to the margin\" is still more instructive. It\nis that touching apologue, with its profound ethical sense, of the woman\ntaken in adultery--which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide,\nmight well be affirmed to be a typical example of the teachings of\nJesus. Yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, \"Most of the ancient\nauthorities omit John vii. 53-viii. 11.\" Now let any reasonable man ask\nhimself this question: If, after an approximate settlement of the canon\nof the New Testament, and even later than the fourth and fifth\ncenturies, literary fabricators had the skill and the audacity to make\nsuch additions and interpolations as these, what may they have done when\nno one had thought of a canon; when oral tradition, still unfixed, was\nregarded as more valuable than such written records as may have existed\nin the latter portion of the first century? Or, to take the other\nalternative, if those who gradually settled the canon did not know of\nthe existence of the oldest codices which have come down to us; or if,\nknowing them, they rejected their authority, what is to be thought of\ntheir competency as critics of the text?\n\nPeople who object to free criticism of the Christian Scriptures forget\nthat they are what they are in virtue of very free criticism; unless the\nadvocates of inspiration are prepared to affirm that the majority of\ninfluential ecclesiastics during several centuries were safeguarded\nagainst error. For, even granting that some books of the period were\ninspired, they were certainly few amongst many, and those who selected\nthe canonical books, unless they themselves were also inspired, must be\nregarded in the light of mere critics, and, from the evidence they have\nleft of their intellectual habits, very uncritical critics. When one\nthinks that such delicate questions as those involved fell into the\nhands of men like Papias (who believed in the famous millenarian grape\nstory); of Irenaeus with his \"reasons\" for the existence of only four\nGospels; and of such calm and dispassionate judges as Tertullian, with\nhis \"Credo quia impossibile\": the marvel is that the selection which\nconstitutes our New Testament is as free as it is from obviously\nobjectionable matter. The apocryphal Gospels certainly deserve to be\napocryphal; but one may suspect that a little more critical\ndiscrimination would have enlarged the Apocrypha not inconsiderably.\n\nAt this point a very obvious objection arises and deserves full and\ncandid consideration. It may be said that critical scepticism carried to\nthe length suggested is historical pyrrhonism; that if we are altogether\nto discredit an ancient or a modern historian, because he has assumed\nfabulous matter to be true, it will be as well to give up paying any\nattention to history. It may be said, and with great justice, that\nEginhard's \"Life of Charlemagne\" is none the less trustworthy because of\nthe astounding revelation of credulity, of lack of judgment, and even of\nrespect for the eighth commandment, which he has unconsciously made in\nthe \"History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs Marcellinus and\nPaul.\" Or, to go no further back than the last number of the _Nineteenth\nCentury_, surely that excellent lady, Miss Strickland, is not to be\nrefused all credence, because of the myth about the second James's\nremains, which she seems to have unconsciously invented.\n\nOf course this is perfectly true. I am afraid there is no man alive\nwhose witness could be accepted, if the condition precedent were proof\nthat he had never invented and promulgated a myth. In the minds of all\nof us there are little places here and there, like the indistinguishable\nspots on a rock which give foothold to moss or stonecrop; on which, if\nthe germ of a myth fall, it is certain to grow, without in the least\ndegree affecting our accuracy or truthfulness elsewhere. Sir Walter\nScott knew that he could not repeat a story without, as he said,\n\"giving it a new hat and stick.\" Most of us differ from Sir Walter only\nin not knowing about this tendency of the mythopoeic faculty to break\nout unnoticed. But it is also perfectly true that the mythopoeic\nfaculty is not equally active in all minds, nor in all regions and under\nall conditions of the same mind. David Hume was certainly not so liable\nto temptation as the Venerable Bede, or even as some recent historians\nwho could be mentioned; and the most imaginative of debtors, if he owes\nfive pounds, never makes an obligation to pay a hundred out of it. The\nrule of common sense is _prima facie_ to trust a witness in all matters,\nin which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor\nthat love of the marvellous, which is inherent to a greater or less\ndegree in all mankind, are strongly concerned; and, when they are\ninvolved, to require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the\ncontravention of probability by the thing testified.\n\nNow, in the Gadarene affair, I do not think I am unreasonably sceptical,\nif I say that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man\nto a pig, does thus contravene probability. Let me be perfectly candid.\nI admit I have no _a priori_ objection to offer. There are physical\nthings, such as _laeniae_ and _trichinae_ which can be transferred from men\nto pigs, and _vice versa_, and which do undoubtedly produce most\ndiabolical and deadly effects on both. For anything I can absolutely\nprove to the contrary, there may be spiritual things capable of the same\ntransmigration, with like effects. Moreover I am bound to add that\nperfectly truthful persons, for I have the greatest respect, believe in\nstories about spirits of the present day, quite as improbable as that we\nare considering.\n\nSo I declare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to show cause why\nthese transferable devils should not exist; nor can I deny that, not\nmerely the whole Roman Church, but many Wacean \"infidels\" of no mean\nrepute, do honestly and firmly believe that the activity of such like\ndemonic beings is in full swing in this year of grace 1889.\n\nNevertheless, as good Bishop Butler says, \"probability is the guide of\nlife\"; and it seems to me that this is just one of the cases in which\nthe canon of credibility and testimony, which I have ventured to lay\ndown, has full force. So that, with the most entire respect for many (by\nno means for all) of our witnesses for the truth of demonology, ancient\nand modern, I conceive their evidence on this particular matter to be\nridiculously insufficient to warrant their conclusion.[36]\n\nAfter what has been said, I do not think that any sensible man, unless\nhe happen to be angry, will accuse me of \"contradicting the Lord and His\nApostles\" if I reiterate my total disbelief in the whole Gadarene story.\nBut, if that story is discredited, all the other stories of demoniac\npossession fall under suspicion. And if the belief in demons and\ndemoniac possession, which forms the sombre background of the whole\npicture of primitive Christianity, presented to us in the New Testament,\nis shaken, what is to be said, in any case, of the uncorroborated\ntestimony of the Gospels with respect to \"the unseen world\"?\n\nI am not aware that I have been influenced by any more bias in regard to\nthe Gadarene story than I have been in dealing with other cases of like\nkind the investigation of which has interested me. I was brought up in\nthe strictest school of evangelical orthodoxy; and when I was old enough\nto think for myself I started upon my journey of inquiry with little\ndoubt about the general truth of what I had been taught; and with that\nfeeling of the unpleasantness of being called an \"infidel\" which, we are\ntold, is so right and proper. Near my journey's end, I find myself in a\ncondition of something more than mere doubt about these matters.\n\nIn the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with fossil remains\nwhich looked quite plain at a distance, and became more and more\nindistinct as I tried to define their outline by close inspection. There\nwas something there--something which, if I could win assurance about it,\nmight mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as long\nas I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it been with me in my\nefforts to define the grand figure of Jesus as it lies in the primary\nstrata of Christian literature. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ\ndepicted in the Catacombs? Or is he the stern Judge who frowns above the\naltar of SS. Cosmas and Damianus? Or can he be rightly represented by\nthe bleeding ascetic, broken down by physical pain, of too many mediaeval\npictures? Are we to accept the Jesus of the second, or the Jesus of the\nfourth Gospel, as the true Jesus? What did he really say and do; and how\nmuch that is attributed to him, in speech and action, is the embroidery\nof the various parties into which his followers tended to split\nthemselves within twenty years of his death, when even the threefold\ntradition was only nascent?\n\nIf any one will answer these questions for me with something more to the\npoint than feeble talk about the \"cowardice of agnosticism,\" I shall be\ndeeply his debtor. Unless and until they are satifactorily answered, I\nsay of agnosticism in this matter, \"_J'y suis, et j'y reste._\"\n\nBut, as we have seen, it is asserted that I have no business to call\nmyself an agnostic; that, if I am not a Christian I am an infidel; and\nthat I ought to call myself by that name of \"unpleasant significance.\"\nWell, I do not care much what I am called by other people, and if I had\nat my side all those who, since the Christian era, have been called\ninfidels by other folks, I could not desire better company. If these are\nmy ancestors, I prefer, with the old Frank to be with them wherever they\nare. But there are several points in Dr. Wace's contention which must be\nelucidated before I can even think of undertaking to carry out his\nwishes. I must, for instance, know what a Christian is. Now what is a\nChristian? By whose authority is the signification of that term defined?\nIs there any doubt that the immediate followers of Jesus, the \"sect of\nthe Nazarenes,\" were strictly orthodox Jews differing from other Jews\nnot more than the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes differed\nfrom one another, in fact, only in the belief that the Messiah, for whom\nthe rest of their nation waited, had come? Was not their chief, \"James,\nthe brother of the Lord,\" reverenced alike by Sadducee, Pharisee, and\nNazarene? At the famous conference which, according to the Acts, took\nplace at Jerusalem, does not James declare that \"myriads\" of Jews, who\nby that time, had become Nazarenes, were \"all zealous for the Law\"? Was\nnot the name of \"Christian\" first used to denote the converts to the\ndoctrine promulgated by Paul and Barnabas at Antioch? Does the\nsubsequent history of Christianity leave any doubt that, from this time\nforth, the \"little rift within the lute\" caused by the new teaching,\ndeveloped, if not inaugurated, at Antioch, grew wider and wider, until\nthe two types of doctrine irreconcilably diverged? Did not the primitive\nNazarenism, or Ebionism, develop into the Nazarenism, and Ebionism, and\nElkasaitism of later ages, and finally die out in obscurity and\ncondemnation, as damnable heresy; while the younger doctrine throve and\npushed out its shoots into that endless variety of sects, of which the\nthree strongest survivors are the Roman and Greek Churches and modern\nProtestantism?\n\nSingular state of things! If I were to profess the doctrine which was\nheld by \"James, the brother of the Lord,\" and by every one of the\n\"myriads\" of his followers and co-religionists in Jerusalem up to twenty\nor thirty years after the Crucifixion (and one knows not how much later\nat Pella), I should be condemned with unanimity, as an ebionising\nheretic by the Roman, Greek, and Protestant Churches! And, probably,\nthis hearty and unanimous condemnation of the creed, held by those who\nwere in the closest personal relation with their Lord, is almost the\nonly point upon which they would be cordially of one mind. On the other\nhand, though I hardly dare imagine such a thing, I very much fear that\nthe \"pillars\" of the primitive Hierosolymitan Church would have\nconsidered Dr. Wace an infidel. No one can read the famous second\nchapter of Galatians and the book of Revelation without seeing how\nnarrow was even Paul's escape from a similar fate. And, if\necclesiastical history is to be trusted, the thirty-nine articles, be\nthey right or wrong, diverge from the primitive doctrine of the\nNazarenes vastly more than even Pauline Christianity did.\n\nBut, further than this, I have great difficulty in assuring myself that\neven James, \"the brother of the Lord,\" and his \"myriads\" of Nazarenes,\nproperly represented the doctrines of their Master. For it is constantly\nasserted by our modern \"pillars\" that one of the chief features of the\nwork of Jesus was the instauration of Religion by the abolition of what\nour sticklers for articles and liturgies, with unconscious humour, call\nthe narrow restrictions of the Law. Yet, if James knew this, how could\nthe bitter controversy with Paul have arisen; and why did not one or the\nother side quote any of the various sayings of Jesus, recorded in the\nGospels, which directly bear on the question--sometimes, apparently, in\nopposite directions.\n\nSo, if I am asked to call myself an \"infidel,\" I reply: To what doctrine\ndo you ask me to be faithful? Is it that contained in the Nicene and the\nAthanasian Creeds? My firm belief is that the Nazarenes, say of the year\n40, headed by James, would have stopped their ears and thought worthy of\nstoning the audacious man who propounded it to them. Is it contained in\nthe so-called Apostles' Creed! I am pretty sure that even that would\nhave created a recalcitrant commotion at Pella in the year 70, among the\nNazarenes of Jerusalem, who had fled from the soldiers of Titus. And\nyet, if the unadulterated tradition of the teachings of \"the Nazarene\"\nwere to be found anywhere, it surely should have been amidst those not\nvery aged disciples who may have heard them as they were delivered.\n\nTherefore, however sorry I may be to be unable to demonstrate that, if\nnecessary, I should not be afraid to call myself an \"infidel,\" I cannot\ndo it. \"Infidel\" is a term of reproach, which Christians and\nMahommedans, in their modesty, agree to apply to those who differ from\nthem. If he had only thought of it, Dr. Wace might have used the term\n\"miscreant,\" which, with the same etymological signification, has the\nadvantage of being still more \"unpleasant\" to the persons to whom it is\napplied. But why should a man be expected to call himself a \"miscreant\"\nor an \"infidel\"? That St. Patrick \"had two birthdays because he was a\ntwin\" is a reasonable and intelligible utterance beside that of the man\nwho should declare himself to be an infidel, on the ground of denying\nhis own belief. It may be logically, if not ethically, defensible that a\nChristian should call a Mahommedan an infidel and _vice versa_; but, on\nDr. Wace's principles, both ought to call themselves infidels, because\neach applies the term to the other.\n\nNow I am afraid that all the Mahommedan world would agree in\nreciprocating that appellation to Dr. Wace himself. I once visited the\nHazar Mosque, the great University of Mahommedanism, in Cairo, in\nignorance of the fact that I was unprovided with proper authority. A\nswarm of angry under-graduates, as I suppose I ought to call them, came\nbuzzing about me and my guide; and if I had known Arabic, I suspect that\n\"dog of an infidel\" would have been by no means the most \"unpleasant\" of\nthe epithets showered upon me, before I could explain and apologise for\nthe mistake. If I had had the pleasure of Dr. Wace's company on that\noccasion, the undiscriminative followers of the Prophet would, I am\nafraid, have made no difference between us; not even if they had known\nthat he was the head of an orthodox Christian seminary. And I have not\nthe smallest doubt that even one of the learned mollahs, if his grave\ncourtesy would have permitted him to say anything offensive to men of\nanother mode of belief, would have told us that he wondered we did not\nfind it \"very unpleasant\" to disbelieve in the Prophet of Islam.\n\nFrom what precedes, I think it becomes sufficiently clear that Dr.\nWace's account of the origin of the name of \"Agnostic\" is quite wrong.\nIndeed, I am bound to add that very slight effort to discover the truth\nwould have convinced him that, as a matter of fact, the term arose\notherwise. I am loath to go over an old story once more; but more than\none object which I have in view will be served by telling it a little\nmore fully than it has yet been told.\n\nLooking back nearly fifty years, I see myself as a boy, whose education\nhas been interrupted, and who intellectually was left, for some years,\naltogether to his own devices. At that time I was a voracious and\nomnivorous reader; a dreamer and speculator of the first water, well\nendowed with that splendid courage in attacking any and every subject,\nwhich is the blessed compensation of youth and inexperience. Among the\nbooks and essays, on all sorts of topics from metaphysics to heraldry,\nwhich I read at this time, two left indelible impressions on my mind.\nOne was Guizot's \"History of Civilisation, the other was Sir William\nHamilton's essay \"On the Philosophy of the Unconditioned,\" which I came\nupon, by chance, in an odd volume of the _Edinburgh Review_. The latter\nwas certainly strange reading for a boy, and I could not possibly have\nunderstood a great deal of it;[37] nevertheless I devoured it with\navidity, and it stamped upon my mind the strong conviction that, on even\nthe most solemn and important of questions, men are apt to take cunning\nphrases for answers; and that the limitation of our faculties, in a\ngreat number of cases, renders real answers to such questions, not\nmerely actually impossible, but theoretically inconceivable.\n\nPhilosophy and history having laid hold of me in this eccentric fashion,\nhave never loosened their grip. I have no pretension to be an expert in\neither subject; but the turn for philosophical and historical reading,\nwhich rendered Hamilton and Guizot attractive to me, has not only filled\nmany lawful leisure hours, and still more sleepless ones, with the\nrepose of changed mental occupation, but has not unfrequently disputed\nmy proper work-time with my liege lady, Natural Science. In this way I\nhave found it possible to cover a good deal of ground in the territory\nof philosophy; and all the more easily that I have never cared much\nabout A's or B's opinions, but have rather sought to know what answer he\nhad to give to the questions I had to put to him--that of the limitation\nof possible knowledge the chief. The ordinary examiner, his \"State the\nviews of So-and-so,\" would have floored me at any time. If he had said\nwhat do _you_ think about any given problem, I might have got on fairly\nwell.\n\nThe reader who has had the patience to follow the enforced, but\nunwilling, egotism of this veritable history (especially if his studies\nhave led him in the same direction), will now see why my mind steadily\ngravitated towards the conclusions of Hume and Kant, so well stated by\nthe latter in a sentence, which I have quoted elsewhere.\n\n\"The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason\nis, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for\nthe enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its\ndelimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest\nmerit of preventing error.\" [38]\n\nWhen I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I\nwas an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist;\na Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and\nreflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the\nconclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these\ndenominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these\ngood people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them.\nThey were quite sure they had attained a certain \"gnosis,\"--had, more or\nless successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite\nsure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was\ninsoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself\npresumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. Like Dante,\n\n    Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita\n      Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,\n\nbut, unlike Dante, I cannot add,\n\n    Che la diritta via era smarrita.\n\nOn the contrary, I had, and have, the firmest conviction that I never\nleft the \"verace via\"--the straight road; and that this road led nowhere\nelse but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I\nhave found leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant\nacquaintance with the hungry wolf, that \"with privy paw devours apace\nand nothing said,\" as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and\nthough no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and\nam, minded to go straight on, until I either come out on the other side\nof the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none\nattainable by me.\n\nThis was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among\nthe members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since\ndeceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every\nvariety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there,\nand expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were\n_-ists_ of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they\nmight be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,\ncould not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset\nthe historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail\nremained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So\nI took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate\ntitle of \"agnostic.\" It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to\nthe \"gnostic\" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the\nvery things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity\nof parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the\nother foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the\n_Spectator_ had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of\nrespectable people that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened\nwas, of course, completely lulled.\n\nThat is the history of the origin of the terms \"agnostic\" and\n\"agnosticism\"; and it will be observed that it does not quite agree with\nthe confident assertion of the reverend Principal of King's College,\nthat \"the adoption of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the\nissue, and that it involves a mere evasion\" in relation to the Church\nand Christianity.[39]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe last objection (I rejoice as much as my readers must do, that it is\nthe last) which I have to take to Dr. Wace's deliverance before the\nChurch Congress arises, I am sorry to say, on a question of morality.\n\n\"It is, and it ought to be,\" authoritatively declares this official\nrepresentative of Christian ethics, \"an unpleasant thing for a man to\nhave to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ\" (_l.c._ p.\n254).\n\nWhether it is so depends, I imagine, a good deal on whether the man was\nbrought up in a Christian household or not. I do not see why it should\nbe \"unpleasant\" for a Mahommedan or Buddhist to say so. But that \"it\nought to be\" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely,\nand after due deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of\nthe most profoundly immoral character. I verily believe that the great\ngood which has been effected in the world by Christianity has been\nlargely counteracted by the pestilent doctrine on which all the Churches\nhave insisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing\ncreeds is a moral offence, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving\nand involving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. If we\ncould only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the\nlies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity,\nwhich have flowed from this source along the course of the history of\nChristian nations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the\nvision.\n\nA thousand times, no! It ought _not_ to be unpleasant to say that which\none honestly believes or disbelieves. That it so constantly is painful\nto do so, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that\nmost valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without\nerecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be\nadmired and cherished. The bravest of soldiers often, and very\nnaturally, \"feel it unpleasant\" to go into action; but a court-martial\nwhich did its duty would make short work of the officer who promulgated\nthe doctrine that his men _ought_ to feel their duty unpleasant.\n\nI am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful people are in these\ntimes, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely\nunpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the\nconsolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the\nworst forms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them.\nWhat deductions must be made from this gain on this score of the harm\ndone to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical\nChristianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all\nuncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit\nof exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars\nof orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of\nlearning and teaching which every Church exercises, when it is strong\nenough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after\nsins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the\noverpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the\nChurches like their shadow, I need not now consider; but they are\nassuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they\ngain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the comforts of\nbelief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the\nChristianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the ideal\npersonality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, _plus_ so much\nas can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of\nthe maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine\n(especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or\nfail to get properly baptized before you die, and a _plebiscite_ of the\nChristians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm\nyour everlasting damnation by an immense majority.\n\nPreachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears that the world\ncannot get on without faith of some sort. There is a sense in which that\nis as eminently as obviously true; there is another, in which, in my\njudgment, it is as eminently as obviously false, and it seems to me that\nthe hortatory, or pulpit, mind is apt to oscillate between the false and\nthe true meanings, without being aware of the fact.\n\nIt is quite true that the ground of every one of our actions, and the\nvalidity of all our reasonings, rest upon the great act of faith, which\nleads us to take the experience of the past as a safe guide in our\ndealings with the present and the future. From the nature of\nratiocination, it is obvious that the axioms, on which it is based,\ncannot be demonstrated by ratiocination. It is also a trite observation\nthat, in the business of life, we constantly take the most serious\naction upon evidence of an utterly insufficient character. But it is\nsurely plain that faith is not necessarily entitled to dispense with\nratiocination because ratiocination cannot dispense with faith as a\nstarting-point; and that because we are often obliged, by the pressure\nof events, to act on very bad evidence, it does not follow that it is\nproper to act on such evidence when the pressure is absent.\n\nThe writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that \"faith is the\nassurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen.\" In the\nauthorised version, \"substance\" stands for \"assurance,\" and \"evidence\"\nfor \"proving.\" The question of the exact meaning of the two words,\n[Greek: hypostasis] and [Greek: elenchos], affords a fine field of\ndiscussion for the scholar and the metaphysician. But I fancy we shall\nbe not far from the mark if we take the writer to have had in his mind\nthe profound psychological truth, that men constantly feel certain about\nthings for which they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the legal\nor logical sense of the word; and he calls this feeling \"faith.\" I may\nhave the most absolute faith that a friend has not committed the crime\nof which he is accused. In the early days of English history, if my\nfriend could have obtained a few more compurgators of a like robust\nfaith, he would have been acquitted. At the present day, if I tendered\nmyself as a witness on that score, the judge would tell me to stand\ndown, and the youngest barrister would smile at my simplicity. Miserable\nindeed is the man who has not such faith in some of his fellow-men--only\nless miserable than the man who allows himself to forget that such faith\nis not, strictly speaking, evidence; and when his faith is disappointed,\nas will happen now and again, turns Timon and blames the universe for\nhis own blunders. And so, if a man can find a friend, the hypostasis of\nall his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in the Jesus of any, or\nall, of the Gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. Who shall or\ncan forbid him? But let him not delude himself with the notion that his\nfaith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he trusts.\nSuch evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of\nscience, as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts at\npresent to very little.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN TRADITION IN RELATION TO JUDAIC CHRISTIANITY\n[FROM \"AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER,\" 1889]\n\n\nThe most constant reproach which is launched against persons of my way\nof thinking is that it is all very well for us to talk about the\ndeductions of scientific thought, but what are the poor and the\nuneducated to do? Has it ever occurred to those who talk in this\nfashion, that their creeds and the articles of their several\nconfessions, their determination of the exact nature and extent of the\nteachings of Jesus, their expositions of the real meaning of that which\nis written in the Epistles (to leave aside all questions concerning the\nOld Testament), are nothing more than deductions which, at any rate,\nprofess to be the result of strictly scientific thinking, and which are\nnot worth attending to unless they really possess that character? If it\nis not historically true that such and such things happened in Palestine\neighteen centuries ago, what becomes of Christianity? And what is\nhistorical truth but that of which the evidence bears strict scientific\ninvestigation? I do not call to mind any problem of natural science\nwhich has come under my notice which is more difficult, or more\ncuriously interesting as a mere problem, than that of the origin of the\nSynoptic Gospels and that of the historical value of the narratives\nwhich they contain. The Christianity of the Churches stands or falls by\nthe results of the purely scientific investigation of these questions.\nThey were first taken up, in a purely scientific spirit, about a century\nago; they have been studied over and over again by men of vast knowledge\nand critical acumen; but he would be a rash man who should assert that\nany solution of these problems, as yet formulated, is exhaustive. The\nmost that can be said is that certain prevalent solutions are certainly\nfalse, while others are more or less probably true.\n\nIf I am doing my best to rouse any countrymen out of their dogmatic\nslumbers, it is not that they may be amused by seeing who gets the best\nof it in a contest between a \"scientist\" and a theologian. The serious\nquestion is whether theological men of science, or theological special\npleaders, are to have the confidence of the general public; it is the\nquestion whether a country in which it is possible for a body of\nexcellent clerical and lay gentlemen to discuss in public meeting\nassembled, how much it is desirable to let the congregations of the\nfaithful know of the results of biblical criticism, is likely to wake up\nwith anything short of the grasp of a rough lay hand upon its shoulder;\nit is the question whether the New Testament books, being as I believe\nthey were, written and compiled by people who, according to their\nlights, were perfectly sincere, will not, when properly studied as\nordinary historical documents, afford us the means of self-criticism.\nAnd it must be remembered that the New Testament books are not\nresponsible for the doctrine invented by the Churches that they are\nanything but ordinary historical documents. The author of the third\ngospel tells us, as straightforwardly as a man can, that he has no claim\nto any other character than that of an ordinary compiler and editor, who\nhad before him the works of many and variously qualified predecessors.\n\nIn my former papers, according to Dr. Wace, I have evaded giving an\nanswer to his main proposition, which he states as follows--\n\n     Apart from all disputed points of criticism, no one practically\n     doubts that our Lord lived, and that He died on the cross, in the\n     most intense sense of filial relation to His Father in Heaven, and\n     that He bore testimony to that Father's providence, love, and grace\n     towards mankind. The Lord's Prayer affords a sufficient evidence on\n     these points. If the Sermon on the Mount alone be added, the whole\n     unseen world, of which the Agnostic refuses to know anything,\n     stands unveiled before us.... If Jesus Christ preached that\n     Sermon, made those promises, and taught that prayer, then any one\n     who says that we know nothing of God, or of a future life, or of an\n     unseen world, says that he does not believe Jesus Christ (pp.\n     354-355).\n\nAgain--\n\n     The main question at issue, in a word, is one which Professor\n     Huxley has chosen to leave entirely on one side--whether, namely,\n     allowing for the utmost uncertainty on other points of the\n     criticism to which he appeals, there is any reasonable doubt that\n     the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount afford a true account\n     of our Lord's essential belief and cardinal teaching (p. 355).\n\nI certainly was not aware that I had evaded the questions here stated;\nindeed I should say that I have indicated my reply to them pretty\nclearly; but, as Dr. Wace wants a plainer answer, he shall certainly be\ngratified. If, as Dr. Wace declares it is, his \"whole case is involved\nin\" the argument as stated in the latter of these two extracts, so much\nthe worse for his whole case. For I am of opinion that there is the\ngravest reason for doubting whether the \"Sermon on the Mount\" was ever\npreached, and whether the so-called \"Lord's Prayer\" was ever prayed, by\nJesus of Nazareth. My reasons for this opinion are, among Others,\nthese:--There is now no doubt that the three Synoptic Gospels, so far\nfrom being the work of three independent writers, are closely\ninter-dependent,[40] and that in one of two ways. Either all three\ncontain, as their foundation, versions, to a large extent verbally\nidentical, of one and the same tradition; or two of them are thus\nclosely dependent on the third; and the opinion of the majority of the\nbest critics has of late years more and more converged towards the\nconviction that our canonical second gospel (the so-called \"Mark's\"\nGospel) is that which most closely represents the primitive groundwork\nof the three.[41] That I take to be one of the most valuable results of\nNew Testament criticism, of immeasurably greater importance than the\ndiscussion about dates and authorship.\n\nBut if, as I believe to be the case, beyond any rational doubt or\ndispute, the second gospel is the nearest extant representative of the\noldest tradition, whether written or oral, how comes it that it contains\nneither the \"Sermon on the Mount\" nor the \"Lord's Prayer,\" those typical\nembodiments, according to Dr. Wace, of the \"essential belief and\ncardinal teaching\" of Jesus? Not only does \"Mark's\" gospel fail to\ncontain the \"Sermon on the Mount,\" or anything but a very few of the\nsayings contained in that collection; but, at the point of the history\nof Jesus where the \"Sermon\" occurs in \"Matthew,\" there is in \"Mark\" an\napparently unbroken narrative from the calling of James and John to the\nhealing of Simon's wife's mother. Thus the oldest tradition not only\nignores the \"Sermon on the Mount,\" but, by implication, raises a\nprobability against its being delivered when and where the later\n\"Matthew\" inserts it in his compilation.\n\nAnd still more weighty is the fact that the third gospel, the author of\nwhich tells us that he wrote after \"many\" others had \"taken in hand\" the\nsame enterprise; who should therefore have known the first gospel (if\nit existed), and was bound to pay to it the deference due to the work of\nan apostolic eye-witness (if he had any reason for thinking it was\nso)--this writer, who exhibits far more literary competence than the\nother two, ignores any \"Sermon on the Mount,\" such as that reported by\n\"Matthew,\" just as much as the oldest authority does. Yet \"Luke\" has a\ngreat many passages identical, or parallel, with those in \"Matthew's\"\n\"Sermon on the Mount,\" which are, for the most part, scattered about in\na totally different connection.\n\nInterposed, however, between the nomination of the Apostles and a visit\nto Capernaum; occupying, therefore, a place which answers to that of the\n\"Sermon on the Mount,\" in the first gospel, there is, in the third\ngospel a discourse which is as closely similar to the \"Sermon on the\nMount,\" in some particulars, as it is widely unlike it in others.\n\nThis discourse is said to have been delivered in a \"plain\" or \"level\nplace\" (Luke vi. 17), and by way of distinction we may call it the\n\"Sermon on the Plain.\"\n\nI see no reason to doubt that the two Evangelists are dealing, to a\nconsiderable extent, with the same traditional material; and a\ncomparison of the two \"Sermons\" suggests very strongly that \"Luke's\"\nversion is the earlier. The correspondences between the two forbid the\nnotion that they are independent. They both begin with a series of\nblessings, some of which are almost verbally identical. In the middle of\neach (Luke vi. 27-38, Matt. v. 43-48) there is a striking exposition of\nthe ethical spirit of the command given in Leviticus xix. 18. And each\nends with a passage containing the declaration that a tree is to be\nknown by its fruit, and the parable of the house built on the sand. But\nwhile there are only 29 verses in the \"Sermon on the Plain,\" there are\n107 in the \"Sermon on the Mount\"; the excess in length of the latter\nbeing chiefly due to the long interpolations, one of 30 verses before,\nand one of 34 verses after, the middlemost parallelism with Luke. Under\nthese circumstances it is quite impossible to admit that there is more\nprobability that \"Matthew's\" version of the Sermon is historically\naccurate, than there is that Luke's version is so; and they cannot both\nbe accurate.\n\n\"Luke\" either knew the collection of loosely-connected and aphoristic\nutterances which appear under the name of the \"Sermon on the Mount\" in\n\"Matthew\"; or he did not. If he did not, he must have been ignorant of\nthe existence of such a document as our canonical \"Matthew,\" a fact\nwhich does not make for the genuineness, or the authority, of that book.\nIf he did, he has shown that he does not care for its authority on a\nmatter of fact of no small importance; and that does not permit us to\nconceive that he believes the first gospel to be the work of an\nauthority to whom he ought to defer, let alone that of an apostolic\neye-witness.\n\nThe tradition of the Church about the second gospel, which I believe to\nbe quite worthless, but which is all the evidence there is for \"Mark's\"\nauthorship, would have us believe that \"Mark\" was little more than the\nmouthpiece of the apostle Peter. Consequently, we are to suppose that\nPeter either did not know, or did not care very much for, that account\nof the \"essential belief and cardinal teaching\" of Jesus which is\ncontained in the Sermon on the Mount: and, certainly, he could not have\nshared Dr. Wace's view of its importance[42]\n\nI thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent students of the\ngospels, to say nothing of theologians of reputation, knew these things.\nBut how can any one who does know them have the conscience to ask\nwhether there is \"any reasonable doubt\" that the Sermon on the Mount\nwas preached by Jesus of Nazareth? If conjecture is permissible, where\nnothing else is possible, the most probable conjecture seems to be that\n\"Matthew,\" having a _cento_ of sayings attributed--rightly or wrongly it\nis impossible to say--to Jesus among his materials, thought they were,\nor might be, records of a continuous discourse, and put them in at the\nplace he thought likeliest. Ancient historians of the highest character\nsaw no harm in composing long speeches which never were spoken, and\nputting them into the mouths of statesmen and warriors; and I presume\nthat whoever is represented by \"Matthew\" would have been grievously\nastonished to find that any one objected to his following the example of\nthe best models accessible to him.\n\nSo with the \"Lord's Prayer.\" Absent in our representative of the oldest\ntradition appears in both \"Matthew\" and \"Luke.\" There is reason to\nbelieve that every pious Jew, at the commencement of our era, prayed\nthree times a day, according to a formula which is embodied in the\npresent \"Schmone-Esre\" [43] of the Jewish prayer-book. Jesus, who was\nassuredly, in all respects, a pious Jew, whatever else he may have been,\ndoubtless did the same. Whether he modified the current formula, or\nwhether the so-called \"Lord's Prayer\" is the prayer substituted for the\n\"Schmone-Esre\" in the congregations of the Gentiles, is a question which\ncan hardly be answered.\n\nIn a subsequent passage of Dr. Wace's article (p. 356) he adds to the\nlist of the verities which he imagines to be unassailable, \"The Story of\nthe Passion.\" I am not quite sure what he means by this. I am not aware\nthat any one (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has\npropounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion; and certainly I\nhave no inclination to argue about the precise accuracy of every detail\nof that pathetic story of suffering and wrong. But, if Dr. Wace means,\nas I suppose he does, that that which, according to the orthodox view,\nhappened after the crucifixion, and which is, in a dogmatic sense, the\nmost important part of the story, is founded on solid historical proofs,\nI must beg leave to express a diametrically opposite conviction.\n\nWhat do we find when the accounts of the events in question, contained\nin the three Synoptic gospels, are compared together? In the oldest,\nthere is a simple, straightforward statement which, for anything that I\nhave to urge to the contrary, may be exactly true. In the other two,\nthere is, round this possible and probable nucleus, a mass of accretions\nof the most questionable character.\n\nThe cruelty of death by crucifixion depended very much upon its\nlingering character. If there were a support for the weight of the body,\nas not unfrequently was the practice, the pain during the first hours of\nthe infliction was not, necessarily, extreme; nor need any serious\nphysical symptoms, at once, arise from the wounds made by the nails in\nthe hands and feet, supposing they were nailed, which was not invariably\nthe case. When exhaustion set in, and hunger, thirst, and nervous\nirritation had done their work, the agony of the sufferer must have been\nterrible; and the more terrible that, in the absence of any effectual\ndisturbance of the machinery of physical life, it might be prolonged for\nmany hours, or even days. Temperate, strong men, such as were the\nordinary Galilean peasants, might live for several days on the cross. It\nis necessary to bear these facts in mind when we read the account\ncontained in the fifteenth chapter of the second gospel.\n\nJesus was crucified at the third hour (xv. 25), and the narrative seems\nto imply that he died immediately after the ninth hour (_v._ 34). In\nthis case, he would have been crucified only six hours; and the time\nspent on the cross cannot have been much longer, because Joseph of\nArimathaea must have gone to Pilate, made his preparations, and deposited\nthe body in the rock-cut tomb before sunset, which, at that time of the\nyear, was about the twelfth hour. That any one should die after only six\nhours' crucifixion could not have been at all in accordance with\nPilate's large experience of the effects of that method of punishment.\nIt, therefore, quite agrees with what might be expected, that Pilate\n\"marvelled if he were already dead\" and required to be satisfied on this\npoint by the testimony of the Roman officer who was in command of the\nexecution party. Those who have paid attention to the extraordinarily\ndifficult question, What are the indisputable signs of death?--will be\nable to estimate the value of the opinion of a rough soldier on such a\nsubject, even if his report to the Procurator were in no wise affected\nby the fact that the friend of Jesus, who anxiously awaited his answer,\nwas a man of influence and of wealth.\n\nThe inanimate body, wrapped in linen, was deposited in a spacious,[44]\ncool rock chamber, the entrance of which was closed, not by a\nwell-fitting door, but by a stone rolled against the opening, which\nwould of course allow free passage of air. A little more than thirty-six\nhours afterwards (Friday, 6 P.M., to Sunday, 6 A.M., or a little after)\nthree women visit the tomb and find it empty. And they are told by a\nyoung man \"arrayed in a white robe\" that Jesus is gone to his native\ncountry of Galilee, and that the disciples and Peter will find him\nthere.\n\nThus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradition that, for any\nevidence to the contrary, the sepulchre may have been emptied at any\ntime during the Friday or Saturday nights. If it is said that no Jew\nwould have violated the Sabbath by taking the former course, it is to be\nrecollected that Joseph of Arimathaea might well be familiar with that\nwise and liberal interpretation of the fourth commandment, which\npermitted works of mercy to men--nay, even the drawing of an ox or an\nass out of a pit--on the Sabbath. At any rate, the Saturday night was\nfree to the most scrupulous of observers of the Law.\n\nThese are the facts of the case as stated by the oldest extant narrative\nof them. I do not see why any one should have a word to say against the\ninherent probability of that narrative; and, for my part, I am quite\nready to accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more is\npositively known of the end of Jesus of Nazareth. On what grounds can a\nreasonable man be asked to believe any more? So far as the narrative in\nthe first gospel, on the one hand, and those in the third gospel and the\nActs, on the other, go beyond what is stated in the second gospel, they\nare hopelessly discrepant with one another. And this is the more\nsignificant because the pregnant phrase \"some doubted,\" in the first\ngospel, is ignored in the third.\n\nBut it is said that we have the witness Paul speaking to us directly in\nthe Epistles. There is little doubt that we have, and a very singular\nwitness he is. According to his own showing, Paul, in the vigour of his\nmanhood, with every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with\nthe evidence of eye-witnesses, not merely refused to credit them, but\n\"persecuted the Church of God and made havoc of it.\" The reasoning of\nStephen fell dead upon the acute intellect of this zealot for the\ntraditions of his fathers: his eyes were blind to the ecstatic\nillumination of the martyr's countenance \"as it had been the face of an\nangel;\" and when, at the words \"Behold, I see the heavens opened and\nthe Son of Man standing on the right hand of God,\" the murderous mob\nrushed upon and stoned the rapt disciple of Jesus, Paul ostentatiously\nmade himself their official accomplice.\n\nYet this strange man, because he has a vision one day, at once, and with\nequally headlong zeal, flies to the opposite pole of opinion. And he is\nmost careful to tell us that he abstained from any re-examination of the\nfacts.\n\n     Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up\n     to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went away\n     into Arabia. (Galatians i. 16, 17.)\n\nI do not presume to quarrel with Paul's procedure. If it satisfied him,\nthat was his affair; and, if it satisfies any one else, I am not called\nupon to dispute the right of that person to be satisfied. But I\ncertainly have the right to say that it would not satisfy me in like\ncase; that I should be very much ashamed to pretend that it could, or\nought to, satisfy me; and that I can entertain but a very low estimate\nof the value of the evidence of people who are to be satisfied in this\nfashion, when questions of objective fact, in which their faith is\ninterested, are concerned. So that when I am called upon to believe a\ngreat deal more than the oldest gospel tells me about the final events\nof the history of Jesus on the authority of Paul (1 Corinthians xv. 5-8)\nI must pause. Did he think it, at any subsequent time, worth while \"To\nconfer with flesh and blood,\" or, in modern phrase, to re-examine the\nfacts for himself? or was he ready to accept anything that fitted in\nwith his preconceived ideas? Does he mean, when he speaks of all the\nappearances of Jesus after the crucifixion as if they were of the same\nkind, that they were all visions, like the manifestation to himself?\nAnd, finally, how is this account to be reconciled with those in the\nfirst and third gospels--which, as we have seen, disagree with one\nanother?\n\nUntil these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am afraid that, so\nfar as I am concerned, Paul's testimony cannot be seriously regarded,\nexcept as it may afford evidence of the state of traditional opinion at\nthe time at which he wrote, say between 55 and 60 A.D.; that is, more\nthan twenty years after the event; a period much more than sufficient\nfor the development of any amount of mythology about matters of which\nnothing was really known. A few years later, among the contemporaries\nand neighbours of the Jews, and, if the most probable interpretation of\nthe Apocalypse can be trusted, among the followers of Jesus also, it was\nfully believed, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the\nEmperor Nero was not really dead, but that he was hidden away somewhere\nin the East, and would speedily come again at the head of a great army,\nto be revenged upon his enemies.[45]\n\nThus, I conceive that I have shown cause for the opinion that Dr. Wace's\nchallenge touching the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the\nPassion was more valorous than discreet. After all this discussion, I am\nstill at the agnostic point. Tell me, first, what Jesus can be proved to\nhave been, said, and done, and I will say whether I believe him, or in\nhim,[46] or not. As Dr. Wace admits that I have dissipated his lingering\nshade of unbelief about the bedevilment of the Gadarene pigs, he might\nhave done something to help mine. Instead of that, he manifests a total\nwant of conception of the nature of the obstacles which impede the\nconversion of his \"infidels.\"\n\nThe truth I believe to be, that the difficulties in the way of arriving\nat a sure conclusion as to these matters, from the Sermon on the Mount,\nthe Lord's Prayer, or any other data offered by the Synoptic gospels\n(and _a fortiori_ from the fourth gospel), are insuperable. Every one of\nthese records is coloured by the prepossessions of those among whom the\nprimitive traditions arose, and of those by whom they were collected and\nedited: and the difficulty of making allowance for these prepossessions\nis enhanced by our ignorance of the exact dates at which the documents\nwere first put together; of the extent to which they have been\nsubsequently worked over and interpolated; and of the historical sense,\nor want of sense, and the dogmatic tendencies of their compilers and\neditors. Let us see if there is any other road which will take us into\nsomething better than negation.\n\nThere is a widespread notion that the \"primitive Church,\" while under\nthe guidance of the Apostles and their immediate successors, was a sort\nof dogmatic dovecot, pervaded by the most loving unity and doctrinal\nharmony. Protestants, especially, are fond of attributing to themselves\nthe merit of being nearer \"the Church of the Apostles\" than their\nneighbours; and they are the less to be excused for their strange\ndelusion because they are great readers of the documents which prove the\nexact contrary. The fact is that, in the course of the first three\ncenturies of its existence, the Church rapidly underwent a process of\nevolution of the most remarkable character, the final stage of which is\nfar more different from the first than Anglicanism is from Quakerism.\nThe key to the comprehension of the problem of the origin of that which\nis now called \"Christianity,\" and its relation to Jesus of Nazareth,\nlies here. Nor can we arrive at any sound conclusion as to what it is\nprobable that Jesus actually said and did, without being clear on this\nhead. By far the most important and subsequently influential steps in\nthe evolution of Christianity took place in the course of the century,\nmore or less, which followed upon the crucifixion. It is almost the\ndarkest period of Church history, but, most fortunately, the beginning\nand the end of the period are brightly illuminated by the contemporary\nevidence of two writers of whose historical existence there is no\ndoubt,[47] and against the genuineness of whose most important works\nthere is no widely admitted objection. These are Justin, the philosopher\nand martyr, and Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. I shall call upon\nthese witnesses only to testify to the condition of opinion among those\nwho called themselves disciples of Jesus in their time.\n\nJustin, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which was written somewhere\nabout the middle of the second century, enumerates certain categories of\npersons who, in his opinion, will, or will not, be saved.[48] These\nare:--\n\n1. Orthodox Jews who refuse to believe that Jesus is the Christ. _Not\nSaved._\n\n2. Jews who observe the Law; believe Jesus to be the Christ; but who\ninsist on the observance of the Law by Gentile converts. _Not Saved._\n\n3. Jews who observe the Law; believe Jesus to be the Christ, and hold\nthat Gentile converts need not observe the Law. _Saved_ (in Justin's\nopinion; but some of his fellow-Christians think the contrary).\n\n4. Gentile converts to the belief in Jesus as the Christ, who observe\nthe Law. _Saved_ (possibly).\n\n5. Gentile believers in Jesus as the Christ, who do not observe the Law\nthemselves (except so far as the refusal of idol sacrifices), but do not\nconsider those who do observe it heretics. _Saved_ (this is Justin's own\nview).\n\n6. Gentile believers who do not observe the Law, except in refusing\nidol sacrifices, and hold those who do observe it to be heretics.\n_Saved._\n\n7. Gentiles who believe Jesus to be the Christ and call themselves\nChristians, but who eat meats sacrificed to idols. _Not Saved._\n\n8. Gentiles who disbelieve in Jesus as the Christ. _Not Saved._\n\nJustin does not consider Christians who believe in the natural birth of\nJesus, of whom he implies that there is a respectable minority, to be\nheretics, though he himself strongly holds the preternatural birth of\nJesus and his pre-existence as the \"Logos\" or \"Word.\" He conceives the\nLogos to be a second God, inferior to the first, unknowable God, with\nrespect to whom Justin, like Philo, is a complete agnostic. The Holy\nSpirit is not regarded by Justin as a separate personality, and is often\nmixed up with the \"Logos.\" The doctrine of the natural immortality of\nthe soul is, for Justin, a heresy; and he is as a believer in the\nresurrection of the body, as in the speedy Second Coming establishment\nof the millennium.\n\nThis pillar of the Church in the middle of the second century--a\nmuch-travelled native of Samaria--was certainly well acquainted with\nRome, probably with Alexandria; and it is likely that he knew the state\nof opinion throughout the length and breadth of the Christian world as\nwell as any man of his time. If the various categories above enumerated\nare arranged in a series thus:--\n\n                      _Justin's Christianity_\n                  _______________|_______________\n                 |                              |\n_Orthodox_    _Judaeo-_                    _Idolothytic_  _Paganism_\n_Judaism_   _Christianity_                _Christianity_\n            _____|_______\n           |             |\n    I.     II.   III.   IV.       V.    VI.    VII.         VIII.\n\nit is obvious that they form a gradational series from orthodox Judaism,\non the extreme left, to Paganism, whether philosophic or popular, on the\nextreme right; and it will further be observed that, while Justin's\nconception of Christianity is very broad, he rigorously excludes two\nclasses of persons who, in his time, called themselves Christians;\nnamely, those who insist on circumcision and other observances of the\nLaw on the part of Gentile converts: that is to say, the strict\nJudaeo-Christians (II.): and, on the other hand, those who assert the\nlawfulness of eating meat offered to idols--whether they are Gnostic or\nnot (VII.). These last I have called \"idolothytic\" Christians, because I\ncannot devise a better name, not because it is strictly defensible\netymologically.\n\nAt the present moment, I do not suppose there is an English missionary\nin any heathen land who would trouble himself whether the materials of\nhis dinner had been previously offered to idols or not. On the other\nhand I suppose there is no Protestant sect within the pale of orthodoxy,\nto say nothing of the Roman and Greek Churches, which would hesitate to\ndeclare the practice of circumcision and the observance of the Jewish\nSabbath and dietary rules, shockingly heretical.\n\nModern Christianity has, in fact, not only shifted far to the right of\nJustin's position, but it is of much narrower compass.\n\n                            _Justin_\n                   _____________|___________________\n                  |                                 |\n               _Judaeo-_           _Modern_      _Paganism_\n             _Christianity_     _Christianity_\n_Judaism_    _____|______         _____|__________\n            |            |       |                |\n    I.     II.   III.   IV.  V.  VI.    VII.    VIII.\n\nFor, though it includes VII., and even, in saint and relic worship, cuts\na \"monstrous cantle\" out of paganism, it excludes, not only all\nJudaeo-Christians, but all who doubt that such are heretics. Ever since\nthe thirteenth century, the Inquisition would have cheerfully burned,\nand in Spain did abundantly burn, all persons who came under the\ncategories II., III. IV., V. And the wolf would play the same havoc now,\nif it could only get its blood-stained jaws free from the muzzle imposed\nby the secular arm.\n\nFurther, there is not a Protestant body except the Unitarian, which\nwould not declare Justin himself a heretic, on account of his doctrine\nof the inferior godship of the Logos; while I am very much afraid that,\nin strict logic, Dr. Wace would be under the necessity, so painful to\nhim, of calling him an \"infidel,\" on the same and on other grounds.\n\nNow let us turn to our other authority. If there is any result of\ncritical investigations of the sources of Christianity which is\ncertain,[49] it is that Paul of Tarsus wrote the Epistle to the\nGalatians somewhere between the years 55 and 60 A.D., that is to say,\nroughly, twenty, or five-and-twenty years after the crucifixion. If this\nis so, the Epistle to the Galatians is one of the oldest, if not the\nvery oldest, of extant documentary evidences of the state of the\nprimitive Church. And, be it observed, if it is Paul's writing, it\nunquestionably furnishes us with the evidence of a participator in the\ntransactions narrated. With the exception of two or three of the other\nPauline Epistles, there is not one solitary book in the New Testament of\nthe authorship and authority of which we have such good evidence.\n\nAnd what is the state of things we find disclosed? A bitter quarrel, in\nhis account of which Paul by no means minces matters, or hesitates to\nhurl defiant sarcasms against those who were \"reputed to be pillars\":\nJames, \"the brother of the Lord,\" Peter, the rock on whom Jesus is said\nto have built his Church, and John, \"the beloved disciple.\" And no\ndeference toward \"the rock\" withholds Paul from charging Peter to his\nface with \"dissimulation.\"\n\nThe subject of the hot dispute was simply this. Were Gentile converts\nbound to obey the Law or not? Paul answered in the negative; and, acting\nupon his opinion, he had created at Antioch (and elsewhere) a\nspecifically \"Christian\" community, the sole qualifications for\nadmission into which were the confession of the belief that Jesus was\nthe Messiah, and baptism upon that confession. In the epistle in\nquestion, Paul puts this--his \"gospel,\" as he calls it--in its most\nextreme form. Not only does he deny the necessity of conformity with the\nLaw, but he declares such conformity to have a negative value, \"Behold,\nI, Paul, say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will\nprofit you nothing\" (Galatians v. 2). He calls the legal observances\n\"beggarly rudiments,\" and anathematises every one who preaches to the\nGalatians any other gospel than his own. That is to say, by direct\nconsequence, he anathematises the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, whose zeal for\nthe Law is testified by James in a passage of the Acts cited further on.\nIn the first Epistle to the Corinthians, dealing with the question of\neating meat offered to idols, it is clear that Paul himself thinks it a\nmatter of indifference; but he advises that it should not be done, for\nthe sake of the weaker brethren. On the other hand, the Nazarenes of\nJerusalem most strenuously opposed Paul's \"gospel,\" insisting on every\nconvert becoming a regular Jewish proselyte, and consequently on his\nobservance of the whole Law; and this party was led by James and Peter\nand John (Galatians ii. 9). Paul does not suggest that the question of\nprinciple was settled by the discussion referred to in Galatians. All he\nsays is, that it ended in the practical agreement that he and Barnabas\nshould do as they had been doing, in respect to the Gentiles: while\nJames and Peter and John should deal in their own fashion with Jewish\nconverts. Afterwards, he complains bitterly of Peter, because, when on a\nvisit to Antioch, he, at first, inclined to Paul's view and ate with the\nGentile converts; but when \"certain came from James,\" \"drew back, and\nseparated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the\nrest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even\nBarnabas was carried away with their dissimulation\" (Galatians ii.\n12-13).\n\nThere is but one conclusion to be drawn from Paul's account of this\nfamous dispute, the settlement of which determined the fortunes of the\nnascent religion. It is that the disciples at Jerusalem, headed by\n\"James, the Lord's brother,\" and by the leading apostles, Peter and\nJohn, were strict Jews, who had objected to admit any converts into\ntheir body, unless these, either by birth, or by becoming proselytes,\nwere also strict Jews. In fact, the sole difference between James and\nPeter and John, with the body of the disciples whom they led and the\nJews by whom they were surrounded, and with whom they, for many years,\nshared the religous observances of the Temple, was that they believed\nthat the Messiah, whom the leaders of the nation yet looked for, had\nalready come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles is hardly a very trustworthy history; it is\ncertainly of later date than the Pauline Epistles, supposing them to be\ngenuine. And the writer's version of the conference of which Paul gives\nso graphic a description, if that is correct, is unmistakably coloured\nwith all the art of a reconciler, anxious to cover up a scandal. But it\nis none the less instructive on this account. The judgment of the\n\"council\" delivered by James is that the Gentile converts shall merely\n\"abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things\nstrangled, and from fornication.\" But notwithstanding the accommodation\nin which the writer of the Acts would have us believe, the Jerusalem\nChurch held to its endeavour to retain the observance of the Law. Long\nafter the conference, some time after the writing of the Epistles to the\nGalatians and Corinthians, and immediately after the despatch of that to\nthe Romans, Paul makes his last visit to Jerusalem, and presents himself\nto James and all the elders. And this is what the Acts tells us of the\ninterview:--\n\n     And they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands [or\n     myriads] there are among the Jews of them which have believed; and\n     they are all zealous for the law; and they have been informed\n     concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among\n     the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their\n     children, neither to walk after the customs. (Acts xxi. 20, 21.)\n\nThey therefore request that he should perform a certain public religious\nact in the Temple, in order that\n\n     all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they\n     have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself walkest\n     orderly, keeping the law (_ibid._ 24).[50]\n\nHow far Paul could do what he is here requested to do, and which the\nwriter of the Acts goes on to say he did, with a clear conscience, if he\nwrote the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians I may leave any\ncandid reader of these epistles to decide. The point to which I wish to\ndirect attention is the declaration that the Jerusalem Church, led by\nthe brother of Jesus and by his personal disciples and friends, twenty\nyears and more after his death, consisted of strict and zealous Jews.\n\nTertullus, the orator, caring very little about the internal dissensions\nof the followers of Jesus, speaks of Paul as a \"ringleader of the sect\nof the Nazarenes\" (Acts xxiv. 5), which must have affected James much in\nthe same way as it would have moved the Archbishop of Canterbury, in\nGeorge Fox's day, to hear the latter called a \"ringleader of the sect of\nAnglicans.\" In fact, \"Nazarene\" was, as is well known, the distinctive\nappellation applied to Jesus; his immediate followers were known as\nNazarenes; while the congregation of the disciples, and, later, of\nconverts at Jerusalem--the Jerusalem Church--was emphatically the \"sect\nof the Nazarenes,\" no more, in itself, to be regarded as anything\noutside Judaism than the sect of the Sadducees, or that of the\nEssenes[51]. In fact, the tenets of both the Sadducees and the Essenes\ndiverged much more widely from the Pharisaic standard of orthodoxy than\nNazarenism did.\n\nLet us consider the position of affairs now (A.D. 50-60) in relation to\nthat which obtained in Justin's time, a century later. It is plain that\nthe Nazarenes--presided over by James, \"the brother of the Lord,\" and\ncomprising within their body all the twelve apostles--belonged to\nJustin's second category of \"Jews who observe the Law, believe Jesus to\nbe the Christ, but who insist on the observance of the Law by Gentile\nconverts,\" up till the time at which the controversy reported by Paul\narose. They then, according to Paul, simply allowed him to form his\ncongregations of non-legal Gentile converts at Antioch and elsewhere;\nand it would seem that it was to these converts, who would come under\nJustin's fifth category, that the title of \"Christian\" was first\napplied. If any of these Christians had acted upon the more than\nhalf-permission given by Paul, and had eaten meats offered to idols,\nthey would have belonged to Justin's seventh category.\n\nHence, it appears that, if Justin's opinion, which was probably that of\nthe Church generally in the middle of the second century, was correct,\nJames and Peter and John and their followers could not be saved; neither\ncould Paul, if he carried into practice his views as to the indifference\nof eating meats offered to idols. Or, to put the matter another way, the\ncentre of gravity of orthodoxy, which is at the extreme right of the\nseries in the nineteenth century, was at the extreme left, just before\nthe middle of the first century, when the \"sect of the Nazarenes\"\nconstituted the whole church founded by Jesus and the apostles; while,\nin the time of Justin, it lay midway between the two. It is therefore a\nprofound mistake to imagine that the Judaeo-Christians (Nazarenes and\nEbionites) of later times were heretical outgrowths from a primitive\nuniversalist \"Christianity.\" On the contrary, the universalist\n\"Christianity\" is an outgrowth from the primitive, purely Jewish,\nNazarenism; which, gradually eliminating all the ceremonial and dietary\nparts of the Jewish law, has thrust aside its parent, and all the\nintermediate stages of its development, into the position of damnable\nheresies.\n\nSuch being the case, we are in a position to form a safe judgment of the\nlimits within which the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth must have been\nconfined. Ecclesiastical authority would have us believe that the words\nwhich are given at the end of the first Gospel, \"Go ye, therefore, and\nmake disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the\nFather and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,\" are part of the last\ncommands of Jesus, issued at the moment of his parting with the eleven.\nIf so, Peter and John must have heard these words; they are too plain to\nbe misunderstood; and the occasion is too solemn for them ever to be\nforgotten. Yet the \"Acts\" tells us that Peter needed a vision to enable\nhim so much as to baptize Cornelius; and Paul, in the Galatians, knows\nnothing of words which would have completely borne him out as against\nthose who, though they heard, must be supposed to have either forgotten,\nor ignored them. On the other hand, Peter and John, who are supposed to\nhave heard the \"Sermon on the Mount,\" know nothing of the saying that\nJesus had not come to destroy the Law, but that every jot and tittle of\nthe Law must be fulfilled, which surely would have been pretty good\nevidence for their view of the question.\n\nWe are sometimes told that the personal friends and daily companions of\nJesus remained zealous Jews and opposed Paul's innovations, because they\nwere hard of heart and dull of comprehension. This hypothesis is hardly\nin accordance with the concomitant faith of those who adopt it, in the\nmiraculous insight and superhuman sagacity of their Master; nor do I see\nany way of getting it to harmonise with the orthodox postulate; namely,\nthat Matthew was the author of the first gospel and John of the fourth.\nIf that is so, then, most assuredly, Matthew was no dullard; and as for\nthe fourth gospel--a theosophic romance of the first order--it could\nhave been written by none but a man of remarkable literary capacity, who\nhad deep of Alexandrian philosophy. Moreover, the doctrine of the writer\nof the fourth gospel is more remote from that of the \"sect of the\nNazarenes\" than is that of Paul himself. I am quite aware that orthodox\ncritics have been capable of maintaining that John, the Nazarene, who\nwas probably well past fifty years of age, when he is supposed to have\nwritten the most thoroughly Judaising book in the New Testament--the\nApocalypse--in the roughest of Greek, underwent an astounding\nmetamorphosis of both doctrine and style by the time he reached the ripe\nage of ninety or so, and provided the world with a history in which the\nacutest critic cannot [always] make out where the speeches of Jesus end\nand the text of the narrative begins; while that narrative, is utterly\nirreconcilable, in regard to matters of fact, with that of his\nfellow-apostle, Matthew.\n\nThe end of the whole matter is this:--The \"sect of the Nazarenes,\" the\nbrother and the immediate followers of Jesus, commissioned by him as\napostles, and those were taught by them up to the year 50A.D., were not\n\"Christians\" in the sense in which that term has been understood ever\nsince its asserted origin at Antioch, but Jews--strict orthodox\nJews--whose belief in the Messiahship of Jesus never led to their\nexclusion from the Temple services, nor would have shut them out from\nthe wide embrace of Judaism.[52] The open proclamation of their special\nview about the Messiah was doubtless offensive to the Pharisees, just as\nrampant Low Churchism is offensive to bigoted High Churchism in our own\ncountry; or as any kind of dissent is offensive to fervid religionists\nof all creeds. To the Sadducees, no doubt, the political danger of any\nMessianic movement was serious; and they would have been glad to put\ndown Nazarenism, lest it should end in useless rebellion against their\nRoman masters, like that other Galilean movement headed by Judas, a\ngeneration earlier. Galilee was always a hotbed of seditious enthusiasm\nagainst the rule of Rome; and high priest and procurator alike had need\nto keep a sharp eye upon natives of that district. On the whole,\nhowever, the Nazarenes were but little troubled for the first twenty\nyears of their existence; and the undying hatred of the Jews against\nthose later converts, whom they regarded as apostates and fautors of a\nsham Judaism, was awakened by Paul. From their point of view, he was a\nmere renegade Jew, opposed alike to orthodox Judaism and to orthodox\nNazarenism; and whose teachings threatened Judaism with destruction.\nAnd, from their point of view, they were quite right. In the course of a\ncentury, Pauline influences had a large share in driving primitive\nNazarenism from being the very heart of the new faith into the position\nof scouted error; and the spirit of Paul's doctrine continued its work\nof driving Christianity farther and farther away from Judaism, until\n\"meats offered to idols\" might be eaten without scruple, while the\nNazarene methods of observing even the Sabbath, or the Passover, were\nbranded with the mark of Judaising heresy.\n\nBut if the primitive Nazarenes of whom the Acts speaks were orthodox\nJews, what sort of probability can there be that Jesus was anything\nelse? How can he have founded the universal religion which was not heard\nof till twenty years after his death?[53] That Jesus possessed, in a\nrare degree, the gift of attaching men to his person and to his\nfortunes; that he was the author of many a striking saying, and the\nadvocate of equity, of love, and of humility; that he may have\ndisregarded the subtleties of the bigots for legal observance, and\nappealed rather to those noble conceptions of religion which constituted\nthe pith and kernel of the teaching of the great prophets of his nation\nseven hundred years earlier; and that, in the last scenes of his career,\nhe may have embodied the ideal sufferer of Isaiah, may be, as I think it\nis, extremely probable. But all this involves not a step beyond the\nborders of orthodox Judaism. Again, who is to say whether Jesus\nproclaimed himself the veritable Messiah, expected by his nation since\nthe appearance of the pseudo-prophetic work of Daniel, a century and a\nhalf before his time; or whether the enthusiasm of his followers\ngradually forced him to assume that position?\n\nBut one thing is quite certain: if that belief in the speedy second\ncoming of the Messiah which was shared by all parties in the primitive\nChurch, whether Nazarene or Pauline; which Jesus is made to prophesy,\nover and over again in the Synoptic gospels; and which dominated the\nlife of Christians during the first century after the crucifixion;--if\nhe believed and taught that, then assuredly he was under an illusion,\nand he is responsible for that which the mere effluxion of time has\ndemonstrated to be a prodigious error.\n\n\n\n\nAGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\nNemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut\nnescire discat.--AUGUSTINUS. _De Civ. Dei_, xii. 7.\n\n\nThe people who call themselves \"Agnostics\" have been charged with doing\nso because they have not the courage to declare themselves \"Infidels.\"\nIt has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to\nescape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination.\nTo this wholly erroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the\nterm \"Agnostic\" did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which\nnegatives it; and my statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted.\nMoreover, speaking for myself, and without impugning the right of any\nother person to use the term in another sense, I further say that\nAgnosticism is not properly described as a \"negative\" creed, nor indeed\nas a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith\nin the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as\nintellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all\namount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of\nthe objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence\nwhich logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism\nasserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.\nThat which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary\ndoctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,\nwithout logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to\nattach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported\npropositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the\nsuccess which follows upon its application, whether in the field of\nnatural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as\nthese topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.\n\nStill speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and\ncannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is\nconcerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the\ndenial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of\npropositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical \"gnostics\"\nprofess entire certainty. And, in so far as these ecclesiastical persons\ncan be justified in their old-established custom (which many nowadays\nthink more honoured in the breach than the observance) of using\nopprobrious names to those who differ from them, I fully admit their\nright to call me and those who think with me \"Infidels\"; all I have\nventured to urge is that they must not expect us to speak of ourselves\nby that title.\n\nThe extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems\nthe investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary\naccording to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual\nAgnostic. I do not very much care to speak of anything as \"unknowable.\"\n[54] What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I\nknow nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my\nfaculties. But whether these things are knowable by any one else is\nexactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may\nhave a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case.\nRelatively to myself, I am quite sure that the region of\nuncertainty--the nebulous country in which words play the part of\nrealities--is far more extensive than I could wish. Materialism and\nIdealism; Theism and Atheism; the doctrine of the soul and its mortality\nor immortality--appear in the history of philosophy like the shades of\nScandinavian heroes, eternally slaying one another and eternally coming\nto life again in a metaphysical \"Nifelheim.\" It is getting on for\ntwenty-five centuries, at least, since mankind began seriously to give\ntheir minds to these topics. Generation after generation, philosophy has\nbeen doomed to roll the stone uphill; and, just as all the world swore\nit was at the top, down it has rolled to the bottom again. All this is\nwritten in innumerable books; and he who will toil through them will\ndiscover that the stone is just where it was when the work began. Hume\nsaw this; Kant saw it; since their time, more and more eyes have been\ncleansed of the films which prevented them from seeing it; until now the\nweight and number of those who refuse to be the prey of verbal\nmystifications has begun to tell in practical life.\n\nIt was inevitable that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism and\nTheology; or, rather, I ought to say, between Agnosticism and\nEcclesiasticism. For Theology, the science, is one thing; and\nEcclesiasticism, the championship of a foregone conclusion[55] as to the\ntruth of a particular form of Theology, is another. With scientific\nTheology, Agnosticism has no quarrel. On the contrary, the Agnostic,\nknowing too well the influence of prejudice and idiosyncrasy, even on\nthose who desire most earnestly to be impartial, can wish for nothing\nmore urgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at\nperfect liberty to thresh out the matter in his own fashion; but that he\nshould, if he can, find flaws in the Agnostic position; and, even if\ndemonstration is not to be had, that he should put, in their full force,\nthe grounds of the conclusions he thinks probable. The scientific\ntheologian admits the Agnostic principle, however widely his results may\ndiffer from those reached by the majority of Agnostics.\n\nBut, as between Agnosticism and Ecclesiasticism, or, as our neighbours\nacross the Channel call it, Clericalism, there can be neither peace nor\ntruce. The Cleric asserts that it is morally wrong not to believe\ncertain propositions, whatever the results of a strict scientific\ninvestigation of the evidence of these propositions. He tells us \"that\nreligious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature.\" [56] He declares\nthat he has prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who show\ncause for arrest of judgment as emissaries of Satan. It necessarily\nfollows that, for him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertainment of\ntruth, is the highest aim of mental life. And, on careful analysis of\nthe nature of this faith, it will too often be found to be, not the\nmystic process of unity with the Divine, understood by the religious\nenthusiast; but that which the candid simplicity of a Sunday scholar\nonce defined it to be. \"Faith,\" said this unconscious plagiarist of\nTertullian, \"is the power of saying you believe things which are\nincredible.\"\n\nNow I, and many other Agnostics, believe that faith, in this sense, is\nan abomination; and though we do not indulge in the luxury of\nself-righteousness so far as to call those who are not of our way of\nthinking hard names, we do feel that the disagreement between ourselves\nand those who hold this doctrine is even more moral than intellectual.\nIt is desirable there should be an end of any mistakes on this topic. If\nour clerical opponents were clearly aware of the real state of the case,\nthere would be an end of the curious delusion, which often appears\nbetween the lines of their writings, that those whom they are so fond of\ncalling \"Infidels\" are people who not only ought to be, but in their\nhearts are, ashamed of themselves. It would be discourteous to do more\nthan hint the antipodal opposition of this pleasant dream of theirs to\nfacts.\n\nThe clerics and their lay allies commonly tell us, that if we refuse to\nadmit that there is good ground for expressing definite convictions\nabout certain topics, the bonds of human society will dissolve and\nmankind lapse into savagery. There are several answers to this\nassertion. One is that the bonds of human society were formed without\nthe aid of their theology; and, in the opinion of not a few competent\njudges, have been weakened rather than strengthened by a good deal of\nit. Greek science, Greek art, the ethics of old Israel, the social\norganisation of old Rome, contrived to come into being, without the help\nof any on who believed in a single distinctive article of the simplest\nof the Christian creeds. The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the\nchief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out\nof those of Greece and Rome--not by favour of, but in the teeth of the\nfundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and\nany serious occupation with the things of this world, were alike\ndespicable.\n\nAgain, all that is best in the ethics of the modern world, in so far as\nit has not grown out of Greek thought, or Barbarian manhood, is the\ndirect development of the ethics of old Israel. There is no code of\nlegislation, ancient or modern, at once so just and so merciful, so\ntender to the weak and poor, as the Jewish law; and, if the Gospels are\nto be trusted, Jesus of Nazareth himself declared that he taught nothing\nbut that which lay implicitly, or explicitly, in the religious and\nethical system of his people.\n\n     And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well\n     said that he is one; and there is none other but he, and to love\n     him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with\n     all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much\n     more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Mark xii. 32,\n     33.)\n\nHere is the briefest of summaries of the teaching of the prophets of\nIsrael of the eighth century; does the Teacher, whose doctrine is thus\nset forth in his presence, repudiate the exposition? Nay; we are told,\non the contrary, that Jesus saw that he \"answered discreetly,\" and\nreplied, \"Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.\"\n\nSo that I think that even if the creeds, from the so-called \"Apostles\"\nto the so-called \"Athanasian,\" were swept into oblivion; and even if the\nhuman race should arrive at the conclusion that, whether a bishop washes\na cup or leaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least consequence,\nit will get on very well. The causes which have led to the development\nof morality in mankind, which have guided or impelled us all the way\nfrom the savage to the civilised state, will not cease to operate\nbecause a number of ecclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be baseless.\nAnd, even if the absurd notion that morality is more the child of\nspeculation than of practical necessity and inherited instinct, had any\nfoundation; if all the world is going to thieve, murder, and otherwise\nmisconduct itself as soon as it discovers that certain portions of\nancient history are mythical; what is the relevance of such arguments to\nany one who holds by the Agnostic principle?\n\nSurely, the attempt to cast out Beelzebub by the aid of Beelzebub is a\nhopeful procedure as compared to that of preserving morality by the aid\nof immorality. For I suppose it is admitted that an Agnostic may be\nperfectly sincere, may be competent, and have studied the question at\nissue with as much care as his clerical opponents. But, if the Agnostic\nreally believes what he says, the \"dreadful consequence\" argufier\n(consistently, I admit, with his own principles) virtually asks him to\nabstain from telling the truth, or to say what he believes to be untrue,\nbecause of the supposed injurious consequences to morality.\n\n\"Beloved brethren, that we may be spotlessly moral, before all things\nlet us lie,\" is the sum total of many an exhortation addressed to the\n\"Infidel.\" Now, as I have already pointed out, we cannot oblige our\nexhorters. We leave the practical application of the convenient\ndoctrines of \"Reserve\" and \"Non-natural interpretation\" to those who\ninvented them.\n\nI trust that I have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of\nfulness, in my previous exposition of that which I hold to be the\nessence of the Agnostic doctrine. Henceforward, I might hope to hear no\nmore of the assertion that we are necessarily Materialists, Idealists,\nAtheists, Theists, or any other _ists_, if experience had led me to\nthink that the proved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against\nits repetition. And those who appreciate the nature of our position will\nsee, at once, that when Ecclesiasticism declares that we ought to\nbelieve this, that, and the other, and are very wicked if we don't, it\nis impossible for us to give any answer but this: We have not the\nslightest objection to believe anything you like, if you will give us\ngood grounds for belief; but, if you cannot, we must respectfully\nrefuse, even if that refusal should wreck morality and insure our own\ndamnation several times over. We are quite content to leave that to the\ndecision of the future. The course of the past has impressed us with the\nfirm conviction that no good ever comes of falsehood, and we feel\nwarranted in refusing even to experiment in that direction.\n\nIn the course of the present discussion it has been asserted that the\n\"Sermon on the Mount\" and the \"Lord's Prayer\" furnish a summary and\ncondensed view of the essentials of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth,\nset forth by himself. Now this supposed _Summa_ of Nazarene theology\ndistinctly affirms the existence of a spiritual world, of a Heaven, and\nof a Hell of fire; it teaches the Fatherhood of God and the malignity of\nthe Devil; it declares the superintending providence of the former and\nour need of deliverance from the machinations of the latter; it affirms\nthe fact of demoniac possession and the power of casting out devils by\nthe faithful. And, from these premises, the conclusion is drawn, that\nthose Agnostics who deny that there is any evidence of such a character\nas to justify certainty, respecting the existence and the nature of the\nspiritual world, contradict the express declarations of Jesus. I have\nreplied to this argumentation by showing that there is strong reason to\ndoubt the historical accuracy of the attribution to Jesus of either the\n\"Sermon on the Mount\" or the \"Lord's Prayer \"; and, therefore, that the\nconclusion in question is not warranted, at any rate, on the grounds set\nforth.\n\nBut, whether the Gospels contain trustworthy statements about this and\nother alleged historical facts or not, it is quite certain that from\nthem, taken together with the other books of the New Testament, we may\ncollect a pretty complete exposition of that theory of the spiritual\nworld which was held by both Nazarenes and Christians; and which was\nundoubtedly supposed by them to be fully sanctioned by Jesus, though it\nis just as clear that they did not imagine it contained any revelation\nby him of something heretofore unknown. If the pneumatological doctrine\nwhich pervades the whole New Testament is nowhere systematically stated,\nit is everywhere assumed. The writers of the Gospels and of the Acts\ntake it for granted, as a matter of common knowledge; and it is easy to\ngather from these sources a series of propositions, which only need\narrangement to form a complete system.\n\nIn this system, Man is considered to be a duality formed of a spiritual\nelement, the soul; and a corporeal[57] element, the body. And this\nduality is repeated in the Universe, which consists of a corporeal world\nembraced and interpenetrated by a spiritual world. The former consists\nof the earth, as its principal and central constituent, with the\nsubsidiary sun, planets, and stars. Above the earth is the air, and\nbelow is the watery abyss. Whether the heaven, which is conceived to be\nabove the air, and the hell in, or below, the subterranean deeps, are to\nbe taken as corporeal or incorporeal is not clear. However this may be,\nthe heaven and the air, the earth and the abyss, are peopled by\ninnumerable beings analogous in nature to the spiritual element in man,\nand these spirits are of two kinds, good and bad. The chief of the good\nspirits, infinitely superior to all the others, and their creator, as\nwell as the creator of the corporeal world and of the bad spirits, is\nGod. His residence is heaven, where he is surrounded by the ordered\nhosts of good spirits; his angels, or messengers, and the executors of\nhis will throughout the universe.\n\nOn the other hand, the chief of the bad spirits is Satan, _the_ devil\n_par excellence_. He and his company of demons are free to roam through\nall parts of the universe, except the heaven. These bad spirits are far\nsuperior to man in power and subtlety; and their whole energies are\ndevoted to bringing physical and moral evils upon him, and to thwarting,\nso far as their power goes, the benevolent intentions of the Supreme\nBeing. In fact, the souls and bodies of men form both the theatre and\nthe prize of an incessant warfare between the good and the evil\nspirits--the powers of light and the powers of darkness. By leading Eve\nastray, Satan brought sin and death upon mankind. As the gods of the\nheathen, the demons are the founders and maintainers of idolatry; as the\n\"powers of the air\" they afflict mankind with pestilence and famine; as\n\"unclean spirits\" they cause disease of mind and body.\n\nThe significance of the appearance of Jesus, in the capacity of the\nMessiah, or Christ, is the reversal of the satanic work by putting an\nend to both sin and death. He announces that the kingdom of God is at\nhand, when the \"Prince of this world\" shall be finally \"cast out\" (John\nxii, 31) from the cosmos, as Jesus, during his earthly career, cast him\nout from individuals. Then will Satan and all his devilry, along with\nthe wicked whom they have seduced to their destruction, be hurled into\nthe abyss of unquenchable fire--there to endure continual torture,\nwithout a hope of winning pardon from the merciful God, their Father; or\nof moving the glorified Messiah to one more act of pitiful intercession;\nor even of interrupting, by a momentary sympathy with their\nwretchedness, the harmonious psalmody of their brother angels and men,\neternally lapped in bliss unspeakable.\n\nThe straitest Protestant, who refuses to admit the existence of any\nsource of Divine truth, except the Bible, will not deny that every point\nof the pneumatological theory here set forth has ample scriptural\nwarranty. The Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse assert\nthe existence of the devil, of his demons and of Hell, as plainly as\nthey do that of God and his angels and Heaven. It is plain that the\nMessianic and the Satanic conceptions of the writers of these books are\nthe obverse and the reverse of the same intellectual coinage. If we turn\nfrom Scripture to the traditions of the Fathers and the confessions of\nthe Churches, it will appear that, in this one particular, at any rate,\ntime has brought about no important deviation from primitive belief.\nFrom Justin onwards, it may often be a fair question whether God, or the\ndevil, occupies a larger share of the attention of the Fathers. It is\nthe devil who instigates the Roman authorities to persecute; the gods\nand goddesses of paganism are devils, and idolatry itself is an\ninvention of Satan; if a saint falls away from grace, it is by the\nseduction of the demon; if heresy arises, the devil has suggested it;\nand some of the Fathers[58] go so far as to challenge the pagans to a\nsort of exorcising match, by way of testing the truth of Christianity.\nMediaeval Christianity is at one with patristic, on this head. The\nmasses, the clergy, the theologians, and the philosophers alike, live\nand move and have their being in a world full of demons, in which\nsorcery and possession are everyday occurrences. Nor did the Reformation\nmake any difference. Whatever else Luther assailed, he left the\ntraditional demonology untouched; nor could any one have entertained a\nmore hearty and uncompromising belief in the devil, than he and, at a\nlater period, the Calvinistic fanatics of New England did. Finally, in\nthese last years of the nineteenth century, the demonological hypotheses\nof the first century are, explicitly or implicitly, held and\noccasionally acted upon by the immense majority of Christians of all\nconfessions.\n\nOnly here and there has the progress of scientific thought, outside the\necclesiastical world, so far affected Christians, that they and their\nteachers fight shy of the demonology of their creed. They are fain to\nconceal their real disbelief in one half of Christian doctrine by\njudicious silence about it; or by flight to those refuges for the\nlogically destitute, accommodation or allegory. But the faithful who fly\nto allegory in order to escape absurdity resemble nothing so much as the\nsheep in the fable who--to save their lives--jumped into the pit. The\nallegory pit is too commodious, is ready to swallow up so much more than\none wants to put into it. If the story of the temptation is an allegory;\nif the early recognition of Jesus as the Son of God by the demons is an\nallegory; if the plain declaration of the writer of the first Epistle of\nJohn (iii. 8), \"To this end was the Son of God manifested, that He might\ndestroy the works of the devil,\" is allegorical, then the Pauline\nversion of the Fall may be allegorical, and still more the words of\nconsecration of the Eucharist, or the promise of the second coming; in\nfact, there is not a dogma of ecclesiastical Christianity the scriptural\nbasis of which may not be whittled away by a similar process.\n\nAs to accommodation, let any honest man who can read the New Testament\nask himself whether Jesus and his immediate friends and disciples can be\ndishonoured more grossly than by the supposition that they said and did\nthat which is attributed to them; while, in reality, they disbelieved in\nSatan and his demons, in possession and in exorcism?[59]\n\nAn eminent theologian has justly observed that we have no right to look\nat the propositions of the Christian faith with one eye open and the\nother shut. (Tract 85, p. 29.) It really is not permissible to see, with\none eye, that Jesus is affirmed to declare the personality and the\nFatherhood of God, His loving providence and His accessibility to\nprayer; and to shut the other to the no less definite teaching ascribed\nto Jesus, in regard to the personality and the misanthropy of the devil,\nhis malignant watchfulness, and his subjection to exorcistic formulae and\nrites. Jesus is made to say that the devil \"was a murderer from the\nbeginning\" (John viii. 44) by the same authority as that upon which we\ndepend for his asserted declaration that God is a spirit\" (John iv. 24).\n\nTo those who admit the authority of the famous Vincentian dictum that\nthe doctrine which has been held \"always, everywhere, and by all\" is to\nbe received as authoritative, the demonology must possess a higher\nsanction than any other Christian dogma, except, perhaps, those of the\nResurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus; for it would be difficult\nto name any other points of doctrine on which the Nazarene does not\ndiffer from the Christian, and the different historical stages and\ncontemporary subdivisions of Christianity from one another. And, if the\ndemonology is accepted, there can be no reason for rejecting all those\nmiracles in which demons play a part. The Gadarene story fits into the\ngeneral scheme of Christianity; and the evidence for \"Legion\" and their\ndoings is just as good as any other in the New Testament for the\ndoctrine which the story illustrates.\n\nIt was with the purpose of bringing this great fact into prominence; of\ngetting people to open both their eyes when they look at\nEcclesiasticism; that I devoted so much space to that miraculous story\nwhich happens to be one of the best types of its class. And I could not\nwish for a better justification of the course I have adopted, than the\nfact that my heroically consistent adversary has declared his implicit\nbelief in the Gadarene story and (by necessary consequence) in the\nChristian demonology as a whole. It must be obvious, by this time, that,\nif the account of the spiritual world given in the New Testament,\nprofessedly on the authority of Jesus, is true, then the demonological\nhalf of that account must be just as true as the other half. And,\ntherefore, those who question the demonology, or try to explain it away,\ndeny the truth of what Jesus said, and are, in ecclesiastical\nterminology, \"Infidels\" just as much as those who deny the spirituality\nof God. This is as plain as anything can well be, and the dilemma for my\nopponent was either to assert that the Gadarene pig-bedevilment actually\noccurred, or to write himself down an \"Infidel.\" As was to be expected,\nhe chose the former alternative; and I may express my great satisfaction\nat finding that there is one spot of common ground on which both he and\nI stand. So far as I can judge, we are agreed to state one of the broad\nissues between the consequences of agnostic principles (as I draw them),\nand the consequences of ecclesiastical dogmatism (as he accepts it), as\nfollows.\n\nEcclesiasticism says: The demonology of the Gospels is an essential part\nof that account of that spiritual world, the truth of which it declares\nto be certified by Jesus.\n\nAgnosticism (_me judice_) says: There is no good evidence of the\nexistence of a demoniac spiritual world, and much reason for doubting\nit.\n\nHere upon the ecclesiastic may observe: Your doubt means that you\ndisbelieve Jesus; therefore you are an \"Infidel\" instead of an\n\"Agnostic.\" To which the agnostic may reply: No; for two reasons: first,\nbecause your evidence that Jesus said what you say he said is worth very\nlittle; and secondly, because a man may be an agnostic, in the sense of\nadmitting he has no positive knowledge, and yet consider that he has\nmore or less probable ground for accepting any given hypothesis about\nthe spiritual world. Just as a man may frankly declare that he has no\nmeans of knowing whether the planets generally are inhabited or not, and\nyet may think one of the two possible hypotheses more likely than the\nother, so he may admit he has no means of knowing anything about the\nspiritual world, and yet may think one or other of the current views on\nthe subject, to some extent, probable.\n\nThe second answer is so obviously valid that it needs no discussion. I\ndraw attention to it simply in justice to those agnostics who may attach\ngreater value than I do to any sort of pneumatological speculations; and\nnot because I wish to escape the responsibility of declaring that,\nwhether Jesus sanctioned the demonological part of Christianity or not,\nI unhesitatingly reject it. The first answer, on the other hand, opens\nup the whole question of the claim of the biblical and other sources,\nfrom which hypotheses concerning the spiritual world are derived, to be\nregarded as unimpeachable historical evidence as to matters of fact.\n\nNow, in respect of the trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives, I was\nanxious to get rid of the common assumption that the determination of\nthe authorship and of the dates of these works is a matter of\nfundamental importance. That assumption is based upon the notion that\nwhat contemporary witnesses say must be true, or, at least, has always a\n_prima facie_ claim to be so regarded; so that if the writers of any of\nthe Gospels were contemporaries of the events (and still more if they\nwere in the position of eye-witnesses) the miracles they narrate must be\nhistorically true, and, consequently, the demonology which they involve\nmust be accepted. But the story of the \"Translation of the blessed\nmartyrs Marcellinus and Petrus,\" and the other considerations (to which\nendless additions might have been made from the Fathers and the mediaeval\nwriters) set forth in a preceding essay, yield, in my judgment,\nsatisfactory proof that, where the miraculous is concerned, neither\nconsiderable intellectual ability, nor undoubted honesty, nor knowledge\nof the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil historians, nor profound\npiety, on the part of eye-witnesses and contemporaries, affords any\nguarantee of the objective truth of their statements, when we know that\na firm belief in the miraculous was ingrained in their minds, and was\nthe presupposition of their observations and reasonings.\n\nTherefore, although it be, as I believe, demonstrable that we have no\nreal knowledge of the authorship, or of the date of composition of the\nGospels, as they have come down to us, and that nothing better than more\nor less probable guesses can be arrived at on that subject, I have not\ncared to expend any space on the question. It will be admitted, I\nsuppose, that the authors of the works attributed to Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John, whoever they may be, are personages whose capacity and\njudgment in the narration of ordinary events are not quite so well\ncertified as those of Eginhard; and we have seen what the value of\nEginhard's evidence is when the miraculous is in question.\n\nI have been careful to explain that the arguments which I have used in\nthe course of this discussion are not new; that they are historical and\nhave nothing to do with what is commonly called science; and that they\nare all, to the best of my belief, to be found in the works of\ntheologians of repute.\n\nThe position which I have taken up, that the evidence in favour of such\nmiracles as those recorded by Eginhard, and consequently of mediaeval\ndemonology, is quite as good as that in favour of such miracles as the\nGadarene, and consequently of Nazarene demonology, is none of my\ndiscovery. Its strength was, wittingly or unwittingly, suggested, a\ncentury and a half ago, by a theological scholar of eminence; and it has\nbeen, if not exactly occupied, yet so fortified with bastions and\nredoubts by a living ecclesiastical Vauban, that, in my judgment, it has\nbeen rendered impregnable. In the early part of the last century, the\necclesiastical mind in this country was much exercised by the question,\nnot exactly of miracles, the occurrence of which in biblical times was\naxiomatic, but by the problem: When did miracles cease? Anglican divines\nwere quite sure that no miracles had happened in their day, nor for some\ntime past; they were equally sure that they happened sixteen or\nseventeen centuries earlier. And it was a vital question for them to\ndetermine at what point of time, between this _terminus a quo_ and that\n_terminus ad quem_ miracles came to an end.\n\nThe Anglicans and the Romanists agreed in the assumption that the\npossession of the gift of miracle-working was _prima facie_ evidence of\nthe soundness of the faith of the miracle-workers. The supposition that\nmiraculous powers might be wielded by heretics (though it might be\nsupported by high authority) led to consequences too frightful to be\nentertained by people who were busied in building their dogmatic house\non the sands of early Church history. If, as the Romanists maintained,\nan unbroken series of genuine miracles adorned the records of their\nChurch, throughout the whole of its existence, no Anglican could lightly\nventure to accuse them of doctrinal corruption. Hence, the Anglicans,\nwho indulged in such accusations, were bound to prove the modern, the\nmediaeval Roman, and the later Patristic, miracles false; and to shut off\nthe wonder-working power from the Church at the exact point of time when\nAnglican doctrine ceased and Roman doctrine began. With a little\nadjustment--a squeeze here and a pull there--the Christianity of the\nfirst three or four centuries might be made to fit, or seem to fit,\npretty well into the Anglican scheme. So the miracles, from Justin say\nto Jerome, might be recognised; while, in later times, the Church having\nbecome \"corrupt\"--that is to say, having pursued one and the same line\nof development further than was pleasing to Anglicans--its alleged\nmiracles must needs be shams and impostures.\n\nUnder these circumstances, it may be imagined that the establishment of\na scientific frontier between the earlier realm of supposed fact and the\nlater of asserted delusion, had its difficulties; and torrents of\ntheological special pleading about the subject flowed from clerical\npens; until that learned and acute Anglican divine, Conyers Middleton,\nin his \"Free Inquiry,\" tore the sophistical web they had laboriously\nwoven to pieces, and demonstrated that the miracles of the patristic\nage, early and late, must stand or fall together, inasmuch as the\nevidence for the later is just as good as the evidence for the earlier\nwonders. If the one set are certified by contemporaneous witnesses of\nhigh repute, so are the other; and, in point of probability, there is\nnot a pin to choose between the two. That is the solid and irrefragable\nresult of Middleton's contribution to the subject. But the Free\nInquirer's freedom had its limits; and he draws a sharp line of\ndemarcation between the patristic and the New Testament miracles--on the\nprofessed ground that the accounts of the latter, being inspired, are\nout of the reach of criticism.\n\nA century later, the question was taken up by another divine,\nMiddleton's equal in learning and acuteness, and far his superior in\nsubtlety and dialectic skill; who, though an Anglican, scorned the name\nof Protestant; and, while yet a Churchman, made it his business, to\nparade, with infinite skill, the utter hollowness of the arguments of\nthose of his brother Churchmen who dreamed that they could be both\nAnglicans and Protestants. The argument of the \"Essay on the Miracles\nrecorded in the Ecclesiastical History of the Early Ages\" [60] by the\npresent [1889] Roman Cardinal, but then Anglican Doctor, John Henry\nNewman, is compendiously stated by himself in the following passage:--\n\n     If the miracles of Church history cannot be defended by the\n     arguments of Leslie, Lyttelton, Paley, or Douglas, how many of the\n     Scripture miracles satisfy their conditions? (P. cvii.)\n\nAnd, although the answer is not given in so many words, little doubt is\nleft on the mind of the reader, that in the mind of the writer, it is:\nNone. In fact, this conclusion is one which cannot be resisted, if the\nargument in favour of the Scripture miracles is based upon that which\nlaymen, whether lawyers, or men of science, or historians, or ordinary\nmen of affairs, call evidence. But there is something really impressive\nin the magnificent contempt with which, at times, Dr. Newman sweeps\naside alike those who offer and those who demand such evidence.\n\n     Some infidel authors advise us to accept no miracles which would\n     not have a verdict in their favour in a court of justice; that is,\n     they employ against Scripture a weapon which Protestants would\n     confine to attacks upon the Church; as if moral and religious\n     questions required legal proof, and evidence were the test of\n     truth[61] (p. cvii).\n\n\"As if evidence were the test of truth!\"--although the truth in question\nis the occurrence, or the non-occurrence, of certain phenomena at a\ncertain time and in a certain place. This sudden revelation of the great\ngulf fixed between the ecclesiastical and the scientific mind is enough\nto take away the breath of any one unfamiliar with the clerical organon.\nAs if, one may retort, the assumption that miracles may, or have, served\na moral or a religious end, in any way alters the fact that they profess\nto be historical events, things that actually happened; and, as such,\nmust needs be exactly those subjects about which evidence is appropriate\nand legal proofs (which are such merely because they afford adequate\nevidence) may be justly demanded. The Gadarene miracle either happened,\nor it did not. Whether the Gadarene \"question\" is moral or religious, or\nnot, has nothing to do with the fact that it is a purely historical\nquestion whether the demons said what they are declared to have said,\nand the devil-possessed pigs did, or did not, rush over the heights\nbounding the Lake of Gennesaret on a certain day of a certain year,\nafter A.D. 26 and before A.D. 36: for vague and uncertain as New\nTestament chronology is, I suppose it may be assumed that the event in\nquestion, if it happened at all, took place during the procuratorship of\nPilate. If that is not a matter about which evidence ought to be\nrequired, and not only legal, but strict scientific proof demanded by\nsane men who are asked to believe the story--what is? Is a reasonable\nbeing to be seriously asked to credit statements, which, to put the case\ngently, are not exactly probable, and on the acceptance or rejection of\nwhich his whole view of life may depend, without asking for as much\n\"legal\" proof as would send an alleged pickpocket to gaol, or as would\nsuffice to prove the validity of a disputed will?\n\n\"Infidel authors\" (if, as I am assured, I may answer for them) will\ndecline to waste time on mere darkenings of counsel of this sort; but to\nthose Anglicans who accept his premises, Dr. Newman is a truly\nformidable antagonist. What, indeed, are they to reply when he puts the\nvery pertinent question:--\n\n     whether persons who not merely question, but prejudge the\n     Ecclesiastical miracles on the ground of their want of resemblance,\n     whatever that be, to those contained in Scripture--as if the\n     Almighty could not do in the Christian Church what He had not\n     already done at the time of its foundation, or under the Mosaic\n     Covenant--whether such reasoners are not siding with the sceptic,\n\nand\n\n     whether it is not a happy inconsistency by which they continue to\n     believe the Scriptures while they reject the Church[62] (p. liii).\n\nAgain, I invite Anglican orthodoxy to consider this passage:--\n\n     the narrative of the combats of St. Antony with evil spirits, is a\n     development rather than a contradiction of revelation, viz. of such\n     texts as speak of Satan being cast out by prayer and fasting. To be\n     shocked, then, at the miracles of Ecclesiastical history, or to\n     ridicule them for their strangeness, is no part of a scriptural\n     philosophy (pp. liii-liv).\n\nFurther on, Dr. Newman declares that it has been admitted\n\n     that a distinct line can lie drawn in point of character and\n     circumstance between the miracles of Scripture and of Church\n     history; but this is by no means the case (p. lv) ... specimens are\n     not wanting in the history of the Church, of miracles as awful in\n     their character and as momentous in their effects as those which\n     are recorded in Scripture. The fire interrupting the rebuilding of\n     the Jewish Temple, and the death of Arius, are instances, in\n     Ecclesiastical history, of such solemn events. On the other hand,\n     difficult instances in the Scripture history are such as these: the\n     serpent in Eden, the Ark, Jacob's vision for the multiplication of\n     his cattle, the speaking of Balaam's ass, the axe swimming at\n     Elisha's word, the miracle on the swine, and various instances of\n     prayers or prophecies, in which, as in that of Noah's blessing and\n     curse, words which seem the result of private feeling are expressly\n     or virtually ascribed to a Divine suggestion (p. lvi).\n\nWho is to gainsay our ecclesiastical authority here? \"Infidel authors\"\nmight be accused of a wish to ridicule the Scripture miracles by putting\nthem on a level with the remarkable story about the fire which stopped\nthe rebuilding of the Temple, or that about the death of Arius--but Dr.\nNewman is above suspicion. The pity is that his list of what he\ndelicately terms \"difficult\" instances is so short. Why omit the\nmanufacture of Eve out of Adam's rib, on the strict historical accuracy\nof which the chief argument of the defenders of an iniquitous portion of\nour present marriage law depends? Why leave out the account of the \"Bene\nElohim\" and their gallantries, on which a large part of the worst\npractices of the mediaeval inquisitors into witchcraft was based? Why\nforget the angel who wrestled with Jacob, and, as the account suggests,\nsomewhat over-stepped the bound of fair play, at the end of the\nstruggle? Surely, we must agree with Dr. Newman that, if all these\ncamels have gone down, it savours of affectation to strain at such gnats\nas the sudden ailment of Arius in the midst of his deadly, if\nprayerful,[63] enemies; and the fiery explosion which stopped the Julian\nbuilding operations. Though the _words_ of the \"Conclusion\" of the\n\"Essay on Miracles\" may, perhaps, be quoted against me, I may express my\nsatisfaction at finding myself in substantial accordance with a\ntheologian above all suspicion of heterodoxy. With all my heart, I can\ndeclare my belief that there is just as good reason for believing in the\nmiraculous slaying of the man who fell short of the Athanasian power of\naffirming contradictories, with respect to the nature of the Godhead, as\nthere is for believing in the stories of the serpent and the ark told in\nGenesis, the speaking of Balaam's ass in Numbers, or the floating of the\naxe, at Elisha's order, in the second book of Kings.\n\nIt is one of the peculiarities of a really sound argument that it is\nsusceptible of the fullest development; and that it sometimes leads to\nconclusions unexpected by those who employ it. To my mind, it is\nimpossible to refuse to follow Dr. Newman when he extends his reasoning,\nfrom the miracles of the patristic and mediaeval ages backward in time,\nas far as miracles are recorded. But, if the rules of logic are valid, I\nfeel compelled to extend the argument forwards to the alleged Roman\nmiracles of the present day, which Dr. Newman might not have admitted,\nbut which Cardinal Newman may hardly reject. Beyond question, there is\nas good, or perhaps better, evidence of the miracles worked by our Lady\nof Lourdes, as there is for the floating of Elisha's axe, or the\nspeaking of Balaam's ass. But we must go still further; there is a\nmodern system of thaumaturgy and demonology which is just as well\ncertified as the ancient.[64] Veracious, excellent, sometimes learned\nand acute persons, even philosophers of no mean pretensions, testify to\nthe \"levitation\" of bodies much heavier than Elisha's axe; to the\nexistence of \"spirits\" who, to the mere tactile sense, have been\nindistinguishable from flesh and blood; and, occasionally, have wrestled\nwith all the vigour of Jacob's opponent; yet, further, to the speech, in\nthe language of raps, of spiritual beings, whose discourses, in point of\ncoherence and value, are far inferior to that of Balaam's humble but\nsagacious steed. I have not the smallest doubt that, if these were\npersecuting times, there is many a worthy \"spiritualist\" who would\ncheerfully go to the stake in support of his pneumatological faith; and\nfurnish evidence, after Paley's own heart, in proof of the truth of his\ndoctrines. Not a few modern divines, doubtless struck by the\nimpossibility of refusing the spiritualist evidence, if the\necclesiastical evidence is accepted, and deprived of any _a priori_\nobjection by their implicit belief in Christian Demonology, show\nthemselves ready to take poor Sludge seriously, and to believe that he\nis possessed by other devils than those of need, greed, and vainglory.\n\nUnder these, circumstances, it was to be expected, though it is none the\nless interesting to note the fact, that the arguments of the latest\nschool of \"spiritualists\" present a wonderful family likeness to those\nwhich adorn the subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical\nmiracles of forty years ago. It is unfortunate for the \"spiritualists\"\nthat, over and over again, celebrated and trusted media, who really, in\nsome respects, call to mind the Montanist[65] and gnostic seers of the\nsecond century, are either proved in courts of law to be fraudulent\nimpostors; or, in sheer weariness, as it would seem, of the honest dupes\nwho swear by them, spontaneously confess their long-continued\niniquities, as the Fox women did the other day in New York.[66] But,\nwhenever a catastrophe of this kind takes place, the believers are no\nwise dismayed by it. They freely admit that not only the media, but the\nspirits whom they summon, are sadly apt to lose sight of the elementary\nprinciples of right and wrong; and they triumphantly ask: How does the\noccurrence of occasional impostures disprove the genuine manifestations\n(that is to say, all those which have not yet been proved to be\nimpostures or delusions)? And, in this, they unconsciously plagiarise\nfrom the churchman, who just as freely admits that many ecclesiastical\nmiracles may have been forged; and asks, with calm contempt, not only of\nlegal proofs, but of common-sense probability, Why does it follow that\nnone are to be supposed genuine? I must say, however, that the\nspiritualists, so far as I know, do not venture to outrage right reason\nso boldly as the ecclesiastics. They do not sneer at \"evidence\"; nor\nrepudiate the requirement of legal proofs. In fact, there can be no\ndoubt that the spiritualists produce better evidence for their\nmanifestations than can be shown either for the miraculous death of\nArius, or for the Invention of the Cross.[67]\n\nFrom the \"levitation\" of the axe at one end of a period of near three\nthousand years to the \"levitation\" of Sludge & Co. at the other end,\nthere is a complete continuity of the miraculous, with every gradation,\nfrom the childish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a caprice\nto the illustration of sublime truth. There is no drawing a line in the\nseries that might be set out of plausibly attested cases of spiritual\nintervention. If one is true, all may be true; if one is false, all may\nbe false.\n\nThis is, to my mind, the inevitable result of that method of reasoning\nwhich is applied to the confutation of Protestantism, with so much\nsuccess, by one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever\nchampioned Ecclesiasticism--and one cannot put his claims to acuteness\nand subtlety higher.\n\n     ... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever\n     there were a safe truth it is this ... \"To be deep in history\n     is to cease to be a Protestant.\" [68]\n\nI have not a shadow of doubt that these anti-Protestant epigrams are\nprofoundly true. But I have as little that, in the same sense, the\n\"Christianity of history is not\" Romanism; and that to be deeper in\nhistory is to cease to be a Romanist. The reasons which compel my doubts\nabout the compatibility of the Roman doctrine, or any other form of\nCatholicism, with history, arise out of exactly the same line of\nargument as that adopted by Dr. Newman in the famous essay which I have\njust cited. If, with one hand, Dr. Newman has destroyed Protestantism,\nhe has annihilated Romanism with the other; and the total result of his\nambidextral efforts is to shake Christianity to its foundations. Nor was\nany one better aware that this must be he inevitable result of his\narguments--if the world should refuse to accept Roman doctrines and\nRoman miracles--than the writer of Tract 85.\n\nDr. Newman made his choice and passed over to the Roman Church half a\ncentury ago. Some of those who were essentially in harmony with his\nviews preceded, and many followed him. But many remained; and, as the\nquondam Puseyite and present Ritualistic party, they are continuing that\nwork of sapping and mining the Protestantism of the Anglican Church\nwhich he and his friends so ably commenced. At the present time, they\nhave no little claim to be considered victorious all along the line. I\nam old enough to recollect the small beginnings of the Tractarian party;\nand I am amazed when I consider the present position of their heirs.\nTheir little leaven has leavened, if not the whole, yet a very large\nlump of the Anglican Church; which is now pretty much of a preparatory\nschool for Papistry. So that it really behoves Englishmen (who, as I\nhave been informed by high authority, are all legally members of the\nState Church, if they profess to belong to no other sect) to wake up to\nwhat that powerful organisation is about, and whither it is tending. On\nthis point, the writings of Dr. Newman, while he still remained within\nthe Anglican fold, are a vast store of the best and the most\nauthoritative information. His doctrines on Ecclesiastical miracles and\non Development are the Corner-stones of the Tractarian fabric. He\nbelieved that his arguments led either Romeward, or to what\necclesiastics call \"Infidelity,\" and I call Agnosticism. I believe that\nhe was quite right in this conviction; but while he chooses the one\nalternative, I choose the other; as he rejects Protestantism on the\nground of its incompatibility with history, so, _a fortiori_, I conceive\nthat Romanism ought to be rejected; and that an impartial consideration\nof the evidence must refuse the authority of Jesus to anything more than\nthe Nazarenism of James and Peter and John. And let it not be supposed\nthat this is a mere \"infidel\" perversion of the facts. No one has more\nopenly and clearly admitted the possibility that they may be fairly\ninterpreted in this way than Dr. Newman. If, he says, there are texts\nwhich seem to show that Jesus contemplated the evangelisation of the\nheathen:\n\n     ... Did not the Apostles hear our Lord? and what was _their_\n     impression from what they heard? Is it not certain that the\n     Apostles did not gather this truth from His teaching? (Tract 85, p.\n     63.)\n\n     He said, \"Preach the Gospel to every creature,\" These words _need_\n     have only meant \"Bring all men to Christianity through Judaism.\"\n     Make them Jews, that they may enjoy Christ's privileges, which are\n     lodged in Judaism; teach them those rites and ceremonies,\n     circumcision and the like, which hitherto have been dead\n     ordinances, and now are living: and so the Apostles seem to have\n     understood them (_ibid._ p. 65).\n\nSo far as Nazarenism differentiated itself from contemporary orthodox\nJudaism, it seems to have tended towards a revival of the ethical and\nreligious spirit of the prophetic age, accompanied by the belief in\nJesus as the Messiah, and by various accretions which had grown round\nJudaism subsequently to the exile. To these belong the doctrines of the\nResurrection, of the Last Judgment, of Heaven and Hell; of the hierarchy\nof good angels; of Satan and the hierarchy of evil spirits. And there is\nvery strong ground for believing that all these doctrines, at least in\nthe shapes in which they were held by the post-exilic Jews, were derived\nfrom Persian and Babylonian[69] sources, and are essentially of heathen\norigin.\n\nHow far Jesus positively sanctioned all these indrainings of\ncircumjacent Paganism into Judaism; how far any one has a right to\ndeclare that the refusal to accept one or other of these doctrines, as\nascertained verities, comes to the same thing as contradicting Jesus, it\nappears to me not easy to say. But it is hardly less difficult to\nconceive that he could have distinctly negatived any of them; and, more\nespecially, that demonology which has been accepted by the Christian\nChurches, in every age and under all their mutual antagonisms. But I\nrepeat my conviction that, whether Jesus sanctioned the demonology of\nhis time and nation or not, it is doomed. The future of Christianity, as\na dogmatic system and apart from the old Israelitish ethics which it has\nappropriated and developed, lies in the answer which mankind will\neventually give to the question, whether they are prepared to believe\nsuch stories as the Gadarene and the pneumatological hypotheses which go\nwith it, or not. My belief is they will decline to do anything of the\nsort, whenever and wherever their minds have been disciplined by\nscience. And that discipline must, and will, at once follow and lead the\nfootsteps of advancing civilisation.\n\nThe preceding pages were written before I became acquainted with the\ncontents of the May number of the _Nineteenth Century_, wherein I\ndiscover many things which are decidedly not to my advantage. It would\nappear that \"evasion\" is my chief resource, \"incapacity for strict\nargument\" and \"rottenness of ratiocination\" my main mental\ncharacteristics, and that it is \"barely credible\" that a statement which\nI profess to make of my own knowledge is true. All which things I\nnotice, merely to illustrate the great truth, forced on me by long\nexperience, that it is only from those who enjoy the blessing of a firm\nhold of the Christian faith that such manifestations of meekness,\npatience, and charity are to be expected.\n\nI had imagined that no one who had read my preceding papers, could\nentertain a doubt as to my position in respect of the main issue, as it\nhas been stated and restated by my opponent:\n\n     an Agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to God\n     must not only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching,\n     but must deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in which He\n     lived.[70]\n\nThat is said to be \"the simple question which is at issue between us,\"\nand the three testimonies to that teaching and those convictions\nselected are the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Story\nof the Passion.\n\nMy answer, reduced to its briefest form, has been: In the first place,\nthe evidence is such that the exact nature of the teachings and the\nconvictions of Jesus is extremely uncertain; so that what ecclesiastics\nare pleased to call a denial of them may be nothing of the kind. And, in\nthe second place, if Jesus taught the demonological system involved in\nthe Gadarene story--if a belief in that system formed a part of the\nspiritual convictions in which he lived and died--then I, for my part,\nunhesitatingly refuse belief in that teaching, and deny the reality of\nthose spiritual convictions. And I go further and add, that, exactly in\nso far as it can be proved that Jesus sanctioned the essentially pagan\ndemonological theories current among the Jews of his age, exactly in so\nfar, for me, will his authority in any matter touching the spiritual\nworld be weakened.\n\nWith respect to the first half of my answer, I have pointed out that the\nSermon on the Mount, as given in the first Gospel, is, in the opinion of\nthe best critics, a \"mosaic work\" of materials derived from different\nsources, and I do not understand that this statement is challenged. The\nonly other Gospel--the third--which contains something like it, makes,\nnot only the discourse, but the circumstances under which it was\ndelivered, very different. Now, it is one thing to say that there was\nsomething real at the bottom of the two discourses--which is quite\npossible; and another to affirm that we have any right to say what that\nsomething was, or to fix upon any particular phrase and declare it to be\na genuine utterance. Those who pursue theology as a science, and bring\nto the study an adequate knowledge of the ways of ancient historians,\nwill find no difficulty in providing illustrations of my meaning. I may\nsupply one which has come within range of my own limited vision.\n\nIn Josephus's \"History of the Wars of the Jews\" (chap, xix.), that\nwriter reports a speech which he says Herod made at the opening of a\nwar with the Arabians. It is in the first person, and could naturally be\nsupposed by the reader to be intended for a true version of what Herod\nsaid. In the \"Antiquities,\" written some seventeen years later, the same\nwriter gives another report, also in the first person, of Herod's speech\non the same occasion. This second oration is twice as long as the first\nand, though the general tenor of the two speeches is pretty much the\nsame, there is hardly any verbal identity, and a good deal of matter is\nintroduced into the one, which is absent from the other. Josephus prides\nhimself on his accuracy; people whose fathers might have heard Herod's\noration were his Contemporaries; and yet his historical sense is so\ncuriously undeveloped that he can, quite innocently, perpetrate an\nobvious literary fabrication; for one of the two accounts must be\nincorrect. Now, if I am asked whether I believe that Herod made some\nparticular statement on this occasion; whether, for example, he uttered\nthe pious aphorism, \"Where God is, there is both multitude and courage,\"\nwhich is given in the \"Antiquities,\" but not in the \"Wars,\" I am\ncompelled to say I do not know. One of the two reports must be\nerroneous, possibly both are: at any rate, I cannot tell how much of\neither is true. And, if some fervent admirer of the Idumean should build\nup a theory of Herod's piety upon Josephus's evidence that he propounded\nthe aphorism, is it a \"mere evasion\" to say, in reply, that the evidence\nthat he did utter it is worthless?\n\nIt appears again that, adopting the tactics of Conachar when brought\nface to face with Hal o' the Wynd, I have been trying to get my\nsimple-minded adversary to follow me on a wild-goose chase through the\nearly history of Christianity, in the hope of escaping impending defeat\non the main issue. But I may be permitted to point out that there is an\nalternative hypothesis which equally fits the facts; and that, after\nall, there may have been method in the madness of my supposed panic.\n\nFor suppose it to be established that Gentile Christianity was a totally\ndifferent thing from the Nazarenism of Jesus and his immediate\ndisciples; suppose it to be demonstrable that, as early as the sixth\ndecade of our era at least, there were violent divergencies of opinion\namong the followers of Jesus; suppose it to be hardly doubtful that the\nGospels and the Acts took their present shapes under the influence of\nthose divergencies; suppose that their authors, and those through whose\nhands they passed, had notions of historical veracity not more eccentric\nthan those which Josephus occasionally displays: surely the chances that\nthe Gospels are altogether trustworthy records of the teachings of Jesus\nbecome very slender. And, since the whole of the case of the other side\nis based on the supposition that they are accurate records (especially\nof speeches, about which ancient historians are so curiously loose), I\nreally do venture to submit that this part of my argument bears very\nseriously on the main issue; and, as ratiocination, is sound to the\ncore.\n\nAgain, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of Jesus on the Cross,\nit appears that I could have had no other motive than the dictates of my\nnative evasiveness. An ecclesiastical dignitary may have respectable\nreasons for declining a fencing match \"in sight of Gethsemane and\nCalvary\"; but an ecclesiastical \"Infidel\"! Never. It is obviously\nimpossible that, in the belief that \"the greater includes the less,\" I,\nhaving declared the Gospel evidence in general, as to the sayings of\nJesus, to be of questionable value, thought it needless to select for\nillustration of my views, those particular instances which were likely\nto be most offensive to persons of another way of thinking. But any\nsupposition that may have been entertained that the old familiar tones\nof the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to engage in such needless\ndiscussion had better be renounced. I shall do nothing of the kind. Let\nit suffice that I ask my readers to turn to the twenty-third chapter of\nLuke (revised version), verse thirty-four, and he will find in the\nmargin\n\n     Some ancient authorities omit: And Jesus said, \"Father, forgive\n     them, for they know not what they do.\"\n\nSo that, even as late as the fourth century, there were ancient\nauthorities, indeed some of the most ancient and weightiest, who either\ndid not know of this utterance, so often quoted as characteristic of\nJesus, or did not believe it had been uttered.\n\nMany years ago, I received an anonymous letter, which abused me heartily\nfor my want of moral courage in not speaking out. I thought that one of\nthe oddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring. But I am not\nsure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article with which I\nam dealing with accusations of evasion, may not seem odder to those who\nconsider that the main strength of the answers with which I have been\nfavoured (in this review and elsewhere) is devoted, not to anything in\nthe text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs at p. 84. In this\nI say:\n\n     Dr. Wace tells us: \"It may be asked how far we can rely on the\n     accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects.\" And\n     he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the\n     assertion that it \"ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's\n     practical surrender of the adverse case.\"\n\nI requested Dr. Wace to point out the passages of M. Renan's works in\nwhich, as he affirms, this \"practical surrender\" (not merely as to the\nage and authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their\nhistorical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. Now let\nus consider the parts of Dr. Wace's citation from Renan which are\nrelevant to the issue:--\n\n     The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as the\n     author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts\n     seems to be a companion of St. Paul--a character which accords\n     completely with St. Luke. I know that more than one objection may\n     be opposed to this reasoning: but one thing, at all events, is\n     beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of\n     the Acts is a man who belonged to the second apostolic generation;\n     and this suffices for our purpose.\n\nThis is a curious \"practical surrender of the adverse case.\" M. Renan\nthinks that there is no doubt that the author of the third Gospel is the\nauthor of the Acts--a conclusion in which I suppose critics generally\nagree. He goes on to remark that this person _seems_ to be a companion\nof St. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of St. Paul. Then,\nsomewhat needlessly, M. Renan points out that there is more than one\nobjection to jumping, from such data as these, to the conclusion that\n\"Luke\" is the writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan is\ncontent to reduce that which is \"beyond doubt\" to the fact that the\nauthor of the two books is a man of the second apostolic generation.\nWell, it seems to me that I could agree with all that M. Renan considers\n\"beyond doubt\" here, without surrendering anything, either \"practically\"\nor theoretically.\n\nDr. Wace (_Nineteenth Century_, March, p. 363) states that he derives\nthe above citation from the preface to the 15th edition of the \"Vie de\nJesus.\" My copy of \"Les Evangiles,\" dated 1877, contains a list of\nRenan's \"Oeuvres Completes,\" at the head of which I find \"Vie de\nJesus,\" 15 deg. edition. It is, therefore, a later work than the edition of\nthe \"Vie de Jesus\" which Dr. Wace quotes. Now \"Les Evangiles,\" as its\nname implies, treats fully of the questions respecting the date and\nauthorship of the Gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to use M.\nRenan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to give a fair\naccount of his views in their full significance, would, I think, refer\nto the later source.\n\nIf this course had been taken, Dr. Wace might have found some as decided\nexpressions of opinion, in favour of Luke's authorship of the third\nGospel, as he has discovered in \"The Apostles.\" I mention this\ncircumstance, because I desire to point out that, taking even the\nstrongest of Renan's statements, I am still at a loss to see how it\njustifies that large sounding phrase, \"practical surrender of the\nadverse case.\" For, on p. 438 of \"Les Evangiles,\" Renan speaks of the\nway in which Luke's \"excellent intentions\" have led him to torture\nhistory in the Acts; he declares Luke to be the founder of that \"eternal\nfiction which is called ecclesiastical history\"; and, on the preceding\npage, he talks of the \"myth\" of the Ascension--with its \"_mise en scene\nvoulue_.\" At p. 435, I find \"Luc, ou Fauteur quel qu'il soit du\ntroisieme Evangile\"; at p. 280, the accounts of the Passion, the death\nand the resurrection of Jesus, are said to be \"peu historiques\"; at p.\n283, \"La valeur historique du troisieme Evangile est surement moindre\nque celles des deux premiers.\" A Pyrrhic sort of victory for orthodoxy,\nthis \"surrender\"!\n\nAnd, all the while, the scientific student of theology knows that, the\nmore reason there may be to believe that Luke was the companion of Paul,\nthe more doubtful becomes his credibility, if he really wrote the Acts.\nFor, in that case, he could not fail to have been acquainted with Paul's\naccount of the Jerusalem conference, and he must have consciously\nmisrepresented it.\n\nWe may next turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation\n(_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365) touching the first Gospel:--\n\n     St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the\n     discourses. Here are the \"oracles\"--the very notes taken while the\n     memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and definite.\n\nM. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence of\na collection of \"logia,\" having a different origin from the text in\nwhich they are embedded, in Matthew. \"Notes\" are somewhat suggestive of\na shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for M. Renan\nassumes that these \"notes\" were taken, not at the time of the delivery\nof the \"logia\" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of\nthem was living and definite; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan\nleaves open the question of the general historical value of the first\nGospel; while it is obvious that the accuracy of \"notes\" taken, not at\nthe time of delivery, but from memory, is a matter about which more than\none opinion may be fairly held. Moreover, Renan expressly calls\nattention to the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic \"logia\" from\nlater additions of the same kind (\"Les Evangiles,\" p. 201). The fact is,\nthere is no contradiction here to that opinion about the first Gospel\nwhich is expressed in \"Les Evangiles\" (p. 175).\n\n     The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence of\n     that of Mark, and does little more than complete it. He completes\n     it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of those long\n     discourses which gave their chief value to the Hebrew Gospels; then\n     by adding traditions of a more modern formation, results of\n     successive developments of the legend, and to which the Christian\n     consciousness already attached infinite value.\n\nM. Renan goes on to suggest that besides \"Mark,\" \"Pseudo-Matthew\" used\nan Aramaic version of the Gospel, originally set forth in that dialect.\nFinally, as to the second Gospel (_Nineteenth Century_, p. 365):--\n\n     He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond doubt,\n     from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with the\n     supposition that this eye-witness ... was the Apostle Peter\n     himself, as Papias has it.\n\nLet us consider this citation by the light of \"Les Evangiles\":--\n\n     This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, in a\n     sense, the work of Peter; it represents the way in which Peter was\n     accustomed to relate the life of Jesus (p. 116).\n\nM. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the Gospel of\nMark has a great superiority (p. 116); but Mark has a motive for\nomitting the discourses, and he attaches a \"puerile importance\" to\nmiracles (p, 117). The Gospel of Mark is less a legend, than a biography\nwritten with credulity (p. 118). It would be rash to say that Mark has\nnot been interpolated and retouched (p. 120).\n\nIf any one thinks that I have not been warranted in drawing a sharp\ndistinction between \"scientific theologians\" and \"counsels for creeds\";\nor that my warning against the too ready acceptance of certain\ndeclarations as to the state of biblical criticism was needless; or that\nmy anxiety as to the sense of the word \"practical\" was superfluous; let\nhim compare the statement that M. Renan has made a \"practical surrender\nof the adverse case\" with the facts just set forth. For what is the\nadverse case? The question, as Dr. Wace puts it, is \"It may be asked how\nfar can we rely on the accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on\nthese subjects.\" It will be obvious that M. Renan's statements amount to\nan adverse answer--to a \"practical\" denial that any great reliance can\nbe placed on these accounts. He does not believe that Matthew, the\napostle, wrote the first Gospel; he does not profess to know who is\nresponsible for the collection of \"logia,\" or how many of them are\nauthentic; though he calls the second Gospel the most historical, he\npoints out that it is written with credulity, and may have been\ninterpolated and retouched; and as to the author, \"quid qu'il soit,\" of\nthe third Gospel, who is to \"rely on the accounts\" of a writer, who\ndeserves the cavalier treatment which \"Luke\" meets with at M. Renan's\nhands?\n\nI repeat what I have already more than once said, that the question of\nthe age and the authorship of the Gospels has not, in my judgment, the\nimportance which is so commonly assigned to it for the simple reason\nthat the reports even of eye-witnesses, would not suffice to justify\nbelief in a large and essential part of their contents; on the contrary,\nthese reports would discredit the witnesses. The Gadarene miracle, for\nexample, is so extremely improbable that the fact of its being reported\nby three even independent, authorities could not justify belief in it,\nunless we had the clearest evidence as to their capacity as observers\nand as interpreters of their observations. But it is evident that the\nthree authorities are not independent; that they have simply adopted a\nlegend of which there were two versions; and instead of their proving\nits truth, it suggests their superstitious credulity; so that if\n\"Matthew,\" \"Mark,\" and \"Luke\" are really responsible for the Gospels, it\nis not the better for the Gadarene story, but the worse for them.\n\nA wonderful amount of controversial capital has been made out of my\nassertion in the note to which I have referred, as an _obiter dictum_ of\nno consequence to my argument, that if Renan's work[71] were non-extant,\nthe main results of biblical criticism, as set forth in the works of\nStrauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly\naffected. I thought I had explained it satisfactorily already, but it\nseems that my explanation has only exhibited still more of my native\nperversity, so I ask for one more chance.\n\nIn the course of the historical development of any branch of science,\nwhat is universally observed is this: that the men who make epochs, and\nare the real architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are those who\nintroduce fruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man who does this\npushes his idea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not, his school\nis sure to do so; and those who follow have to reduce his work to its\nproper value, and assign it its place in the whole. Not unfrequently,\nthey, in their turn, overdo the critical process, and, in trying to\neliminate error, throw away truth.\n\nThus, as I said, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, really \"set forth the\nresults\" of a developing science, although they often heartily\ncontradict one another. Notwithstanding this circumstance, modern\nclassificatory method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the\nwork of Linnaeus: the modern conception of biology, as a science, and of\nits relation to climatology, geography, and geology, are, as largely,\nrooted in the results of the labours of Buffon; comparative anatomy and\npalaeontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier's results; while invertebrate\nzoology and the revival of the idea of evolution are intimately\ndependent on the results of the work of Lamarck. In other words, the\nmain results of biology up to the early years of this century are to be\nfound in, or spring out of, the works of these men.\n\nSo, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate the idea of\ntaking the mythopoeic faculty into account in the development of the\nGospel narratives, and though he may have exaggerated the influence of\nthat faculty, obliged scientific theology, hereafter, to take that\nelement into serious consideration; so Baur, in giving prominence to the\ncardinal fact of the divergence of the Nazarene and Pauline tendencies\nin the primitive Church; so Reuss, in setting a marvellous example of\nthe cool and dispassionate application of the principles of scientific\ncriticism over the whole field of Scripture; so Volkmar, in his clear\nand forcible statement of the Nazarene limitations of Jesus, contributed\nresults of permanent value in scientific theology. I took these names as\nthey occurred to me. Undoubtedly, I might have advantageously added to\nthem; perhaps, I might have made a better selection. But it really is\nabsurd to try to make out that I did not know that these writers widely\ndisagree; and I believe that no scientific theologian will deny that, in\nprinciple, what I have said is perfectly correct. Ecclesiastical\nadvocates, of course, cannot be expected to take this view of the\nmatter. To them, these mere seekers after truth, in so far as their\nresults are unfavourable to the creed the clerics have to support, are\nmore or less \"infidels,\" or favourers of \"infidelity\"; and the only\nthing they care to see, or probably can see, is the fact that, in a\ngreat many matters, the truth-seekers differ from one another, and\ntherefore can easily be exhibited to the public, as if they did nothing\nelse; as if any one who referred to their having, each and all,\ncontributed his share to the results of theological science, was merely\nshowing his ignorance; and as if a charge of inconsistency could be\nbased on the fact that he himself often disagrees with what they say. I\nhave never lent a shadow of foundation to the assumption that I am a\nfollower of either Strauss, or Baur, or Reuss, or Volkmar, or Renan; my\ndebt to these eminent men--so far my superiors in theological\nknowledge--is, indeed, great; yet it is not for their opinions, but for\nthose I have been able to form for myself, by their help.\n\nIn _Agnosticism: a Rejoinder_, I have referred to the difficulties under\nwhich those professors of the science of theology, whose tenure of their\nposts depends on the results of their investigations, must labour; and,\nin a note, I add--\n\n     Imagine that all our chairs of Astronomy had been founded in the\n     fourteenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to sign\n     Ptolemaic articles. In that case, with every respect for the\n     efforts of persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth, I\n     think men of common sense would go elsewhere to learn astronomy.\n\nI did not write this paragraph without a knowledge that its sense would\nbe open to the kind of perversion which it has suffered; but, if that\nwas clear, the necessity for the statement was still clearer. It is my\ndeliberate opinion: I reiterate it; and I say that, in my judgment, it\nis extremely inexpedient that any subject which calls itself a science\nshould be entrusted to teachers who are debarred from freely following\nout scientific methods to their legitimate conclusions, whatever those\nconclusions may be. If I may borrow a phrase paraded at the Church\nCongress, I think it \"ought to be unpleasant\" for any man of science to\nfind himself in the position of such a teacher.\n\nHuman nature is not altered by seating it in a professorial chair, even\nof theology. I have very little doubt that if, in the year 1859, the\ntenure of my office had depended upon my adherence to the doctrines of\nCuvier, the objections to them set forth in the \"Origin of Species\"\nwould have had a halo of gravity about them that, being free to teach\nwhat I pleased, I failed to discover. And, in making that statement, it\ndoes not appear to me that I am confessing that I should have been\ndebarred by \"selfish interests\" from making candid inquiry, or that I\nshould have been biassed by \"sordid motives.\" I hope that even such a\nfragment of moral sense as may remain in an ecclesiastical \"infidel\"\nmight have got me through the difficulty; but it would be unworthy to\ndeny, or disguise, the fact that a very serious difficulty must have\nbeen created for me by the nature of my tenure. And let it be observed\nthat the temptation, in my case, would have been far slighter than in\nthat of a professor of theology; whatever biological doctrine I had\nrepudiated, nobody I cared for would have thought the worse of me for so\ndoing. No scientific journals would have howled me down, as the\nreligious newspapers howled down my too honest friend, the late Bishop\nof Natal; nor would my colleagues of the Royal Society have turned their\nbacks upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him.\n\nI say these facts are obvious, and, that it is wholesome and needful\nthat they should be stated. It is in the interests of theology, if it be\na science, and it is in the interests of those teachers of theology who\ndesire to be something better than counsel for creeds, that it should be\ntaken to heart. The seeker after theological truth and that only, will\nno more suppose that I have insulted him, than the prisoner who works in\nfetters will try to pick a quarrel with me, if I suggest that he would\nget on better if the fetters were knocked off; unless indeed, as it is\nsaid does happen in the course of long captivities, that the victim at\nlength ceases to feel the weight of his chains, or even takes to hugging\nthem, as if they were honourable ornaments.\n\n\nR. CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BREAD ST. HILL, E.C., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Footnote 1: The absence of any keel on the breast-bone and some other\nosteological peculiarities, observed by Professor Marsh, however,\nsuggest that _Hesperornis_ may be a modification of a less specialised\ngroup of birds than that to which these existing aquatic birds belong.]\n\n[Footnote 2: A second specimen, discovered in 1877, and at present in\nthe Berlin museum, shows an excellently preserved skull with teeth: and\nthree digits, all terminated by claws, in the fore-limb. 1893.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I use the word \"type\" because it is highly probable that\nmany forms of _Anchitherium_-like and _Hipparion_-like animals existed\nin the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, just as many species of the horse\ntribe exist now; and it is highly improbable that the particular species\nof _Anchitherium_ or _Hipparion_, which happen to have been discovered,\nshould be precisely those which have formed part of the direct line of\nthe horse's pedigree.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Since this lecture was delivered, Professor Marsh has\ndiscovered a new genus of equine mammals (_Eohippus_) from the lowest\nEocene deposits of the West, which corresponds very nearly to this\ndescription.--_American Journal of Science_, November, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _The Limits of Philosophical Inquiry_, pp. 4 and 5.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Hume's Essay, \"Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy,\"\nin the _Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding_.--[Many critics of\nthis passage seem to forget that the subject-matter of Ethics and\nAEsthetics consists of, matters of fact and existence.--1892.]]\n\n[Footnote 7: Or, to speak more accurately, the physical state of which\nvolition is the expression.--[1892.]]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture_, _The Times_,\n18th December, 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Declaration_, Article 10.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiae Catholicae\nme commoveret auctoritas.--_Contra Epistolam Manichaei_ cap. v.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Hasisadra's Adventure._]\n\n[Footnote 12: _The Interpreters of Genesis and the Interpreters of\nNature_ and _Mr. Gladstone and Genesis._]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Agnosticism; The Value of Witness to the Miraculous;\nAgnosticism: a Rejoinder; Agnosticism and Christianity; The Keepers of\nthe Herd of Swine_; and _Illustrations of Mr. Gladstone's Controversial\nMethods_.]\n\n[Footnote 14: I employ the words \"Supernature\" and \"Supernatural\" in\ntheir popular senses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term\n\"Nature\" covers the totality of that which is. The world of psychical\nphenomena appears to me to be as much part of \"Nature\" as the world of\nphysical phenomena; and I am unable to perceive any justification for\ncutting the Universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural.]\n\n[Footnote 15: My citations are made from Teulet's _Einhardi omnia quae\nextant opera_, Paris, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the\nauthor, a history of the text, with translations into French, and many\nvaluable annotations.]\n\n[Footnote 16: At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and\nBaden.]\n\n[Footnote 17: This took place in the year 826 A.D. The relics were\nbrought from Rome and deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at\nSoissons.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Now included in Western Switzerland.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Probably, according to Teulet, the present\nSandhofer-fahrt, a little below the embouchure of the Neckar.]\n\n[Footnote 20: The present Michilstadt, thirty miles N.E. of Heidelberg.]\n\n[Footnote 21: In the Middle Ages one of the most favourite accusations\nagainst witches was that they committed just these enormities.]\n\n[Footnote 22: It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the\ndeacon, whose pledges he qualifies as _sponsiones incertae_. But, to be\nsure, he wrote after events which fully justified scepticism.]\n\n[Footnote 23: The words are _scrinia sine clave_, which seems to mean\n\"having no key.\" But the circumstances forbid the idea of breaking\nopen.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the \"vana ac\nsuperstitiosa praesumptio\" of the poor woman's companions in trying to\nalleviate her sufferings with \"herbs and frivolous incantations.\" Vain\nenough, no doubt, but the \"mulierculae\" might have returned the epithet\n\"superstitious\" with interest.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Of course there is nothing new in this argument; but it\ndoes not grow weaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more\ninstructive than that of Augustine, because the former has so very\nfrankly, though incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and\nmoral habits, but those of the people about him.]\n\n[Footnote 26: See 1 Cor. xii. 10-28; 2 Cor. vi. 12 Rom. xv, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels,\nSufferings, and Christian Experiences, &c., of George Fox._ Ed. 1694,\npp. 27, 28.]\n\n[Footnote 28: See the _Official Report of the Church Congress held at\nManchester_, October 1888, pp. 253, 254.]\n\n[Footnote 29: In this place and in _Illustrations of Mr. Gladstone's\nControversial Methods_, there are references to the late Archbishop of\nYork which are of no importance to my main argument, and which I have\nexpunged because I desire to obliterate the traces of a temporary\nmisunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit, for whom\nI entertained a great liking and no less respect. I rejoice to think now\nof the (then) Bishop's cordial hail the first time we met after our\nlittle skirmish, \"Well, is it to be peace or war?\" I replied, \"A little\nof both.\" But there was only peace when we parted, and ever after.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Dr. Wace tells us, \"It may be asked how far we can rely on\nthe accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects.\" And\nhe seems to think the question appropriately answered by the assertion\nthat it \"ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's practical\nsurrender of the adverse case.\" I thought I knew M. Renan's works pretty\nwell, but I have contrived to miss this \"practical\" (I wish Dr. Wace had\ndefined the scope of that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr.\nWace can find no difficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Renan's\nwritings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, I shall\nwait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with\nremarking that if M. Renan were to retract and do penance in Notre-Dame\nto-morrow for any contributions to Biblical criticism that may be\nspecially his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are\nset forth in the works of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for\nexample, could not be sensibly affected.]\n\n[Footnote 31: See De Gobineau, _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans\nl'Asie Centrale_; and the recently published work of Mr. E.G. Browne,\n_The Episode of the Bab_.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Here, as always, the revised version is cited.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal\nor external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in\nwhich scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is\nto be taken _au serieux_ or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted\nas true in the New Testament, less precise and specific than that of the\ncall of Abraham, also accepted as true therein? By what mark does the\nstory of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some\nvery curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for\nedification, while the story of the inscription of the Law on stone by\nthe hand of Jahveh is literally true? If the story of the Fall is not\nthe true record or an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline\ntheology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly conflicts with\nprobability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the\nCreation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously\nlegendary series.]\n\n[Footnote 34: See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr.\nAbbott's article on the Gospels in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; and\nthe remarkable monograph by Professor Volkmar, _Jesus Nazarenus und die\nerste christliche Zeit_ (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of\nthese writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they\nadopt is unimpeachable.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the\nhedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _Quarterly\nReview_, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the\nfour Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to\none form. Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such\nevents took place. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of\n\"spirits\" is admitted. Therefore \"spirits\" were the cause of the\nphenomena.\n\nAnd the heads of the reply are always the same. Remember Goethe's\naphorism: \"Alles factische ist schon Theorie.\" Trustworthy witnesses\nare constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation\nof sensible phenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in\nthese cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is\nabundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways.\nTherefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence\nas it stands, is suspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even\nthat suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of\nprobability.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the\nmatter, for, many years afterwards, when Dean Mansel's Bampton Lectures\nwere published, it seemed to me I already knew all that this eminently\nagnostic thinker had to tell me.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Kritik der reinen Vernunft._ Edit. Hartenstein p. 256.]\n\n[Footnote 39: _Report of the Church Congress_, Manchester, 1888, p.\n252.]\n\n[Footnote 40: I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he\nsays that I allege that there \"is no visible escape\" from the\nsupposition of an _Ur-Marcus_ (p. 367). That a \"theologian of repute\nshould confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining\nthat fact is not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways\nof theologians might imagine.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case\nof \"copying\" will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force\nof the case stated in that most excellent little book, _The Common\nTradition of the Synoptic Gospels,_ by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke\n(Macmillan, 1884). To those who have not passed through such painful\nexperiences I may recommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of\nthe \"Casket Letters\" in my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book,\n_Maitland of Lethington_. The second edition of Holtzmann's _Lehrbuch_,\npublished in 1886, gives a remarkably fair and full account of the\npresent results of criticism. At p. 366 he writes that the present\nburning question is whether the \"relatively primitive narrative and the\nroot of the other synoptic texts is contained in Matthew or in Mark. It\nis only on this point that properly-informed (_sachkundige_) critics\ndiffer,\" and he decides in favour of Mark.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Holtzmann (_Die synoptischen Evangelien_ 1863, p. 75),\nfollowing Ewald, argues that the \"Source A\" (= the threefold tradition,\nmore or less) contained something that answered to the \"Sermon on the\nPlain\" immediately after the words of our present \"Mark,\" \"And he cometh\ninto a house\" (iii 19). But what conceivable motive could \"Mark\" have\nfor omitting it? Holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the \"Sermon on\nthe Mount\" is a compilation, or as he calls it in his recently-published\n_Lehrbuch_ (p. 372), \"an artificial mosaic work.\"]\n\n[Footnote 43: See Schuerer, _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes_, Zweiter\nTheil, p. 384.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Spacious, because a young man could sit in it \"on the\nright side\" (xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare.]\n\n[Footnote 45: King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing the\nresurrection of John the Baptist--\"John, whom I beheaded, he is risen\"\n(Mark vi. 16).]\n\n[Footnote 46: I am very sorry for the interpolated \"in,\" because\ncitation ought to be accurate in small things as in great. But what\ndifference it makes whether one \"believes Jesus\" or \"believes in Jesus\"\nmuch thought has not enabled me to discover. If you \"believe him\" you\nmust believe him to be what he professed to be--that is \"believe in\nhim;\" and if you \"believe in him\" you must necessarily \"believe him.\"]\n\n[Footnote 47: True for Justin: but there is a school of theological\ncritics, who more or less question the historical reality of Paul, and\nthe genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles.]\n\n[Footnote 48: See _Dial. cum Tryphone_, Sec. 47 and Sec. 35. It is to be\nunderstood that Justin does not arrange these categories in order, as I\nhave done.]\n\n[Footnote 49: I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even\nthe four cardinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered\nwith. See note 47 above.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act\nof the same character as that which he brands as \"dissimulation\" on the\npart of Peter in Antioch.]\n\n[Footnote 51: All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly\nforty years ago. See _Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_\n(1850), p. 108.]\n\n[Footnote 52: \"If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged\nJesus to be the Messiah, the first Christians can have been aware of no\nother essential differences from the Jews.\"--Zeller, _Vortraege_ (1865),\np. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Dr. Harnack, in the lately-published second edition of His\n_Dogmengeschichte_, says (p. 39), \"Jesus Christ brought forward no new\ndoctrine\"; and again, (p. 65), \"It is not difficult to set against every\nportion of the utterances of Jesus an observation which deprives him of\noriginality.\" See also Zusatz 4, on the same page.]\n\n[Footnote 54: I confess that, long ago, I once or twice made this\nmistake; even to the waste of a capital 'U.' 1893.]\n\n[Footnote 55: \"Let us maintain, before we have proved. This seeming\nparadox is the secret of happiness\" (Dr. Newman: Tract 85, p. 85).]\n\n[Footnote 56: Dr, Newman, _Essay on Development_, p. 357.]\n\n[Footnote 57: It is by no means to be assumed that \"spiritual\" and\n\"corporeal\" are exact equivalents of \"immaterial\" and \"material\" in the\nminds of ancient speculators on these topics. The \"spiritual body\" of\nthe risen dead (1 Cor. xv.) is not the \"natural\" \"flesh and blood\" body.\nPaul does not teach the resurrection of the body in the ordinary sense\nof the word \"body\"; a fact, often overlooked, but pregnant with many\nconsequences.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Tertullian (_Apolog. adv. Gentes_, cap. xxiii.) thus\nchallenges the Roman authorities: let them bring a possessed person into\nthe presence of a Christian before their tribunal; and if the demon does\nnot confess himself to be such, on the order of the Christian, let the\nChristian be executed out of hand.]\n\n[Footnote 59: See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the\n\"accommodation\" subterfuge already cited above, pp. 85 and 86.]\n\n[Footnote 60: I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition\nappeared in 1870. Tract 85 of the _Tracts for the Times_ should be read\nwith this _Essay_. If I were called upon to compile a Primer of\n\"Infidelity,\" I think I should save myself trouble by making a selection\nfrom these works, and from the _Essay on Development_ by the same\nauthor.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the Introduction to\nthe _Essay on Development_, Dr. Newman can demand strict evidence in\nreligious questions as sharply as any \"infidel author\"; and he can even\nprofess to yield to its force (_Essay on Miracles_, 1870; note, p.\n391).]\n\n[Footnote 62: According to Dr. Newman, \"This prayer [that of Bishop\nAlexander, who begged God to 'take Arius away'] is said to have been\noffered about 3 P.M. on the Saturday; that same evening Arius was in the\ngreat square of Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with\nindisposition\" (p. clxx). The \"infidel\" Gibbon seems to have dared to\nsuggest that \"an option between poison and miracle\" is presented by this\ncase; and, it must be admitted, that, if the Bishop had been within the\nreach of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone hardly with\nhim. Modern \"Infidels,\" possessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry,\nare not unlikely, with no less audacity, to suggest an \"option between\nfire-damp and miracle\" in seeking for the cause of the fiery outburst at\nJerusalem.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Compare Tract 85, p. 110; \"I am persuaded that were men\nbut consistent who oppose the Church doctrines as being unscriptural,\nthey would vindicate the Jews for rejecting the Gospel.\"]\n\n[Footnote 64: A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me soundly to\ntask for venturing to doubt the historical and literal truth of the\nGadarene story. The following passage in his letter is worth quotation:\n\"Now to the materialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in\nspiritual verities, certainly this story of the Gadarene or Gergesene\nswine, presents insurmountable difficulties; it seems grotesque and\nnonsensical. To the experienced, trained, and cultivated Spiritualist\nthis miracle is, as I am prepared to show, one of the most instructive,\nthe most profoundly useful, and the most beneficent which Jesus ever\nwrought in the whole course of His pilgrimage of redemption on earth.\"\nJust so. And the first page of this same journal presents the following\nadvertisement, among others of the same kidney:--\n\n\"TO WEALTHY SPIRITUALISTS.--A Lady Medium of tried power wishes to meet\nwith an elderly gentleman who would be willing to give her a comfortable\nhome and maintenance in Exchange for her Spiritualistic services, as her\nguides consider her health is too delicate for public sittings: London\npreferred.--Address 'Mary,' Office of _Light_.\"\n\nAre we going back to the days of the Judges, when wealthy Micah set up\nhis private ephod, teraphim, and Levite?]\n\n[Footnote 65: Consider Tertullian's \"sister\" (\"hodie apud nos\"), who\nconversed with angels, saw and heard mysteries, knew men's thoughts, and\nprescribed medicine for their bodies (_De Anima._ cap. 9). Tertullian\ntells us that this woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its\ncolour and shape. The \"infidel\" will probably be unable to refrain from\ninsulting the memory of the ecstatic saint by the remark, that\nTertullian's known views about the corporeality of the soul may have had\nsomething to do with the remarkable perceptive powers of the Montanist\nmedium, in whose revelations of the spiritual world he took such\nprofound interest.]\n\n[Footnote 66: See the New York _World_ for Sunday, 21st October, 1888;\nand the _Report of the Stybert Commission_ Philadelphia, 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Dr. Newman's observation that the miraculous\nmultiplication of the pieces of the true cross (with which \"the whole\nworld is filled,\" according to Cyril of Jerusalem; and of which some say\nthere are enough extant to build a man-of-war) is no more wonderful than\nthat of the loaves and fishes, is one that I do not see my way to\ncontradict. See _Essay on Miracles_, 2d ed. p. 163.]\n\n[Footnote 68: _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_, by\nJ.H. Newman, D.D., pp. 7 and 8. (1878.)]\n\n[Footnote 69: Dr. Newman faces this question with his customary ability.\n\"Now, I own, I am not at all solicitous to deny that this doctrine of an\napostate Angel and his hosts was gained from Babylon: it might still be\nDivine nevertheless. God who made the prophet's ass speak, and thereby\ninstructed the prophet, might instruct His Church by means of heathen\nBabylon\" (Tract 85, p. 83). There seems to be no end to the apologetic\nburden that Balaam's ass can carry.]\n\n[Footnote 70: _Nineteenth Century_, May 1889 (p. 701).]\n\n[Footnote 71: I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M.\nRenan's labours, or intended to speak slightingly of them.]","title":"Lectures and Essays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":81808}